Watford tourney thoughts

Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], and all the guys n gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford includes Paris and Gothenburg. Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] but had TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel Fame for the new century. Biggest regret: not getting to play Rob, Barney, Tom, Will or Reyda. But really, NO regrets. This was CCG playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to everyone who made it possible!

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], Well, I didn't do much, but to be fair a "big up" goes out to James Coupe who suffered teh stifling heat of the Firkin on teh hottest day this year to llok after us! And also a general "good work fella" to whoever designed the Archon -boy did it help! and all the guys n > gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford > includes Paris and Gothenburg. More on this in a mo > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] Ha, that would be me lossing in the first round, n'est pas! but had > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > Fame for the new century. Seconded. Anything that can sweep a table in 3-4 turns is worthy of admiration and fear. Shame it choked in the final after presenting itself as threat no 1. The interesting thing that was being chewed over is the difference in playstyles between us and our continental cousins. They really don't do deals at all, and only look to their prey. Great for 1 VP, crappy over a longer game. Since the UK game is, on the whole, geared to last a fair while, it seemed to clash causing a fair bit of cross table friction, i.e: Mr UK - "will you deal with me?" Mr Europe - "No, I don't do deals" Mr UK - "Why not? That means we can get a few VP each?" Mr Europe - "No, I will get them all anyway!". (sound of European folks getting ripped apart by cross table rushing and heavy bleeds) Mr Europe - "Help! Rescue me from torpor, now I am ready to deal" Mr Uk - "Too late" (5 VP) It would be interesting to see how things work on the other side of the fence... DH

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. Yes, it wa a great tournament =) we are glad we made the trip from Paris to Watford ! > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], and all the guys n > gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford > includes Paris and Gothenburg. Mmm... We wanted to see how the game is on the wrong side of the Channel ;) besides this i must say that James Coupe is the *best judge in the world*. He always made good decisions and knew the game like no player did. Too bad he didin't have time for chit-chatting =) I hope that more and more tournaments will become of international caliber ! people from all over the world, join us in the jyhad ;) > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] but had > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > Fame for the new century. Biggest regret: not getting to play Rob, > Barney, Tom, Will or Reyda. But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > everyone who made it possible! Yes, Francois Alix's deck was really rocking, and he also got the nerves to play his deck no matter how bad the conditions are : i mean i myself wouldn't have the guts to sweep a table after an grand total of 26 pool loss in two turns =) All other people did well, we saw very intersting decks that gave us ideas for new "tweaked" tactics. Hey Legbiter it was a pleasure to meet you ! maybe we'll play in a game soon ;) reyda

> Well, I didn't do much, but to be fair a "big up" goes out to James > Coupe who suffered teh stifling heat of the Firkin on teh hottest day > this year to llok after us! Whine Moan. You guys don't know heat. hehehehe Come down to Louisiana during the summer... :P When I was there and you guys were complaining about how hot it was, I needed to go find myself a Jacket and some earmuffs... :p Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com... > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. It was great wasn't it. > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging] A big thanks from all the Southampton Guys as well, especially to James who seemed to be in 10 different places at once in possibly the hottest place on earth. IMO solid rulings and judgements on some difficult and VERY contentious issues which almost spoiled the day for me but I'm not opening that particular vat full of worms myself. Pierre, any idea's ? > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] What on earth happened ? Didn't see you all day. > but had > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > Fame for the new century. Personally (even though I only saw it play once) I can honestly say it was the scariest thing I have seen for about 3 years. Well done Francois and the other parties that had a filthy hand in it :o) > Biggest regret: not getting to play Rob, > Barney, Tom, Will or Reyda. Yeah, not the best but I guess that's what happens when you get large no's playing. Would have been good to play as always though. But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > everyone who made it possible! Amen. Preach it brother, preach it.

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:tm81uj1...@corp.supernews.com... > > Well, I didn't do much, but to be fair a "big up" goes out to James > > Coupe who suffered teh stifling heat of the Firkin on teh hottest day > > this year to llok after us! > > Whine Moan. You guys don't know heat. hehehehe > Come down to Louisiana during the summer... :P When I was there > and you guys were complaining about how hot it was, I needed to go > find myself a Jacket and some earmuffs... :p Knew it was pretty damn hot when James' laptop melted and my card protectors fused together :o) Rob.

> > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > Fame for the new century. > Personally (even though I only saw it play once) I can honestly say it was > the scariest thing I have seen for about 3 years. So, how'd it work. Enlighten us! All we've seen so far is vague comments on how nasty it was... Sorrow --- "Our fathers were our models for God. If they bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to be prepared for the possibility that God does not like you." - Tyler Durden

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> a écrit dans le message news: tm85cvd...@corp.supernews.com... > > > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > > Fame for the new century. > > Personally (even though I only saw it play once) I can honestly say it was > > the scariest thing I have seen for about 3 years. > > So, how'd it work. Enlighten us! All we've seen so far is vague comments > on how nasty it was... We are going to publish it here on usenet ! so just wait a little... Basically, it's a bleeding deck that relies on a single vampire. You only have this vamp in your crypt. You bleed, burn, and the soul you just equipped triggers to put the same vamp in play. You'll say "hey, it has to be a younger vamp, huh ?" but i don't want to go on details ;) just say you can do it with almost any vampire who has a particular combination of disciplines. François used Arika but he could have another vamp instead. Just wait a little, i say =) reyda

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9k1ca9$ngl$1...@neon.noos.net... [clip] > Basically, it's a bleeding deck that relies on a single vampire. You only > have this vamp in your crypt. You bleed, burn, and the soul you just > equipped triggers to put the same vamp in play. You'll say "hey, it has to > be a younger vamp, huh ?" but i don't want to go on details ;) just say you > can do it with almost any vampire who has a particular combination of > disciplines. François used Arika but he could have another vamp instead. > Just wait a little, i say =) Right. Locally, Szilan Fodor has a version that uses Spirodonas. If I remember correctly, he puts a Fortitude skill card on Spiro and makes a nasty, unblockable bleed with Daring the Dawn. He empties the vamp using Spiro's special and then the vamp burns from Daring the Dawn's agg damage. The Soul Gem triggers the arrival of the next copy of Spiro. If you don't routinely have a meta game that comes up with lots of intercept (to stop the equip action), heavy bleed deflections, or rush combat (kills Spiro on first arrival) then this deck can put on a nice show. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message news: jeX87.6037$0w3.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9k1ca9$ngl$1...@neon.noos.net... > [clip] > > Basically, it's a bleeding deck that relies on a single vampire. You only > > have this vamp in your crypt. You bleed, burn, and the soul you just > > equipped triggers to put the same vamp in play. You'll say "hey, it has to > > be a younger vamp, huh ?" but i don't want to go on details ;) just say you > > can do it with almost any vampire who has a particular combination of > > disciplines. François used Arika but he could have another vamp instead. > > Just wait a little, i say =) > > Right. Locally, Szilan Fodor has a version that uses Spirodonas. If I remember > correctly, he puts a Fortitude skill card on Spiro and makes a nasty, > unblockable bleed with Daring the Dawn. He empties the vamp using Spiro's > special and then the vamp burns from Daring the Dawn's agg damage. The Soul Gem > triggers the arrival of the next copy of Spiro. Yes, but this "version" really sucks because you can bleed only once a turn... with Francois' deck, Arika bleeds, is burned, bleeds again, until the deck is empty, killing all his succesful preys in the process. Sometime it will take 5 turns, sometime 2... There is NO master card in this deck =) > If you don't routinely have a meta game that comes up with lots of intercept (to > stop the equip action), heavy bleed deflections, or rush combat (kills Spiro on > first arrival) then this deck can put on a nice show. Intercept is not a problem, unles opponent can go up to 6 intercept for the equip (Labyrinth + Lost in crowds, at least in the version i saw) The deflection is not a problem, too, assuming the bleed amount never excess 5, and you will still kill your prey before the bounced bleeds kill your grandprey. Francois swept a table even when his first prey put a Protected resource in play =) It's awesome !

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:<tm85cvd...@corp.supernews.com>... > > > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > > Fame for the new century. > > Personally (even though I only saw it play once) I can honestly say it was > > the scariest thing I have seen for about 3 years. > > So, how'd it work. Enlighten us! All we've seen so far is vague comments > on how nasty it was... > 20 Arika's. Equip with a Soul Gem or use Distraction to find one. Call Praxis Seizure: Berlin using Awe to reduce the blood on Arika to 2. Bleed using Force of Will+Conditioning+Daring the dawn. Burn Arika. Get a new Arika at full pool. Watch as table stares at you in disbelief. Keep burning Arikas until you go through the entire table. Prey deflects or dies. I played against it in the first round and saw it accidently take out its grand prey, then it's prey before i narrowly beat it. It rolled rounds two and three to go into the final as number one seed. And rightly so, it was the most interesting deck there. It might be the sort of trick that will only work once though. If you know how it works, kicking Arika into torpor before she equips with a Soul Gem or becomes a prince nails the deck. Even without that deck i saw more Arikas yesterday than I had more years (since the 7/7 rulings), there were some hefty vampires out there. I'll echo the rest of the thread too in thanking Mike and James for doing a great job. It was a fine day to play V:TES and i had a great time. i went to the bar at one point and the girl who served me said something like 'yeah, it is a bit hot, we normally have air conditioning but it's broken'. gah. don't taunt me. Well done to Tony for winning, well played dude. Matt.

"mgreen02" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> wrote in message news:a346f9cb.01072...@posting.google.com... > Watch as table stares at you in disbelief. Keep burning Arikas until > you go through the entire table. Prey deflects or dies. Or gets out an ally, Hmmm War Ghoul would do fine :o)

"mgreen02" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> > 20 Arika's. Equip with a Soul Gem or use Distraction to find one. Call > Praxis Seizure: Berlin using Awe to reduce the blood on Arika to 2. > Bleed using Force of Will+Conditioning+Daring the dawn. Burn Arika. > Get a new Arika at full pool. Of course you untap Via freak drive and have stealth (Forg'Labyrinth and Lostincrowd) if needed. The Praxis Berlin increases Arika's capacity to trigger the soul gem. the Conditioning is optional. If you see allies on the table, that's fine ! your prey paid pool for them (mostly) and you still have stealth to bypass their blocking attempts. > Watch as table stares at you in disbelief. Keep burning Arikas until > you go through the entire table. Prey deflects or dies. that's the point, and you assume that he won't play a 30 deflections deck. > I played against it in the first round and saw it accidently take out > its grand prey, then it's prey before i narrowly beat it. It rolled > rounds two and three to go into the final as number one seed. And > rightly so, it was the most interesting deck there. It might be the > sort of trick that will only work once though. If you know how it > works, kicking Arika into torpor before she equips with a Soul Gem or > becomes a prince nails the deck. He has spare room for obediences... Or for D.I... but wants to keep the deck size minimal. > Even without that deck i saw more Arikas yesterday than I had more > years (since the 7/7 rulings), there were some hefty vampires out > there. Yeah !! it was raining Arikas !! one at each table, each round ! even the setite player had an Arika !! her special, title, bleed bonus and her combinations of ability is unmatched. > I'll echo the rest of the thread too in thanking Mike and James for > doing a great job. It was a fine day to play V:TES and i had a great > time. (snip) Yes, i should have credited the prince of London for the nice organization ! (and if Robert Goudie is reading this : yes, Robert, you are a good judge ! But James has an extra feature : a kind of stature you don't want to contradict his judgment =D ) reyda

Robert Goudie wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] He he he... I almost feel sorry for Szilan every time I've seen him play it around here. I think I've only seen him get it going once. He either gets rushed or blocked, or bleed out before he can get it off. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

In message <9k0t6d$24d$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >Mmm... We wanted to see how the game is on the wrong side of the Channel ;) >besides this i must say that James Coupe is the *best judge in the world*. >He always made good decisions and knew the game like no player did. This actually means: James Coupe has no life. (It really does.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

In message <9k1smi$kmt$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >(and if Robert Goudie is reading this : yes, Robert, you are a good judge ! >But James has an extra feature : a kind of stature you don't want to >contradict his judgment =D ) Translation: Fat Bastard. (True.) [ quoted text not captured ]

>20 Arika's. Equip with a Soul Gem or use Distraction to find one. Call >Praxis Seizure: Berlin using Awe to reduce the blood on Arika to 2. >Bleed using Force of Will+Conditioning+Daring the dawn. Burn Arika. >Get a new Arika at full pool. > Only 20 Arikas? Wasn't he worried he might run out? ;) Sounds like a wonderfully fun deck, though I think it would have been even more interesting if he had shown up with a 100-card crypt (of 100 Arikas)! Halcyan 2

dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.01072...@posting.google.com>... > legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. > > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], > > Well, I didn't do much, but to be fair a "big up" goes out to James > Coupe who suffered teh stifling heat of the Firkin on teh hottest day > this year to llok after us! And also a general "good work fella" to > whoever designed the Archon -boy did it help! > > and all the guys n > > gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford > > includes Paris and Gothenburg. > > More on this in a mo > > > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] > > Ha, that would be me lossing in the first round, n'est pas! Indeed! Thanks for the consolatory VP! > > but had > > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > Fame for the new century. > > Seconded. Anything that can sweep a table in 3-4 turns is worthy of > admiration and fear. Shame it choked in the final after presenting > itself as threat no 1. Tony won, i gather. Was that the Tony with the weeny dominate-bleed deck? He actually took me out quicker than Francois! > > > The interesting thing that was being chewed over is the difference in > playstyles between us and our continental cousins. They really don't > do deals at all, and only look to their prey. Great for 1 VP, crappy > over a longer game. Since the UK game is, on the whole, geared to last > a fair while, it seemed to clash causing a fair bit of cross table > friction, i.e: > > Mr UK - "will you deal with me?" > > Mr Europe - "No, I don't do deals" > > Mr UK - "Why not? That means we can get a few VP each?" > > Mr Europe - "No, I will get them all anyway!". > > (sound of European folks getting ripped apart by cross table rushing > and heavy bleeds) > > Mr Europe - "Help! Rescue me from torpor, now I am ready to deal" > > Mr Uk - "Too late" (5 VP) > > It would be interesting to see how things work on the other side of > the fence... > > DH Actually i did manage to deal with Sven from Gothenburg in the first round, the result of which was that i got 1 and he got 4. But i was in sniffing distance of it being the other way around.

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9k13bb$1ujqs$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... > "legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com... > > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. > > It was great wasn't it. > > > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging] > > A big thanks from all the Southampton Guys as well, especially to James who > seemed to be in 10 different places at once in possibly the hottest place on > earth. IMO solid rulings and judgements on some difficult and VERY > contentious issues which almost spoiled the day for me but I'm not opening > that particular vat full of worms myself. Pierre, any idea's ? Shall i prise it open a teensy bit for you then? i was kibitzing on the game to which i think you refer. One of the French guys was accusing Rob and Barney of collusion in a table split which IIRC was 2 to Barney, 3 to Rob. From my point of view they had little choice, since they were sitting as predator and prey with VILE combat decks, in Barney's case packing Rotschreck. So Rob had three choices: go for Barney and die horribly [0VP], sit still and do nothing [0VP], or use upstream rushes to help Barney's not-very-bleedy Tzimisces go through their preys in exchange for a self-ousting deal [2-3 VP]. Naturally, Rob went for the deal - indeed he HAD to go for the deal, under VEKN VP-maximising rules. This was not how it was seen by one of the players, though. So james asked the player [and i paraphrase], "If you're making an accusation of collusion, can you please tell me which particular aspect of this deal involves out-of-game considerations?", which i thought was a fair way of putting it. No reasonable answer was forthcoming, but one slightly unsatisfactory aspect of the matter was that this other player's first language was, obviously, not English. Had it been, might he have been able to convince the judge of an infringement? i don't think so, but how will we ever know for sure? Any comments from the French guys? > > > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] > > What on earth happened ? Didn't see you all day. NOBODY saw much of me all day. Not even me. i was dropping asleep half the time, having got up at 4 that morning to take Michael to the airport. i had decent crypt draws in all three rounds but generally erred in trying to bring out my really big vamps first; and had TOTALLY horrible opening hands in all three rounds. First round i got 1 VP despite having my ToR3 suddened across table. Second round i got weenie dominate-bled out in about 3 rounds by Tony. Third round i was grand-prey to Francois, nuff said. But i screwed up there. i HAD the cards to take him out - Pentex Subversion is in the deck, along with Delaying Tactics and ToGP. i missed the importance of the vote that raises the Ventrue's capacity by 1, crucial for Francois' trick to work, and COULD have DT'd one of the votes had i not discarded the card. i blame general sleep-induced stupidity - evidence for which is that it took me about 4 hours to do the times cryptic, normally a 30-minute job [AND i had help from Jackie Eves' partner on the last clue]. > > > but had > > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > Fame for the new century. > > Personally (even though I only saw it play once) I can honestly say it was > the scariest thing I have seen for about 3 years. Well done Francois and the > other parties that had a filthy hand in it :o) O yes, a REAL piece of craft. Of course, the idea is not completely new. But Francois' genius is that he has made the trick work so that in principle he can roll the whole table IN ONE TURN. Archons won't save you, rush will only save you if you do it IMMEDIATELY, and deflection will only save you up to a point. Here is how the deck works: Bring out Arika. Equip Arika with soul gem. Forgotten Labyrinth if necessary, Lost in Crowds just in case that isn't enough. Freak Drive. Call PS: Berlin [stealth combo as before]. Awe, burning all but 2 of Arika's blood for 40-odd votes. Force of Will at INFERIOR. Modify with Daring the Dawn. Add Conditioning, bleed for 8. Arika burns. Because of PS Berlin THIS Arika is a 12-cap with a soul-gem, so the next card in your crypt will come into play on full blood if it is younger. Wow, look! The next vampire is Arika! And now she does EXACTLY the same series of moves as above. Just for spice, Francois packs Distractions which he plays so's to draw 5 cards and discard - necessary to set up the combo reliably. That's obf, cel, pre, for and dom - a working 5-discipline deck, forsooth! in the game i was in he rolled all 5 VPs in about 5-6 turns, well really 2-3 turns because it took him 3 turns to bring out Arika. By the end of it, he had maybe 1 card left in his library. AWESOME stuff, and executed with typical style and panache from the folks who brought you coordinate geometry, the Spad XIII, exocet and all the clever words in the English language. > > > Biggest regret: not getting to play Rob, > > Barney, Tom, Will or Reyda. > > Yeah, not the best but I guess that's what happens when you get large no's > playing. Would have been good to play as always though. Hehehe .. i'm sure we'll get to play again soon! > > But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > > everyone who made it possible! > > Amen. Preach it brother, preach it. OOOOO Lordy! And how very, VERY wise i now turn out to have been in my niggardly trading. i can build Francois's deck, you see.

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k0t6d$24d$1...@neon.noos.net>... > "legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. > > Yes, it wa a great tournament =) we are glad we made the trip from Paris to > Watford ! > > > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], and all the guys n > > gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford > > includes Paris and Gothenburg. > > Mmm... We wanted to see how the game is on the wrong side of the Channel ;) > besides this i must say that James Coupe is the *best judge in the world*. > He always made good decisions and knew the game like no player did. Too bad > he didin't have time for chit-chatting =) I hope that more and more > tournaments will become of international caliber ! people from all over the > world, join us in the jyhad ;) Indeed, the international flavour was great and it was also noticeable how the UK players' games had moved up a notch. And i agree about james's judging, superb stuff as always from the sociable, elegant and TOTALLY legitimate David Shepherd* of UK jyhad. > > > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] but had > > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > Fame for the new century. Biggest regret: not getting to play Rob, > > Barney, Tom, Will or Reyda. But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > > everyone who made it possible! > > Yes, Francois Alix's deck was really rocking, and he also got the nerves to > play his deck no matter how bad the conditions are : i mean i myself > wouldn't have the guts to sweep a table after an grand total of 26 pool loss > in two turns =) > All other people did well, we saw very intersting decks that gave us ideas > for new "tweaked" tactics. Hey Legbiter it was a pleasure to meet you ! > maybe we'll play in a game soon ;) i hope so! i will HAVE to come to Paris now in September to have any chance of qualifying. Unfortunately, i may not be able to, due to work commitments. But work, of course, can be evaded at least most of the time. *David Shepherd, as subjects of Her Gracious majesty Queen Elizabeth the II will NOT need reminding, is the English test-cricket umpire to whom James bears some resemblance in terms of stature. And i mean that in all possible senses.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<ixHoBScY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <9k1smi$kmt$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >(and if Robert Goudie is reading this : yes, Robert, you are a good judge ! > >But James has an extra feature : a kind of stature you don't want to > >contradict his judgment =D ) > > Translation: > > Fat Bastard. > > (True.) Did someone mention a fat bastard? I thought it was a call but as I'm here. Some great games a brilliant atmosphere and the organisation was superb. The judging really was spot on. Enough of that, I'm off to the bar. 'I'm on a highway to hell baybee yeeeaaaah'

On 30 Jul 2001 03:22:51 -0700, legbiter wrote: >One of the French guys was accusing Rob and Barney of collusion >in a table split which IIRC was 2 to Barney, 3 to Rob. From my >point of view they had little choice, since they were sitting as >predator and prey with VILE combat decks, in Barney's case packing >Rotschreck. So Rob had three choices: go for Barney and die horribly >[0VP], sit still and do nothing [0VP], or use upstream rushes to help >Barney's not-very-bleedy Tzimisces go through their preys in exchange >for a self-ousting deal [2-3 VP]. Naturally, Rob went for the deal - >indeed he HAD to go for the deal, under VEKN VP-maximising rules. Naturally Rob goes for the deal because he does well out of it. The question is, why does Barney go for the deal when he appears to have the upper hand but gets the thin end of it? And why does he keep the deal by rolling over at the end when this does not maximise his VP? The fact that they regularly play together must naturally be considered a factor. By coincidence, I was testing out a new set of tournament rules in a Shadowfist event that I was running on the same day. FWIW, here is the relevant clause in that ruleset: >18. Collusion: if a player makes a play purely for the >advantage of another player at the table ("heck, I'm >in the finals already, so I'll help you win this game"), >the tournament director may deduct points from that player's >score (in a scored tournament) or give them an additional loss >in an elimination tournament). If the player must be warned a >second time, the director may disqualify that player. Yes, this >is hard to prove, but we needed to at least mention it. If >you feel like cheating, please go play some other game. Note that >this applies to players who "play for second place" in a scored >tournament by assisting an attack that would win the game if it >succeeded. Andrew

In message <68f2e9f8.01073...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> writes >So james asked the player [and i paraphrase], "If >you're making an accusation of collusion, can you please tell me which >particular aspect of this deal involves out-of-game considerations?", >which i thought was a fair way of putting it. No reasonable answer was >forthcoming, but one slightly unsatisfactory aspect of the matter was >that this other player's first language was, obviously, not English. I dropped, briefly, into (broken) French in order to explain the table situation as I saw it - that Rob knew moving forwards would destroy him (due to Barny's nasty combat deck)[0], and Barny knew that Rob moving forward would do him some serious damage as well (it being a Theo Bell oriented rush deck). This was plain to see. What I explained was that Rob and Barny had publicly discussed this (and were doing when I intervened, with Rob's protestations of "Well, what am I supposed to be able to do to him?") and come to the conclusion that they'd kill each other. So they'd publicly agreed to do a 2VP/3VP split of the table which maximised their VPs from the then inevitable 0VP/0VP if they'd decided to annihilate each other. With Tzimisce combat being as expensive as it is (without Meshenka, the Path of Metamorphosis etc.), Barny was going to move himself into the range of Torn Signpost/Pushing the Limits, and Rob was almost certainly to take some sort of aggravated damage from what I could see of the deck. This was, as far as I was concerned, perfectly consistent with making a winning deal and honouring it, as has been discussed. Of course, Rob and Barny could have cheated on one another but are not required to, as has been discussed here extensively. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <E1EE54D13DECC6FB.9EFE80D7...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Naturally Rob goes for the deal because he does well out of it. The >question is, why does Barney go for the deal when he appears to have >the upper hand but gets the thin end of it? If the two went up against each other, Barny would probably have won combat wise (I recall a little politics in Rob's deck, because of his Prince orientation for Theo) but they'd have both annihilated each other, in all likelihood. > And why does he keep the >deal by rolling over at the end when this does not maximise his VP? A player is always required to make deals which maximise VP there and then. A player is not required to split on deals to maximise their VP, because then you'd never be able to make a deal. I make a deal to maximise my VP, but you're going to double-cross, so I'm not going to make the deal in the first place. The most specific and concise wording on this can be found in: Message-ID: <3B1FF7AD...@white-wolf.com> From: LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 17:52:45 -0400 Subject: Re: MY SIDE of the Succubus story...What happened in LA! *** > >Honoring a deal made in-game is not an "out-of-game" consideration, as I've said. > > It's also not maximizing your VPs. Why are you allowed not to maximize > your VPs in this specific case? > > (I know I've asked this before, but I got no response that time) As I've said, if making the deal helped maximize your VPs, then there's no problem in making it. Once made, there's no problem in honoring it. *** I would advise any and all players who believe that they are going to have a problem with cutting legitimate deals to print a copy of this out. <URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3B1FF7AD.854BE1A1@white- wolf.com> >The fact that they regularly play together must naturally be >considered a factor. It may mean that they trust each other to keep the deal, perhaps. You are not, of course, required to agree to every deal which would supposedly maximise your VPs if you have no belief that the deal would be upheld. The deal, however, makes a lot of sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Tony won, i gather. Was that the Tony with the weeny dominate-bleed > deck? He actually took me out quicker than Francois! > > I think it was 4 turns and I'm still amazed that I didn't get deflected. I actually bled you expecting to get the chance to take down my grand prey's pool a little, and then bleed with a seduced govern to kill you. Funny how things work out. It was the first time I had played a focussed deck at a tourney, and I think, by winning, I proved a lot to myself. I didn't actually see what you were playing. Leandro was all. Are we talking Malky votes/ToGP? Tony ~Anarch of Luton~

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: ixHoBScY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9k1smi$kmt$1...@quark.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >(and if Robert Goudie is reading this : yes, Robert, you are a good judge ! > >But James has an extra feature : a kind of stature you don't want to > >contradict his judgment =D ) > > Translation: > > Fat Bastard. > > (True.) an excellent judge that lacks self esteem though =) reyda

"Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:19048d48.01073...@posting.google.com... > > Legbiter > > Tony won, i gather. Was that the Tony with the weeny dominate-bleed Legbiter > > deck? He actually took me out quicker than Francois! > > > > I think it was 4 turns and I'm still amazed that I didn't get > deflected. I actually bled you expecting to get the chance to take > down my grand prey's pool a little, and then bleed with a seduced > govern to kill you. Funny how things work out. It was the first time I > had played a focussed deck at a tourney, and I think, by winning, I > proved a lot to myself. > > I didn't actually see what you were playing. Leandro was all. Are we > talking Malky votes/ToGP? > > Tony > > ~Anarch of Luton~ Congratulations. Any chance you will post your tournament winning deck for the archives? Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm

legbiter wrote: <O yes, a REAL piece of craft. Of course, the idea is not completely new. But Francois' genius is that he has made the trick work so that in principle he can roll the whole table IN ONE TURN. Archons won't save you, rush will only save you if you do it IMMEDIATELY, and deflection will only save you up to a point. Here is how the deck works: Bring out Arika. Equip Arika with soul gem. Forgotten Labyrinth if necessary, Lost in Crowds just in case that isn't enough. Freak Drive. Call PS: Berlin [stealth combo as before]. Awe, burning all but 2 of Arika's blood for 40-odd votes. Force of Will at INFERIOR. Modify with Daring the Dawn. Add Conditioning, bleed for 8. Arika burns. Because of PS Berlin THIS Arika is a 12-cap with a soul-gem, so the next card in your crypt will come into play on full blood if it is younger. Wow, look! The next vampire is Arika! And now she does EXACTLY the same series of moves as above. Just for spice, Francois packs Distractions which he plays so's to draw 5 cards and discard - necessary to set up the combo reliably. That's obf, cel, pre, for and dom - a working 5-discipline deck, forsooth!> I got excited about the awesome potential of this deck, but then I remembered how prevalent Delaying Tactics is in my play group. Oh Well. Jay Kristoff, V:EKN Prince of Columbus

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:EnvBEg94...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > If the two went up against each other, Barny would probably have won > combat wise (I recall a little politics in Rob's deck, because of his > Prince orientation for Theo) Only one 'magic' Theo in the deck. Historically the two decks have beat the living shit out of each other and i'm sure Mr Baker made some last minute changes so I made a deal that allowed me to have even a glimpse of VP's as opposed to nada. >but they'd have both annihilated each > other, in all likelihood. Yup, my thoughts exactly. Even though I had the Ivory Bow out and knowing that my deck packs 8 Psyches, a couple of Leathers and loads of Tastes we would have screwed each other into the ground with no vamps and an unhealthy 0 VP each. I assessed the situation and stand by the deal that I made. To call it collusion was IMO pretty desparate play from someone who realised that he was consistantly shooting himself in the foot all game. Bad play IMO. > I would advise any and all players who believe that they are going to > have a problem with cutting legitimate deals to print a copy of this > out. > > <URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3B1FF7AD.854BE1A1@white- > wolf.com> Hooray, a solid beginning to the 'deal makers bible' a hopefully never to be printed best seller :o) > >The fact that they regularly play together must naturally be > >considered a factor. > > It may mean that they trust each other to keep the deal, perhaps. You > are not, of course, required to agree to every deal which would > supposedly maximise your VPs if you have no belief that the deal would > be upheld. I would trust Barn to keep his deals more than average Joe Unknown but as you say, none of what happened in that game even came close to collusion. > The deal, however, makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Rob.

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01073...@posting.google.com>... > "Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9k13bb$1ujqs$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... > > "legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com... > > > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. > > > > It was great wasn't it. > > > > > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging] > > > > A big thanks from all the Southampton Guys as well, especially to James who > > seemed to be in 10 different places at once in possibly the hottest place on > > earth. IMO solid rulings and judgements on some difficult and VERY > > contentious issues which almost spoiled the day for me but I'm not opening > > that particular vat full of worms myself. Pierre, any idea's ? > > Shall i prise it open a teensy bit for you then? i was kibitzing on > the game to which i think you refer. One of the French guys was > accusing Rob and Barney of collusion in a table split which IIRC was 2 > to Barney, 3 to Rob. From my point of view they had little choice, > since they were sitting as predator and prey with VILE combat decks, > in Barney's case packing Rotschreck. So Rob had three choices: go for > Barney and die horribly [0VP], sit still and do nothing [0VP], or use > upstream rushes to help Barney's not-very-bleedy Tzimisces go through > their preys in exchange for a self-ousting deal [2-3 VP]. Naturally, > Rob went for the deal - indeed he HAD to go for the deal, under VEKN > VP-maximising rules. There was another occurence during the third round. The five-player table consisted in the following players, in the order of bleed around the table: Player A (didn't catch name, sorry): Tremere intercept/bleed with guns iirc Benoit: Tremere anti, Cryptic Missions aplenty with Succubus and Society of Leopold Player B: Weenie Dominate with Embraces and Graverobbing Tom Kassel: Brujah bruise and votes Myself: Tzimisce Wall, high pointers for Eternal Vigilance, backed up with some War Ghouls (great combo with the Meat Hook) I got to start so felt in a pretty weak position as i didn't know what any of the other players were playing. Only Tom (my predator) did bring a small vamp not sporting Dominate, it was Jimmy Dunn. I intended first to keep Tom as a buffer, should player B get a unholy number of minions, Tom should have been able to dent the onslaught and i could have been able to finish the weenies off :) By the end of my third turn, i finally had Meshenka into play, feeling pretty confident with two Blood of Acid in my starting hand and ready to destroy Jimmy, if Tom decided to come my way. While the rest of the table built up steam, a few equip actions, some bleeds and deflections, Tom brought out Volker. The three votes of Meshenka would be crucial in passing votes so Tom offered me the same kind of deal, a table split, both combat decks against the rest of the table, allowing me to rake up some VPs and then letting him kill me for his points...It sounded pretty good, giving me the opportunity to build up undisturbed. If Tom would fall to the weenies (unlikely as Benoit's deck properly destroy them with the Cryptics) i would have had time to set up my defences and could withstand the assault with confidence :) Seeing the win-win situation i accepted the deal and Tom proceeded to damage my prey with his unblocked votes (Parity shift and KRC). As expected player B quickly fell to Benoit, which suited me fine because now we could split the remaining VPs evenly between Tom and myself :) Anyway neither of us was in any position to help player B stay in play any longer....The game came to the unavoidable conclusion within the next 10-15 minutes or so, Tom and I getting 2 Vps each. My War Ghoul finally managed to equip with the Meat Hook but never had to use the press to kill a vamp :) I knew that if Tom and I were to attack each other the results would have been dramatic for the both of us, me probably blocking and killing a few of his voters and him sending in torpor some of mine. Anyway, this alliance really pissed off Benoit (as far as i know he was the French player mentionned by James) and definately ruined his chances to get anymore VPs. He told me that this kind of table-splitting deals was going to be forbidden at the EC, that referees will be able to look at your hand and prevent your deal, that Tom and I were friends and hence colluding. I must have played with Tom only once before so the out-of-game considerations did not come into play at all. It was my interest to go for the deal and the fact that i kept my end is simply good business. Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. I would like to see an official quote from the powers that be (LSJ, Carl...) I find it critical for this matter to be solved as fast and as completely as possible, otherwise i can definately promise much bodily harm and table flipping in September :P And that would be a shame. >This was not how it was seen by one of the > players, though. So james asked the player [and i paraphrase], "If > you're making an accusation of collusion, can you please tell me which > particular aspect of this deal involves out-of-game considerations?", > which i thought was a fair way of putting it. No reasonable answer was > forthcoming, but one slightly unsatisfactory aspect of the matter was > that this other player's first language was, obviously, not English. > Had it been, might he have been able to convince the judge of an > infringement? i don't think so, but how will we ever know for sure? I do not think the language barrier was an issue there, as far as i can tell, all the foreign players were able to express themselves in English and could explain the situation clearly enough for James to take a decision if needed. In any case, Reyda was around and could have been called for some help or myself even, also i might now be regarded as a traitor by my fellow countrymen :) > Any comments from the French guys? > > > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] > > > > What on earth happened ? Didn't see you all day. > > NOBODY saw much of me all day. I hope we will see more of you in Paris. Any chance for the rest of the Portsmouth crowd to make it as well. Any news from John and the rest of the gang? They were sorely missed last Saturday. > > > but had > > > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > > > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > > > Fame for the new century. > > > > Personally (even though I only saw it play once) I can honestly say it was > > the scariest thing I have seen for about 3 years. Well done Francois and the > > other parties that had a filthy hand in it :o) > > O yes, a REAL piece of craft. Of course, the idea is not completely > new. But Francois' genius is that he has made the trick work so that > in principle he can roll the whole table IN ONE TURN. Archons won't > save you, rush will only save you if you do it IMMEDIATELY, and > deflection will only save you up to a point. I really like the deck concept and the balls it took Francois to play it :) But i do not think it is invicible. No masters means no ToR3, Zilliah's Valley or other accelerators...therefore it gives the rest of the table about three turns to build up an answer. It occured to me that this deck must prompt a table response as soon as Arika hits the table. It is definately extremely powerful and deadly when ppl don't know what to expect, but as Francois experienced it during the final, once the info is out about what the deck does it's nearly game over. The major problem with the deck is the concept of "tunnel vision" Being totally prey oriented with very limited defences can cut the mustard in Paris but over here it has proven to be rather more difficult as only two of this kind of deck made it to the final (namely Francois and Tony). > > But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > > > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > > > everyone who made it possible! > > > > Amen. Preach it brother, preach it. > > OOOOO Lordy! And how very, VERY wise i now turn out to have been in my > niggardly trading. i can build Francois's deck, you see. Just you try man, it will be my pleasure to destroy Arika on sight :) or anything that looks like a clone of this deck :P See you in Paris or the GenCon if you are going to make it there. P.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<E1EE54D13DECC6FB.9EFE80D7...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 30 Jul 2001 03:22:51 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >One of the French guys was accusing Rob and Barney of collusion > >in a table split which IIRC was 2 to Barney, 3 to Rob. From my > >point of view they had little choice, since they were sitting as > >predator and prey with VILE combat decks, in Barney's case packing > >Rotschreck. So Rob had three choices: go for Barney and die horribly > >[0VP], sit still and do nothing [0VP], or use upstream rushes to help > >Barney's not-very-bleedy Tzimisces go through their preys in exchange > >for a self-ousting deal [2-3 VP]. Naturally, Rob went for the deal - > >indeed he HAD to go for the deal, under VEKN VP-maximising rules. > > Naturally Rob goes for the deal because he does well out of it. The > question is, why does Barney go for the deal when he appears to have > the upper hand but gets the thin end of it? And why does he keep the > deal by rolling over at the end when this does not maximise his VP? > The fact that they regularly play together must naturally be > considered a factor. The fact that they play in an area where such dealmaking is the norm is the only factor. In game three, Pierre, my Tzimisce prey, and I (Euro Brujah - exactly the decks and seating of Barney and Rob) split a table. As it happened, the same chap who didn't like Barney and Rob's deal got a chance to not like it again. He and Pierre had a long and earnest (but not particularly) heated discussion in French about the prevailing practice in different playgroups. He (the victim) argued that Pierre and I were friends working together, but in fact we are barely acquainted, having seen one another at tournaments but not played together before. (or maybe once at a Minicon). As usual seating makes a huge difference. In game one, Barney was my predator, and a Gangrel my prey. I'd have loved a deal but when my first bleed ran into a scorpion-sting claws of death, my dealmaking potential vanished. Tom

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1ba5ca76.01073...@posting.google.com... [clip] > Anyway, this alliance really pissed off Benoit (as far as i know he > was the French player mentionned by James) and definately ruined his > chances to get anymore VPs. He told me that this kind of > table-splitting deals was going to be forbidden at the EC, that > referees will be able to look at your hand and prevent your deal, that I suspect Benoit was a bit confused. Yes, the referees will be able to examine the situation at a table (including the cards in a player's hand) and may have to make a judgement call as to whether there is some kind of collusion or external to the current game consideration that is being pursued. However, table-splitting deals are not inherently against the tournament rules and cannot be forbidden at the EC. An individual table-splitting deal could be nullified by a judge if he determines that the players working the deal made a private arrangement to assist one of the deal-makers at the expense of the performance of the other deal-maker. > Tom and I were friends and hence colluding. Being friends, by itself, is not enough to make an accusation of collusion. > It was my interest to go for the deal and the fact > that i kept my end is simply good business. It sounds like the judge agreed with this sentiment. > Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden > in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. I would like to see an > official quote from the powers that be (LSJ, Carl...) A quick search with Google should turn up numerous posts by LSJ that make it clear that table-splitting deals are not inherently illegal and therefore cannot be banned wholesale from an official V:EKN event. Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Tom Kassel" <thomas...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:1e5e6898.01073...@posting.google.com... > He (the > victim) argued that Pierre and I were friends working together, but in > fact we are barely acquainted, having seen one another at tournaments > but not played together before. (or maybe once at a Minicon). At our last Con I was the judge when a player made an accusation of collusion after watching most of the other players at the table agree to gang up on him. I had the pleasure of rebutting by pointing out that every other player at the table was from a different state (or country). It was certainly easier for him to believe that it wasn't a conspiracy at least. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8Xi97.8639$0w3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1ba5ca76.01073...@posting.google.com... > > > It was my interest to go for the deal and the fact > > that i kept my end is simply good business. > > It sounds like the judge agreed with this sentiment. Agreed, but the very fact that the 'collusion' rule was cried by two separate players from a different country (put in the nicest way possible with no offence intended from me) in the same tourney concerns me a fair bit and only goes to confirm in part what I suspected would happen to the largely intangible collusion rule. The rule is admittedly in it's infancy but evidence of mudslinging is already becoming disturbingly apparent. Rob.

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > The three votes of Meshenka would be crucial in passing > votes so Tom offered me the same kind of deal, a table split, both > combat decks against the rest of the table, allowing me to rake up > some VPs and then letting him kill me for his points... Until there, it sounds pretty good. In this case, it's fair if he promise not to harm you (with bleeds or votes) and in exchange you let him pass nice votes likes Anathema or Banishment. No one can refuse this. >It sounded pretty good, giving me the opportunity to build up undisturbed. (snip) > i accepted the deal and Tom proceeded to damage my prey with > his unblocked votes (Parity shift and KRC). That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give a chance to every player. In that kind of case, no matter your level or your deck, you will end beaten up. That's why Benoit was irritated by the deal, and i understand his feelings. > As expected player B > quickly fell to Benoit, which suited me fine because now we could > split the remaining VPs evenly between Tom and myself :) so, the only guy at the table who played his deck efficiently, effectively killing his prey with no other people's help, was the one penalized by your deal. It is unfair and absurd for us french guys. We don't even talk about VP, we are talking about enjoying the game and feeling one own's deck succeding. (snip) > I knew that if Tom and I were to attack each other the results would > have been dramatic for the both of us, me probably blocking and > killing a few of his voters and him sending in torpor some of mine. Well, you don't know. Maybe you would have killed his vamps. Maybe he would have killed yours. But at least you would have played your decks the rigth way, both of you. Sitting and watching another guy killing my pre for me is just not fun for me. (nothing personal Pierre =) i think you're a cool person ! ) Again, this is the kind of deal we want to avoid in the European Champ. > Anyway, this alliance really pissed off Benoit (as far as i know he > was the French player mentionned by James) and definately ruined his > chances to get anymore VPs. Yes. i understand his feeling. > He told me that this kind of > table-splitting deals was going to be forbidden at the EC, that > referees will be able to look at your hand and prevent your deal, that > Tom and I were friends and hence colluding. (snip) I couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you made the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. You didn't entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought you were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other > Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden > in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. I would like to see an > official quote from the powers that be (LSJ, Carl...) I find it > critical for this matter to be solved as fast and as completely as > possible, otherwise i can definately promise much bodily harm and > table flipping in September :P And that would be a shame. If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding actions/stealth in hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway), if someone transfers out when his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. Yes, sir. We are not stupid either. But we don't want that this kind of deals spoil the fun and make Jyhad look like diplomacy. Players come to the EC to play their decks, not to be the puppet of another guy who needs 2 or 3 VP to go to the finals. > I do not think the language barrier was an issue there, as far as i > can tell, all the foreign players were able to express themselves in > English and could explain the situation clearly enough for James to > take a decision if needed. In any case, Reyda was around and could > have been called for some help or myself even, also i might now be > regarded as a traitor by my fellow countrymen :) Yes ! you are british now ! but you are still cool ;) I think benoit thought you were playing by the same rules. I must add that he and Philippe (the other qualified french player) were ousted in a belgian tournament in a totall collusive way and still have a bitter taste in the mouth from it. [to explain it simple : Phil's prey, at 1 or 2 pool, calls vote to switch place, and become the prey of his fellow belgian. Then after the vote succeds, he transfers out, giving totally undeserved 6 pool and 1 vp to his friend who will go to the finals. That sounds like king making for us] > > Any comments from the French guys? Yes ! plenty of comments. Also read the thread is started above =) (snip) ABOUT FRANCOIS' "TURBO ARIKA DECK" =) > I really like the deck concept and the balls it took Francois to play > it :) But i do not think it is invicible. No masters means no ToR3, > Zilliah's Valley or other accelerators...therefore it gives the rest > of the table about three turns to build up an answer. It occured to me > that this deck must prompt a table response as soon as Arika hits the > table. It is definately extremely powerful and deadly when ppl don't > know what to expect, but as Francois experienced it during the final, > once the info is out about what the deck does it's nearly game over. yes. And everybody around talked about his deck, so almost everyone knew it was the #1 threat. > The major problem with the deck is the concept of "tunnel vision" talking about the channel tunnel... > Being totally prey oriented with very limited defences can cut the > mustard in Paris but over here it has proven to be rather more > difficult as only two of this kind of deck made it to the finals. i'm sure you meant "cut the mayonnaise" =) Don't be fooled ! there is as many people who play toolbox than people who play focus decks in france. This Turbo Arika deck is just an aberration, a focused to the limit deck. Kind of freaky experiment =) See you Pierre =) I'll mail you for the E.C soon ! reyda

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9k4c2c$2c8go$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de... > >knowing > that my deck packs 8 Psyches Clearly I don't know what my own deck packed as I meant Sideslips :o) Rob.

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9k4esd$2jrmp$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message [clip] > Agreed, but the very fact that the 'collusion' rule was cried by two > separate players from a different country (put in the nicest way possible > with no offence intended from me) in the same tourney concerns me a fair bit > and only goes to confirm in part what I suspected would happen to the > largely intangible collusion rule. The rule against collusion has been a part of the game since the first sanctioned tournament. Yes, we recently restricted some additional types of activity but these additional restrictions were not at issue. From the information given in this thread, it sounds as if Benoit's concerns were about what he viewed as a violation of the 5+ year old collusion rule. > The rule is admittedly in it's infancy but evidence of mudslinging is > already becoming disturbingly apparent. The new tournament rules were not even in effect in Los Angeles a few months ago when we had the big debates over deal-making and collusion. Let's not lose focus here. The issues are complex and important but they are not rooted in the new tournament rules. They are cropping up because of the increase in competitive play and because of the growing number of serious players who are willing to travel but who also encounter playstyles different from their own. All of these are growing pains--hopefully we'll be easing those pains with the next update of the official tournament rules. -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:muj97.7965$bl1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:9k4esd$2jrmp$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de... > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > [clip] > > Agreed, but the very fact that the 'collusion' rule was cried by two > > separate players from a different country (put in the nicest way possible > > with no offence intended from me) in the same tourney concerns me a fair bit > > and only goes to confirm in part what I suspected would happen to the > > largely intangible collusion rule. > > The rule against collusion has been a part of the game since the first > sanctioned tournament. Yes, we recently restricted some additional types of > activity but these additional restrictions were not at issue. From the > information given in this thread, it sounds as if Benoit's concerns were about > what he viewed as a violation of the 5+ year old collusion rule. Fair point taken, but this rule has recently been elevated to celebrity status and as such, like it or not *is* being used and misused by players in various situations. > > The rule is admittedly in it's infancy but evidence of mudslinging is > > already becoming disturbingly apparent. > > The new tournament rules were not even in effect in Los Angeles a few months ago > when we had the big debates over deal-making and collusion. Let's not lose > focus here. I'm not losing focus one bit. I'm probably one of the most concerned parties you will come across, an element of mine (and a lot of players) game is dealmaking and many players feel that aspects of thier game are being put under the hammer. Making deals you now have to be 'careful'. Please don't get me wrong here though, I'm 100% for the anti - collusion rules as they stood and stand. I also think that they have recently been taken out of context and am not having a pop at the rules team, you guys do a great job. The issues are complex and important but they are not rooted in the > new tournament rules. They are cropping up because of the increase in > competitive play and because of the growing number of serious players who are > willing to travel but who also encounter playstyles different from their own. I'm not sure this is the case ? Possibly part of it but defiantly not the whole enchilada. > All of these are growing pains--hopefully we'll be easing those pains with the > next update of the official tournament rules. I have faith :o) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9k4htr$2o1vq$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> From the >> information given in this thread, it sounds as if Benoit's concerns were >> about what he viewed as a violation of the 5+ year old collusion rule. > > Fair point taken, but this rule has recently been elevated to celebrity > status and as such, like it or not *is* being used and misused by players in > various situations. I'll at least grant you that. Players are definitely more aware of the rule. > > > The rule is admittedly in it's infancy but evidence of mudslinging is > > > already becoming disturbingly apparent. > > > > The new tournament rules were not even in effect in Los Angeles a few > > months ago when we had the big debates over deal-making and > > collusion. Let's not lose focus here. > > I'm not losing focus one bit. Yeah, I know. I was just using your post as a jumping off point to address the larger issue. > I'm probably one of the most concerned parties > you will come across, an element of mine (and a lot of players) game is > dealmaking and many players feel that aspects of thier game are being put > under the hammer. On a personal level, I share the same concerns. Its a big part of my game as well. [clip] > > The issues are complex and important but they are not rooted in the > > new tournament rules. They are cropping up because of the increase in > > competitive play and because of the growing number of serious players who > > are willing to travel but who also encounter playstyles different from their > > own. > > I'm not sure this is the case ? Possibly part of it but defiantly not the > whole enchilada. That's been my experience at least. We had collusion accusations and judges making judgement calls about such things 5 years ago. -Robert

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<mrh97.10445$Iq4.3...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I had a deck that did that, but it used Lasombra and equiped Camarilla vitae slave for the additional capacity. It never worked. Oh well, cool idea. Aaron.

Robert Goudie wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] I ditto Robert on this one. I think a huge part of this, at least in my experience, is the increase in competitive play between serious players in different groups. We rarely had problems with this type of stuff until recently. The worst problems I've ever seen were in the national qualifier here. In most cases the disputes seemed to be between members of different play groups whose style of play clashed severely. Such clashes are not a big deal until the stakes get high. Higher the stakes, such as a qualifier, the worse it gets. It will be very interesting to see what happens at the national championships this week. I have a feeling there will be some major clashes as different groups from all over the country duke it out. As the game grows, and inter-group competition with it, I think this will die down a little. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > > At our last Con I was the judge when a player made an accusation of collusion > after watching most of the other players at the table agree to gang up on him. > I had the pleasure of rebutting by pointing out that every other player at the > table was from a different state (or country). It was certainly easier for him > to believe that it wasn't a conspiracy at least. The fact that the demon named 'Collusion' is being invoked so often lately indicates that this may be a bigger issue than we previously thought... It seems that most of the examples given have *not* been collusion but that only indicates that people are confused as to what it really means. A 'deal-making bible' may not be the answer, but perhaps a concise and well-written document detailing what *is* and *is not* allowed which could be read before all upcoming tournaments may help somewhat. Personally, I don't relish the idea of being accused of collusion nor do I want to find myself in the awkward situation of accusing someone else. Fortunately, all the Detroit players are so untrustworthy that none of us would ever consider making a deal. We all know better than to trust fellow back-stabbers. However, I do vaguely recall something occuring at the last Toronto tournament which was questionable... not so much accusations of 'colluding'... rather someone in a rather hopeless situation was not trying their best to finish the game with the most VPs possible. It was not extremely contentious and was quickly forgotten about with no hard feelings, but it was enough to make me realize that things just got a *lot* more confusing with the recent changes. Anything that could be done aside from just adding a section to the tournament rules would be appreciated by all I think... Cheers, WES

In message <9k4uj...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >The fact that the demon named 'Collusion' is being invoked so often lately >indicates that this may be a bigger issue than we previously thought... The major problem, from where I stand (talking more from the newsgroup than the tournament) is that the concept of collusion *in the rules* requires outside considerations e.g. plotting with a friend as a round's seating is announced The concept of collusion *with a lot of players* is any deal that screws them over. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1ba5ca76.01073...@posting.google.com>, Pierre <fo...@hotmail.com> writes >I do not think the language barrier was an issue there, as far as i >can tell, all the foreign players were able to express themselves in >English and could explain the situation clearly enough for James to >take a decision if needed. In any case, Reyda was around and could >have been called for some help or myself even, also i might now be >regarded as a traitor by my fellow countrymen :) Certainly. I found the English of all the players there (both French and Swedish) certainly good enough to explain what they felt was wrong in any given situation, and Pierre was on hand if anything had got too problematic. I'm fairly certain that, between them, any player could have expressed a problem as necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9k4etn$v7$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you >prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do >anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : >Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. >This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give >a chance to every player. I'm very sorry, but if the European Championships are going to be run in a manner where: - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status *now*. Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. I will make sure that *every* player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that your judge is breaking the rules. If the European Championships are unable to run themselves under V:EKN sanctioning and the rules that that entails, I suggest that all persons involved with the Championships resign now and allow a legitimate tournament to be run instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and > non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. I will make sure that *every* > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > your judge is breaking the rules. You heard it here first. If you carry with you a copy of the rules, you, as a player, are entitled to overrule the judge on hand. Coupe, I don't care how angry you are at whatever was suggested by those stung by early table-split deals, you dare not suggest such a thing. There is no way organized tournaments could survive the idea that players can trump official judges; right, might, or whatever. - Jason Bell

In message <Yxt97.58725$TM5.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > >> Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and >> non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. I will make sure that *every* >> player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on >> legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that >> your judge is breaking the rules. > >You heard it here first. If you carry with you a copy of the rules, >you, as a player, are entitled to overrule the judge on hand. Who said anything about overruling them? I said prove they're wrong. >Coupe, I don't care how angry you are at whatever was suggested >by those stung by early table-split deals, you dare not suggest >such a thing. Fuck off you tedious sanctimonious little wanker. Players have every right to expect to play by the rules. You clearly don't have a clue what the fuck they are. >There is no way organized tournaments could survive >the idea that players can trump official judges; right, might, or >whatever. Then judges must play by the official rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9Ce97.312161$lq1.67...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] > James has a decklist for it. I believe he intends to throw it up here (so to speak) I think everyone wrote down their deck, so they may all be posted. Tony Anarch of Luton

In message <19048d48.01073...@posting.google.com>, Tony <ztr...@yahoo.com> writes >> James has a decklist for it. I believe he intends to throw it up here (so to speak) >I think everyone wrote down their deck, so they may all be posted. I have some, but not all. I will probably seek to enforce registration for GenCon. [ quoted text not captured ]

ztr...@yahoo.com (Tony) wrote in message news:<19048d48.01073...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] We are indeed. Actually it was almost EXACTLY the deck i played for 11VP in the last Watford tourney - replaced Info Highway with Zillah's valley, and 2 Telepathic counters with 2 Delaying Tactics. Horrible, HORRIBLE bad luck with opening draws was the main problem this time. > > Tony > > ~Anarch of Luton~ Congratulations on your victory! A nice deck, from what i saw, and not really what i would call focussed, either - Hostile Takeovers and a smidge of combat were nice touches.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: > >> James has a decklist for it. I believe he intends to throw it up here (so to speak) > >I think everyone wrote down their deck, so they may all be posted. > > I have some, but not all. > > I will probably seek to enforce registration for GenCon. It's a simple misunderstanding ! nobody asked for my deck list when i registered, so i simply thought no one cared (maybe the'yll have a peek only if i'd go to the finals or whatever) , and as a result, the list is still in my travel bag =) i can still post it there if you really want more crap on this forum ! reyda

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k4etn$v7$1...@neon.noos.net>... > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > > The three votes of Meshenka would be crucial in passing > > votes so Tom offered me the same kind of deal, a table split, both > > combat decks against the rest of the table, allowing me to rake up > > some VPs and then letting him kill me for his points... > > Until there, it sounds pretty good. In this case, it's fair if he promise > not to harm you (with bleeds or votes) and in exchange you let him pass nice > votes likes Anathema or Banishment. No one can refuse this. > > >It sounded pretty good, giving me the opportunity to build up undisturbed. > (snip) > > i accepted the deal and Tom proceeded to damage my prey with > > his unblocked votes (Parity shift and KRC). > > That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you > prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do > anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : > Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. > This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give > a chance to every player. In that kind of case, no matter your level or your > deck, you will end beaten up. That's why Benoit was irritated by the deal, > and i understand his feelings. > I disagree completely, obviously. Two players announce publicly that they are splitting the table. That leaves the remaining three players to make a suitable response. They have several choices. Individuals might offer better (i.e. more reliable or attractive)deals to one of the pair, the three might cooperate to defeat the dealmakers, or individuals may try to oust their prey quickly before the dealmakers gain momentum. In practice, the last alternative is often adopted but it isn't the only choice. Benoit could certainly have relaxed the onslaught against his prey and turned his cryptic missions against me in return for his prey blocking my votes. > > As expected player B > > quickly fell to Benoit, which suited me fine because now we could > > split the remaining VPs evenly between Tom and myself :) > > so, the only guy at the table who played his deck efficiently, effectively > killing his prey with no other people's help, was the one penalized by your > deal. It is unfair and absurd for us french guys. We don't even talk about > VP, we are talking about enjoying the game and feeling one own's deck > succeding. > The object of the game is VP. You get no extra points if you solely damage your prey. This is a multi-player game and it seems only sensible to enlist cooperation from other players whenever appropriate. The whole enterprise is manifestly unfair, of course. Seating order alone will screw the best designed decks. Dealmaking tends to reduce that particular lottery, provided that you choose a deck type which can act where it wishes rather than solely against its prey. I greatly prefer this kind of deck to purely speedy prey destruction, but tastes vary. > (snip) > > > I knew that if Tom and I were to attack each other the results would > > have been dramatic for the both of us, me probably blocking and > > killing a few of his voters and him sending in torpor some of mine. > > Well, you don't know. Maybe you would have killed his vamps. Maybe he would > have killed yours. But at least you would have played your decks the rigth > way, both of you. That would be the right way for the rest of the table but a pretty dumb way for us. Combat decks love the helpless, not the well-armed. Exactly the same way that stealthy decks love lack of intercept, weenie swarms love a few opponent's minions, etc. <snip> > > I couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you made > the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. You didn't > entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought you > were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other > That is simply untrue. My first action in the game was a KRC against Pierre. The deal was made later, when Benoit was already well advanced in destroying his prey. Benoit's prey, by the way, didn't greatly enjoy the way his position was demolished (entirely by Benoit - well, perhaps, not quite. I might have intercepted someone and binned him). That's the way it goes. Sometimes you get screwed. Tough. Tom

<snip details of deal> > Anyway, this alliance really pissed off Benoit (as far as i know he > was the French player mentionned by James) and definately ruined his > chances to get anymore VPs. He told me that this kind of > table-splitting deals was going to be forbidden at the EC, that > referees will be able to look at your hand and prevent your deal, that > Tom and I were friends and hence colluding. I must have played with > Tom only once before so the out-of-game considerations did not come > into play at all. It was my interest to go for the deal and the fact > that i kept my end is simply good business. > > Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden > in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. I would like to see an > official quote from the powers that be (LSJ, Carl...) I find it > critical for this matter to be solved as fast and as completely as > possible, otherwise i can definately promise much bodily harm and > table flipping in September :P And that would be a shame. Wow, that IS serious. Who will be refereeing in Paris? Is what Benoit says true? If so, then, sorry, but i'm not wasting my money to go over and NOT play Jyhad. > > >This was not how it was seen by one of the > > players, though. So james asked the player [and i paraphrase], "If > > you're making an accusation of collusion, can you please tell me which > > particular aspect of this deal involves out-of-game considerations?", > > which i thought was a fair way of putting it. No reasonable answer was > > forthcoming, but one slightly unsatisfactory aspect of the matter was > > that this other player's first language was, obviously, not English. > > Had it been, might he have been able to convince the judge of an > > infringement? i don't think so, but how will we ever know for sure? > > I do not think the language barrier was an issue there, as far as i > can tell, all the foreign players were able to express themselves in > English and could explain the situation clearly enough for James to > take a decision if needed. In any case, Reyda was around and could > have been called for some help or myself even, also i might now be > regarded as a traitor by my fellow countrymen :) Right, but it's not easy to express complicated concepts in a foreign language, especially if you are upset and under pressure. > > > Any comments from the French guys? > > > > > > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] > > > > > > What on earth happened ? Didn't see you all day. > > > > NOBODY saw much of me all day. > > I hope we will see more of you in Paris. Any chance for the rest of > the Portsmouth crowd to make it as well. Any news from John and the > rest of the gang? They were sorely missed last Saturday. We'll be back. But not for tourneys with screwy local rules, i feel fairly safe in speaking for the rest of the gang on this one. [ quoted text not captured ] i agree with all of that, but i think Francois's deck concept CAN be toolboxed at least to some extent. > > > > > But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > > > > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > > > > everyone who made it possible! > > > > > > Amen. Preach it brother, preach it. > > > > OOOOO Lordy! And how very, VERY wise i now turn out to have been in my > > niggardly trading. i can build Francois's deck, you see. > > Just you try man, it will be my pleasure to destroy Arika on sight :) > or anything that looks like a clone of this deck :P Bring it on, big boy, and feel the force of my Obedience. > See you in Paris or the GenCon if you are going to make it there. > P Definitely Gencon, Paris if [a] i can get the time off work, and [b] there are no screwy local rules.

In message <9k5vdu$nls$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >> I will probably seek to enforce registration for GenCon. > >It's a simple misunderstanding ! nobody asked for my deck list when i >registered I wasn't enforcing registration, but I did ask a number of people for deck-lists if they had the time. As I said, it wasn't a desire to get all of them, absolutely. But, as I said, I'll probably do it at GenCon. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you > >prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do > >anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : > >Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. > >This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give > >a chance to every player. > > I'm very sorry, but if the European Championships are going to be run in > a manner where: > > - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled > - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled > - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled > > the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status > *now*. agreed thats what many people were afraid of when the ec was awarded to paris. that all players are forced to play the french way. in order to prevent that i suggest that an international panel of judges is used in order to provide rulings in critical situations. e.g: james coupe, carl pilhatsch, some one from spain, italy and so on. the fun thing is that i heard from many different players who attended tourneys in france that the french use to gang up on outsiders. (just hearsay no accusations). > Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and > non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. when playing kindred restructure or dramatic upheaval playing cross table should not be called colusive( i had 6 kindred restructure in a 70 card deck) > I will make sure that *every* > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > your judge is breaking the rules. > may be you should provide some of those papers to the french judges! > If the European Championships are unable to run themselves under V:EKN > sanctioning and the rules that that entails, I suggest that all persons > involved with the Championships resign now and allow a legitimate > tournament to be run instead. amen i would also like to ask jugdes to enforce that english is the table language and only english should be used when there are players at a table that only speak english. (i would know if two french players would collude if the only speak french to each other) this has to be strictly enforced and penalized stefan

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: > > Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you > >prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do > >anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : > >Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. > >This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give > >a chance to every player. > > I'm very sorry, but if the European Championships are going to be run in > a manner where: > > - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled > - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled > - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled > > the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status > *now*. don't get me wrong. we know what the rules are. We cannot forbid this kind of deal. We just want to strongly *discourage* them. > Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and > non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. I will make sure that *every* > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > your judge is breaking the rules. (snip) Yes, we know that. We can't kick / ban a player who does such kind of deals, but we just want the game to be fair. I'm too tired to write you a complete explanation, so i'll cut and paste some words i've exchanged with Robert Goudie via Email. --------------- (the "> >" are my post to Pierre, the " >" are quotes from Goudie's questions, followed by my personal, non-judge player point of view answers) > And if a deal gives a player "no chance", you do realize that this is not > enough to disallow the deal. It's not against the rule. I was talking about "settings VP aside" and spoke of how the game should be. [ the 2 players (pierre and tom) did no actions and went on the deal first vamp out, without even trying to harm each other. They didn't enter a fight first] > >That's why Benoit was irritated by the deal, > > and i understand his feelings. > > Sure, its no fun when a deal goes against you. Plus, i'm convinced it is no fun at all to *accept this kind* of deal ! imagine you let your predator call referendums, using your single titled vamp's vote to let him harm your prey. You are using zero cards from your deck and don't even actually play it. I can't feel comfortable with that. We travelled to UK to play, not to sit and watch ;) besides this, we were 4 french guys in a car, and only Benoît was not qualified amongst us, despite his deck was very strong and he's a really skilled, cold blooded player. He missed the qualifiers for 2 vps, which he would have gained if not for the deal. (snip) > > He couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you made > > the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. You didn't > > entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought you > > were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other > > Its an understandable misunderstanding. I'd be suspicious myself. that's why he used the word collusion. Although now we agree that it was not. > > > Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden > > > in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. > > This person spoke incorrectly, right? *Right.* > > If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding actions/stealth in > > hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway), if someone transfers out when > > his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. > > Assuming they didn't make a table-split deal wherein one player agreed to > transfer out, right? You just mean that if someone is throwing the game to a > friend, that you guys will be all over it. Am I understanding correctly? Yes you are correct. We don't want situations where people willingly give VP they still can gain to other players. This is a bad move for the game and shows disrespect to other players on other tables who are struggling to gain VPs. We can't *forbid* that, but we'll strongly disencourage this. I refuse to be a judge just because i know i cannot stand those occurences. We often do short-term deals, for one turn or two, or echange services ; this is truly part of the game. But table split is something we don't want to rule the tournament scene here. ----- End of transmission =) So no ! there will be no policemen behind every player. They are free to make deals, to a certain extent. If someone has no interest except helping a friend, then the judge will tell. again, i am not trying to offend anyone. We want to play the game the way it was intended : Prey, predator, stealth, intercept and so on. We don't want the fun to be spoiled, especially for people coming a long way to Paris : that's why i can promise that the judges will be specially unforgiving to french people who may be tempted to help their friends collect more VPs. It's absolutely not an anti Brit' law ;) reyda

In message <9k60qj$pgv$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >don't get me wrong. we know what the rules are. We cannot forbid this kind >of deal. We just want to strongly *discourage* them. Either you want to host the European Championships or you want to host the European Let's All Be Friends And Play In A Way We Like. Which is it? The two cannot happily co-exist. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9k60hc$st6$1...@www.univie.ac.at>, SF <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> writes >> Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and >> non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. > >when playing kindred restructure or dramatic upheaval playing cross table >should not be called colusive( i had 6 kindred restructure in a 70 card >deck) Certainly. Playing cross-table is not, in and of itself, collusive anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k4etn$v7$1...@neon.noos.net>... > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > > The three votes of Meshenka would be crucial in passing > > votes so Tom offered me the same kind of deal, a table split, both > > combat decks against the rest of the table, allowing me to rake up > > some VPs and then letting him kill me for his points... > > Until there, it sounds pretty good. In this case, it's fair if he promise > not to harm you (with bleeds or votes) and in exchange you let him pass nice > votes likes Anathema or Banishment. No one can refuse this. > > >It sounded pretty good, giving me the opportunity to build up undisturbed. > (snip) > > i accepted the deal and Tom proceeded to damage my prey with > > his unblocked votes (Parity shift and KRC). > > That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you > prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do > anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : > Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. > This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give > a chance to every player. In that kind of case, no matter your level or your > deck, you will end beaten up. That's why Benoit was irritated by the deal, > and i understand his feelings. i get irritated when it happens to me, too. But this IS a part of the game. It ISN'T illegal. It is NOT against VEKN tourney rules. Sometimes it's the ONLY way that players with Mutually-assured Destruction [MAD] decks can salvage anything from an unfortunate seating order. > > > As expected player B > > quickly fell to Benoit, which suited me fine because now we could > > split the remaining VPs evenly between Tom and myself :) > > so, the only guy at the table who played his deck efficiently, effectively > killing his prey with no other people's help, was the one penalized by your > deal. It is unfair and absurd for us french guys. We don't even talk about > VP, we are talking about enjoying the game and feeling one own's deck > succeding. i think it's an unduly-limited view to think that the epitome of the game is killing your prey. Are you going to ban dramatic upheaval and Kindred Restructure too? What about Wall decks? > > (snip) > > > I knew that if Tom and I were to attack each other the results would > > have been dramatic for the both of us, me probably blocking and > > killing a few of his voters and him sending in torpor some of mine. > > Well, you don't know. Maybe you would have killed his vamps. Maybe he would > have killed yours. But at least you would have played your decks the rigth > way, both of you. Gee, that's pretty breathtaking. How do you know how someone else should play their deck which they've constructed? Sitting and watching another guy killing my pre for me is > just not fun for me. (nothing personal Pierre =) i think you're a cool > person ! ) Again, this is the kind of deal we want to avoid in the European > Champ. Someone else telling me how i should play my deck is just petty tyrrany, as far as i'm concerned, and there's ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that i will ever knowingly put myself in a position where this might happen. > > > Anyway, this alliance really pissed off Benoit (as far as i know he > > was the French player mentionned by James) and definately ruined his > > chances to get anymore VPs. > > Yes. i understand his feeling. > > > He told me that this kind of > > table-splitting deals was going to be forbidden at the EC, that > > referees will be able to look at your hand and prevent your deal, that > > Tom and I were friends and hence colluding. > (snip) > > I couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you made > the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. You didn't > entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought you > were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other It doesn't take genius to see that if two combat decks sit down next to each other they are BOTH doomed unless they do a table-splitting deal. Carried to its logical conclusion, your position would further erode the already-low status of combat decks in VTES. > > > Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden > > in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. I would like to see an > > official quote from the powers that be (LSJ, Carl...) I find it > > critical for this matter to be solved as fast and as completely as > > possible, otherwise i can definately promise much bodily harm and > > table flipping in September :P And that would be a shame. > > If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding actions/stealth in > hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway), if someone transfers out when > his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. Yes, sir. We > are not stupid either. But we don't want that this kind of deals spoil the > fun and make Jyhad look like diplomacy. Players come to the EC to play their > decks, not to be the puppet of another guy who needs 2 or 3 VP to go to the > finals. Maybe true for some. But many players come to the EC to win by any means legal within the rules. Are official VEKN rules going to be in place in Paris, or not? If they are not, i STRONGLY advise you to publicise the matter. > > > > I do not think the language barrier was an issue there, as far as i > > can tell, all the foreign players were able to express themselves in > > English and could explain the situation clearly enough for James to > > take a decision if needed. In any case, Reyda was around and could > > have been called for some help or myself even, also i might now be > > regarded as a traitor by my fellow countrymen :) > > Yes ! you are british now ! but you are still cool ;) > I think benoit thought you were playing by the same rules. I must add that > he and Philippe (the other qualified french player) were ousted in a belgian > tournament in a totall collusive way and still have a bitter taste in the > mouth from it. > [to explain it simple : Phil's prey, at 1 or 2 pool, calls vote to switch > place, and become the prey of his fellow belgian. Then after the vote > succeds, he transfers out, giving totally undeserved 6 pool and 1 vp to his > friend who will go to the finals. That sounds like king making for us] Again, this is legal. He was in a losing position and chose the manner of his departure. > > > > > Any comments from the French guys? > > Yes ! plenty of comments. Also read the thread is started above =) > <snip stuff about Francois's deck> A really interesting philosophical difference is apparent from this post and the other thread. The common ground we share is liking to play Jyhad for fun. Where we differ is in the definition of fun, at least in tournament play. i'm not presuming to tell you how to have fun, but you appear to think that if me having fun compromises your fun then i should be penalised. i find this unacceptable.

"SF" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> a écrit dans le message news: 9k60hc$st6$1...@www.univie.ac.at... > > > - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled > > - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled > > - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled > > > > the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status > > *now*. > > agreed > thats what many people were afraid of when the ec was awarded to paris. that > all players are forced to play the french way. in order to prevent that i > suggest that an international panel of judges is used in order to provide > rulings in critical situations. > e.g: james coupe, carl pilhatsch, some one from spain, italy and so on. > the fun thing is that i heard from many different players who attended > tourneys in france that the french use to gang up on outsiders. (just > hearsay no accusations). jesus. I can't speak for the organizers, but I will be judge in the EC. From what I understood, this EC will be a regular VEKN tournament. By no means will people be compelled to 'play the french way' (ha! and I wonder what would that be, there are many different playstyles in france, you know). So even if some people, say some judges, will feel pissed for seeing 'unfair' deal involving VP-maximising, the deal will *not* be over-ruled. as for french ganging up on outsiders, it seems certainly a wrong statement. I attended the French Open in November 2001. There were not too many foreign people, but one portuguese made it to the finals. And I managed to make a deal with my predator, who happened to be an english guy (sorry, dan't remember his name) who played an !Ventrue daring the dawn/bleed deck. It was not a VP deal, I just Direct Intervened a Deflection on him (I had 3 pool) and asked him to avoid bleeding me for one turn. He could have killed me, by breaking the deal, and I wouldn't have been pissed if he had. Taking the risk of betrayal added some spice to the game. I can hardly call that ganging up on outsiders. (snip) > > I will make sure that *every* > > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > > your judge is breaking the rules. > > > may be you should provide some of those papers to the french judges! we have access to the internet, you know... > > > If the European Championships are unable to run themselves under V:EKN > > sanctioning and the rules that that entails, I suggest that all persons > > involved with the Championships resign now and allow a legitimate > > tournament to be run instead. wow. I think you should chill. I know Reyda, he's quite cool as a player and individual, and I would probably feel angry too if I saw a deal made at my expense. But since this is allowed by the rules, then it will be enforced. And do not draw conclusions on how the EC will be run. You have absolutely no basis to decide whether the tournament will follow or not the VEKN rules appropriately. Please don't get carried away because of flaming posts. > > amen i would also like to ask jugdes to enforce that english is the table > language and only english should be used when there are players at a table > that only speak english. (i would know if two french players would collude > if the only speak french to each other) this has to be strictly enforced and > penalized > > stefan > You do not have to *ask* judges to enforce the english language. It is *already* clear that english is the official language, and that it will have to be used whenever there is a single non-french speaking person at a table. In a table of 5 people with 4 french and a 'non-french', then it will be made clear to everyone that english *must* be used at *all* times. we are not *that* stupid, you know... I was delighted to learn that the EC would be held in Paris, now I'm beginning to get really worried about this collusion thing. We never had any trouble with this during local tournaments. Perhaps it would be cool to see in the VEKN rules a list of detailed examples, that is to say some scenarios describing deals between players in a given situation, in order to know precisely what is collusion and what isn't. I'll try to make some and post them to LSJ. Stone

"Tom Kassel" <thomas...@ntlworld.com> > > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> (snip) > I disagree completely, obviously. Two players announce publicly that > they are splitting the table. That leaves the remaining three players > to make a suitable response. They have several choices. Individuals > might offer better (i.e. more reliable or attractive)deals to one of > the pair, the three might cooperate to defeat the dealmakers, or > individuals may try to oust their prey quickly before the dealmakers > gain momentum. In practice, the last alternative is often adopted but > it isn't the only choice. Benoit could certainly have relaxed the > onslaught against his prey and turned his cryptic missions against me > in return for his prey blocking my votes. I understand that. There are ways to cooperate, but it's difficult to set up something when you have zero experience of table split dealing players : you are just destabilized =) And i doubt Benoit's english is good enough to make an alliance and join them in vendetta against the dealers. Just one thing : was his prey really able to block your votes ? or is it speculation ? (snip) > The object of the game is VP. You get no extra points if you solely > damage your prey. This is a multi-player game and it seems only > sensible to enlist cooperation from other players whenever > appropriate. The object of tournament is VP. The object of the game is to have fun. You get extra self esteem bonus if you enjoy your own deck and play it well. Cooperation is a thing, complete wedding is another. I'm just seeing that with my frenchman eyes, Tom ;) > The whole enterprise is manifestly unfair, of course. Yes. It was unfair. > Seating order alone will screw the best designed decks. Dealmaking > tends to reduce that particular lottery, provided that you choose a > deck type which can act where it wishes rather than solely against its > prey. I greatly prefer this kind of deck to purely speedy prey > destruction, but tastes vary. I prefer to have support from what you may call a " temporary ally" on the other side of the table. But i don't forget that, the point is using my deck for killing prey, for VP and pool gain. (snip) > > I couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you made > > the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. You didn't > > entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought you > > were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other > > > That is simply untrue. My first action in the game was a KRC against > Pierre. Okay, i must have misunderstood what Pierre said : he told me you never entered combat (he played a tzimisce intercept deck) and he had 2 blood of acid in hand when Jimmy Dunn came out. That must hurt ;) > The deal was made later, when Benoit was already well advanced in > destroying his prey. Benoit's prey, by the way, didn't greatly enjoy > the way his position was demolished (entirely by Benoit - well, > perhaps, not quite. I might have intercepted someone and binned him). > That's the way it goes. Sometimes you get screwed. Tough. Sure Benoit's prey did not enjoyed the edge his predator had, and it's hard to be screwed but it's part of the game ! your predator is here to kill you anyway =) But now imagine Pierre's prey !! the guy took damage from KRC's from his Grand predator ! he had no mean to intercept those, that's pretty unfair... And it breaks the Prey predator relationship. For benoīt, collusion or not, the way you played broke the basic rules of jyhad : two people gang up to snatch the VP without paying attention to who's whose prey. Maximizing VP's is not maximizing fun. But, hey, it's tournament mind.... sometime you get screwed (remember your disarmed brujahs =) i should have munched Donal at this time ! ), but sometimes it's really bitter than usual because you realize that no matter how good you played, some unholy alliance took the VP's out of your reach. I repeat again : at the EC, we will play the standard VEKN Rules. But we will examine suspicious deals. That's all. Hope to see you soon, Tom ! it was damn fun playing with you ! Do you plan to come to the EC ? reyda

In message <9k62ee$rff$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >I understand that. There are ways to cooperate, but it's difficult to set up >something when you have zero experience of table split dealing players This, perhaps, suggests that the "French way" of not splitting tables is unnecessarily restrictive in an international environment, whereby a player needs experience of numerous play-styles at his/her disposal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9k62bm$6t6$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes > You have absolutely >no basis to decide whether the tournament will follow or not the VEKN rules >appropriately. Please don't get carried away because of flaming posts. Fact: (Some) Players at Watford were *told* that the Prince of Paris was going to attempt to enforce this. This is not a "flaming post", this is a fact. [ quoted text not captured ]

"SF" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> Before we go on criticism, i just want to say that most of what Stefano Said is not innocent at all. He tried hard to have the EC organized in austria, and failed. This year's EC are held in Paris and he is simply not happy with that. Now that you have read this disclaimer, you can continue your reading ;) -- (Coupe)> > I'm very sorry, but if the European Championships are going to be run in > > a manner where: > > > > - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled > > - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled > > - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled > > > > the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status > > *now*. > > agreed > thats what many people were afraid of when the ec was awarded to paris. that Who was afraid ? except you ? there are more players in Paris, the playgroup is dynamic and fench people start to distinguish on the tournament scene. There is no hidden reason. > all players are forced to play the french way. in order to prevent that i > suggest that an international panel of judges is used in order to provide > rulings in critical situations. Again, we won't force anyone to play our way. We frenchguys didn't created Jyhad, ya know... We just have our playstyle. We don't think it's better or worse either. Don't jump on this opportunity to say crap. If Judges from all over the world want to come, they are welcome. > e.g: james coupe, carl pilhatsch, some one from spain, italy and so on. > the fun thing is that i heard from many different players who attended > tourneys in france that the french use to gang up on outsiders. (just > hearsay no accusations). This is total bullshit. Your hearsay are lies. you are trying to discredit the french scene from a long time, and hearsay is not enough (since you wrote "no accusation"). We want facts. Else shut up. > > Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and > > non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. > > when playing kindred restructure or dramatic upheaval playing cross table > should not be called colusive( i had 6 kindred restructure in a 70 card > deck) If someone moans, just stand up, talk to the judge and suspicion will vanish. If you are bleeding crosstable, everyone thinks you have a reason to do so. But if the judge says "this guy has no vote to switch place in his deck", then there is a problem. We are not stupid. > > I will make sure that *every* > > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > > your judge is breaking the rules. > > > may be you should provide some of those papers to the french judges! another useless verbiage. What happened ? you had your lolly pop stolen by a french judge when you were a kid ? > > If the European Championships are unable to run themselves under V:EKN > > sanctioning and the rules that that entails, I suggest that all persons > > involved with the Championships resign now and allow a legitimate > > tournament to be run instead. > > amen i would also like to ask jugdes to enforce that english is the table > language and only english should be used when there are players at a table This is plain bullshit. If i want to ask a french guy : how must pool do you have, i have the right to do it in french. But we'll certainly speak english to our european guests. > that only speak english. (i would know if two french players would collude > if the only speak french to each other) this has to be strictly enforced and > penalized So speaking french is colluding ?? I don't know how this is ruled, but what happens in L.A. when two mexican americans exchange words in spanish ? are they immediatly accused of collusion ? your logic stinks. We can still, during tournaments, talk about everything in our native language, we are not robots. And i might add that French people *hate* collusion. If a french guy hears two people talking about colluding the judge will be here to settle an exemple ;) I know someone from portugal had experienced a final where only 2 french people were speaking good english. The other were simply very bad and couldn't use simple english words. But i think that Bleed and block, play card and so on, which were the only words they used, were sufficient there. so, Stefan, i don't understand what the point of your post as except the "me too" thing with sneaky criticism of the french scene. Don't be jaleous, there will still be cool tournaments in austria. it's up to you. reyda

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:16:32 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >So speaking french is colluding ?? I don't know how this is ruled, but what >happens in L.A. when two mexican americans exchange words in spanish ? are >they immediatly accused of collusion ? No, but all communication at a table is to be open is it not? Speaking in french in front of 3 non french speakers is keeping a conversation secret, no matter what the conversation is, or your intentions are, it can lead to unpleasentries. How to remedy this in an international situation....

> > You have absolutely > >no basis to decide whether the tournament will follow or not the VEKN rules > >appropriately. Please don't get carried away because of flaming posts. > > Fact: (Some) Players at Watford were *told* that the Prince of Paris > was going to attempt to enforce this. > > This is not a "flaming post", this is a fact. This is not a "fact", this is a *rumor*. I had the Prince of Paris, Stéphane Lavrut, on the phone just a few minutes ago. He can't post on the newsgroup right now because of a crappy connection. But he did point out that the only thing that will be enforced is the VEKN rule, no more, no less. So, again, and this time I can speak for him, the VP-maximising deals will be allowed in the EC, as they are allowed by the VEKN rules. Stone

> I know someone from portugal had experienced a final where only 2 french > people were speaking good english. The other were simply very bad and > couldn't use simple english words. But i think that Bleed and block, play > card and so on, which were the only words they used, were sufficient there. hmm...who was the second one??? ;-) Stone

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com (snip) > i think it's an unduly-limited view to think that the epitome of the > game is killing your prey. Are you going to ban dramatic upheaval and > Kindred Restructure too? What about Wall decks? No, but target=prey is one of the fundamental mechanics of Jyhad. I play Dramatic upheaval myself, i have nothing particular to say about it. Wall decks, that does nothing against their prey, tend to unbalance the game by giving total freedom to one player who won't have a predator at all 'til the end of the game. Wall games tend to have 2 vp maximum. It's lack of ambition if you want my opinion ;) (snip) > Gee, that's pretty breathtaking. How do you know how someone else > should play their deck which they've constructed? Pierre just told me he had an edge, since he could intercept whatever he wants. he was also playing blood of acid, had 2 copies in his opening hand. I doubt any brujah burned by aggravated damage can easily play disarm, Decapitate, Tast of vitae or this kind of thing. And with the special of Sascha, Pierre could have cycled for the right cards. I've also been tom's prey during the second round. He was'n packing enough dodges or long range damage to avoid the blood of acid nightmare. Again, this is my personal thoughts. > Someone else telling me how i should play my deck is just petty > tyrrany, as far as i'm concerned, and there's ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE > that i will ever knowingly put myself in a position where this might > happen. don't be wrong legbiter (by the way, now we saw each other, we can tell there's a height difference. If you try to legbite me, it will surely be a pain in the ass =] ) I don't want you to change your way of playing th game ! i'm not a preacher ! i'm not a lawyer ! I'm not a tyrant ! I just say what appears right to me. your are free to think i'm wrong ;) but at least i explained why Benoit felt pissed of. (snip) > It doesn't take genius to see that if two combat decks sit down next > to each other they are BOTH doomed unless they do a table-splitting > deal. Carried to its logical conclusion, your position would further > erode the already-low status of combat decks in VTES. mmmm... I must agree on that. Why don't combat decks just pack some Dramatic upheaval, this situation should occur... but there's still something inside me that thinks those two combat decks worked in a different way : and i still think that the Tzimisce had the edge. (snip) > > If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding actions/stealth in > > hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway), if someone transfers out when > > his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. Yes, sir. We > > are not stupid either. But we don't want that this kind of deals spoil the > > fun and make Jyhad look like diplomacy. Players come to the EC to play their > > decks, not to be the puppet of another guy who needs 2 or 3 VP to go to the > > finals. > > Maybe true for some. But many players come to the EC to win by any > means legal within the rules. Are official VEKN rules going to be in > place in Paris, or not? If they are not, i STRONGLY advise you to > publicise the matter. the VEKN rules will be used, sir. We have no interest in imposing our playstile to other people. But still, strange occurences will be examinated. The Prince of Paris may still go backwards on this. But take Benoit's angry words as it is : a word of frustration fro someone who thought it was collusion. Now we know it isn't. > > [to explain it simple : Phil's prey, at 1 or 2 pool, calls vote to switch > > place, and become the prey of his fellow belgian. Then after the vote > > succeds, he transfers out, giving totally undeserved 6 pool and 1 vp to his > > friend who will go to the finals. That sounds like king making for us] > > Again, this is legal. He was in a losing position and chose the manner > of his departure. Yes, we know that, but keep seeing is as "semi-legal"... But the fact is, his move deprived Philippe of the finals. What's the motivation behind such a move ? If you wanna suicide, why give the victory point to someone else ? Can't you recognize that your predator was better than you on this one ? or do you simply don't want a guy from outside your playgroup in the finals ? the reason is still unclear. What if i switched place in watford to give a french fellow player a free 6pool+1 VP and made him sweep the table ? No one on the table should have thought "this is collusion" ? (snip) > A really interesting philosophical difference is apparent from this > post and the other thread. The common ground we share is liking to > play Jyhad for fun. Yes =) > Where we differ is in the definition of fun, at > least in tournament play. this is also true =) > i'm not presuming to tell you how to have > fun, but you appear to think that if me having fun compromises your > fun then i should be penalised. i find this unacceptable. It's a misunderstanding. We don't want you to play in a different way. We want to penalize collusion, and *disencourage* VP split deals. That's all ! don't take Benoit's words seriously : he thought it was collusion when he said that. reyda (see ya legbiter ;] )

>===== Original Message From "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> ===== >Plus, i'm convinced it is no fun at all to *accept this kind* of deal ! >imagine you let your predator call referendums, using your single titled >vamp's vote to let him harm your prey. You are using zero cards from your >deck and don't even actually play it. I can't feel comfortable with that. We >travelled to UK to play, not to sit and watch ;) besides this, we were 4 >french guys in a car, and only Benoît was not qualified amongst us, despite >his deck was very strong and he's a really skilled, cold blooded player. He >missed the qualifiers for 2 vps, which he would have gained if not for the >deal. > Nonsense. Benoit wasn't getting any more VP in that game, deal or not. Did he seriously expect me to impale myself on Pierre's Tzimsce while he sat and smiled? I had more than sufficient intercept and rush to neutralize him and would certainly have done so before putting my minions at risk. The deal only meant that Benoit was ousted after Pierre's prey, not before. Furthermore, had the deal been struck as early as Benoit claimed, he might have failed to get any VP at all. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

>===== Original Message From "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> ===== >"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com > >(snip) > >> i think it's an unduly-limited view to think that the epitome of the >> game is killing your prey. Are you going to ban dramatic upheaval and >> Kindred Restructure too? What about Wall decks? > >No, but target=prey is one of the fundamental mechanics of Jyhad. Yes, one but not the only one. >I play >Dramatic upheaval myself, i have nothing particular to say about it. Wall >decks, that does nothing against their prey, tend to unbalance the game by >giving total freedom to one player who won't have a predator at all 'til the >end of the game. Wall games tend to have 2 vp maximum. It's lack of >ambition if you want my opinion ;) > Perhaps but it's a sensible tournament objective provided the field isn't too large. At 37, Watford's field was too big. The low man for the final had 7 VP I believe. Barney's Tzimisce missed at 6 and a half. >(snip) >> Gee, that's pretty breathtaking. How do you know how someone else >> should play their deck which they've constructed? > >Pierre just told me he had an edge, since he could intercept whatever he >wants. he was also playing blood of acid, had 2 copies in his opening hand. >I doubt any brujah burned by aggravated damage can easily play disarm, >Decapitate, Tast of vitae or this kind of thing. And with the special of >Sascha, Pierre could have cycled for the right cards. >I've also been tom's prey during the second round. He was'n packing enough >dodges or long range damage to avoid the blood of acid nightmare. >Again, this is my personal thoughts. > I knew that too but Pierre didn't. In any case, his minions would have been hurt along the way and his ability to take down his prey and grand-prey would have been compromised. If we tangle, he wrecks me, I cripple him and he struggles against the last man. With the deal, he has a near certain 2 VP and possible 3. > (snip) >> It doesn't take genius to see that if two combat decks sit down next >> to each other they are BOTH doomed unless they do a table-splitting >> deal. Carried to its logical conclusion, your position would further >> erode the already-low status of combat decks in VTES. > >mmmm... I must agree on that. Why don't combat decks just pack some Dramatic >upheaval, this situation should occur... but there's still something inside >me that thinks those two combat decks worked in a different way : and i >still think that the Tzimisce had the edge. > Sure, I had some. Kindred Restructure actually. How am I going to get that passed unless Pierre agrees? In any case, I didn't draw one. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k4etn$v7$1...@neon.noos.net>... > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > > The three votes of Meshenka would be crucial in passing > > votes so Tom offered me the same kind of deal, a table split, both > > combat decks against the rest of the table, allowing me to rake up > > some VPs and then letting him kill me for his points... > > Until there, it sounds pretty good. In this case, it's fair if he promise > not to harm you (with bleeds or votes) and in exchange you let him pass nice > votes likes Anathema or Banishment. No one can refuse this. I do not believe there is such thing as friendly votes. When you deflect your predator's bleed to your prey, you believe that its your own work, that you play your deck efficiently. But basically you create the same situation you mention below, your prey has then to fight off his prey, your predator and yourself and you would not consider that as unfair, would you? nor would i. Table-dealing is just another way of protecting your ressources and maximising your VPs Meshenka's voting power merely acts as vote deflection. I have to invest more for those extra votes so it's seems only normal to be able to use them when the situation arises. If Tom had called Banishment, the only target would have still be my prey, and that could have been even worse than direct pool loss from a KRC...I did not ask Tom to do it but my prey was the only target. Granted he could have waited for me to take out but my great powers of bleed (that is to say near zero, with three Changelings and one Pulse) it might have taken the whole two hours leaving Tom with 1/2 VP, not a very nice prospect. So in order to maximise his VPs under the deal we agreed upon, Tom had to help take out my prey. > >It sounded pretty good, giving me the opportunity to build up undisturbed. > (snip) > > i accepted the deal and Tom proceeded to damage my prey with > > his unblocked votes (Parity shift and KRC). > > That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. First of there is no need for that kind of language, i believe the English language is rich enough to keep the discussion in civilised terms. Anyway... > Because you > prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do > anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now : > Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of winning. Yes, isn't that the point of it all? To deny my prey any hopes of victory? The game is not supposed to be fair. You pick on the weak, you will bleed for 8 when your prey has had all his minions kicked in torpor. Fair would be to allow your prey to rebuild to have a chance of blocking you that's fair. You would rush some vamp that can't fight back unless rushing Beast with Lupo could somehow further your interests, would you not? Let's not forget the game we play, although i'm very much against collusion (like the example you quoted from the Belgian Qualifier), i believe that anything in-game is fine, many cards are designed to increase players interactivity and cross-table actions such as votes or burnable locations, to say nothing of the Powerbase:Montreal or the Fragment. > This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to give > a chance to every player. In that kind of case, no matter your level or your > deck, you will end beaten up. I disagree. Forbidding or limiting deals will only give sneak-bleed decks and full-on prey-oriented decks the run of the tournament. A lot of viable strategies cannot be played. I do like to play Tzimisce and have been for years now, and deals come naturally for a deck that can efficiently react to any danger coming its way. I actually played my deck the way i intended; like many rush decks, you usually attack your predator and cripple them enough to make them concentrate on their own predator. I knew that i didn't have a lot of forward motion so it's more of a waiting game. Recently with Rob and the guys, we have been discussing the benefits of slow development and non-threatening actions, and we did find quite a few advantages over those decks which come out of the starting blocks far too strong. It appears to be very interesting to stabilise the table, preventing one player from sweeping the table, hence becoming a real threat to your own chance for VPs, and if that requires cross-table rushes and votes so be it. I will have no remorse whatsoever to take out, mmm let's say Arika :) across the table if i think that there is probability for that player to vote me out or sweep the table, leaving me with nothing. >That's why Benoit was irritated by the deal, > and i understand his feelings. > > > As expected player B > > quickly fell to Benoit, which suited me fine because now we could > > split the remaining VPs evenly between Tom and myself :) > > so, the only guy at the table who played his deck efficiently, effectively > killing his prey with no other people's help, was the one penalized by your > deal. That shows an inability to adapt to the situation. Deal-making brings the whole game up one level and it's that extra level that imho makes the game so interesting to play. If you prefer something that only consider its one opponent then maybe it's the time to move away from multiplayer games. MTG has proven that no-brainer 100% aggressive decks can do pretty well (some of us remember the days of Sligh decks or the mono-red direct damage) or maybe one-on-one VTES *shudder* > It is unfair and absurd for us french guys. We don't even talk about > VP, we are talking about enjoying the game and feeling one own's deck > succeding. So if i understand correctly, the EC will be played according to what i would call French house rules. No deals allowed because the French players don't like them or just can't handle them. May i remind you that the E stands for European and not for Exclusively-French. It seems that Belgians deal as well, i'd be curious to see what the other countries think about the table-splitting deals. I think that this is a critical point. The fact that some rules can be added or other suspended (like the NRA for the Final Nights pre-release) for official tournaments makes me wonder what's next. As Robert Goudie pointed out somewhere else in this thread that, and i quote, "table-splitting deals are not inherently illegal and therefore cannot be banned wholesale from an official V:EKN event" So the whole point of French players not liking deals and wanting to forbid them is actually moot. Deals will happen and i truly intend to come down to the EC with a pure deal-making deck :) I see all that as a weakness of the French metagame and i'll be damned if i don't use it. The same way if i knew that nobody plays deflections then i would capitalise on that fact when i choose my deck. > > I knew that if Tom and I were to attack each other the results would > > have been dramatic for the both of us, me probably blocking and > > killing a few of his voters and him sending in torpor some of mine. > > Well, you don't know. Maybe you would have killed his vamps. Maybe he would > have killed yours. But at least you would have played your decks the rigth > way, both of you. Sitting and watching another guy killing my pre for me is > just not fun for me. (nothing personal Pierre =) i think you're a cool > person ! ) Again, this is the kind of deal we want to avoid in the European > Champ. Why? because you French players (or is it only Paris? anybody from the other playgroups?) don't like that? Again i'm calling all the European players who intend on attending the EC to come forward and tell us if they do deals and how they would feel if that whole aspect of the game was banned. > > Anyway, this alliance really pissed off Benoit (as far as i know he > > was the French player mentionned by James) and definately ruined his > > chances to get anymore VPs. > > Yes. i understand his feeling. So did i, i have been on the recieving end of such deals more than a few times. > > He told me that this kind of > > table-splitting deals was going to be forbidden at the EC, that > > referees will be able to look at your hand and prevent your deal, that > > Tom and I were friends and hence colluding. > (snip) > > I couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you made > the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. Actually, the table-splitting was not set immediately. When my grand-predator started influencing out many dominate weenies, i simply told Tom that i would not go upstream to kick him (or attempt to). Still i thought i was going to be the target for a nasty Parity Shift, and i was ready to defend myself should that has happened. > You didn't > entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought you > were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other but what was the point to attack Tom once the deal was struck? That would be very counter-productive and would certainly brand me as a deal-breaker, bad. > > Anyway the fact that table-dealing will be limited or even forbidden > > in Paris truly is a great cause for concern. I would like to see an > > official quote from the powers that be (LSJ, Carl...) I find it > > critical for this matter to be solved as fast and as completely as > > possible, otherwise i can definately promise much bodily harm and > > table flipping in September :P And that would be a shame. > > If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding actions/stealth in > hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway) right, how can a judge or anybody else for that matter, can rule that i should go for it and risk weakening my position if myself, knowing my deck and its abilities, does not wish to perform the action. Example: my prey is on one pool, judge is called and it is found that i have a changeling in hand. So what happens now? Am I to get a warning for not finishing off my prey? I'd rather wait, let my prey damage his prey, facilitating my work, or block his actions, kicking his vamps into torpor to be able to finally bleed him out. With the existence of such cards as Deflection, Pack Tactics and WWEF, you can never be 100% sure to get a bleed through. The situation must be extremely clear for the judge to able to take a decision and i don't think that happens really often. > if someone transfers out when > his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. Yes, sir. That's your right. But how do you come to assess "chances of winning"? do you have some kind of table that consider every single factor in the game? Unlikely, so it will simply be the judge perception of your deck through his assessment of your hand and the cards in play. "you have stealth, you must bleed!"....i'm sorry but that's really bad judging. Having seen the great job James did last Saturday, a judge should be around to answer rules questions and prevent obvious collusion, not force players' moves on the basis of his analysis of the game in progress. > We > are not stupid either. But we don't want that this kind of deals spoil the > fun and make Jyhad look like diplomacy. Players come to the EC to play their > decks, not to be the puppet of another guy who needs 2 or 3 VP to go to the > finals. Actually i like the fact that VTES has a strong Diplomacy flavour. I do not pretend to speak for other than myself but i happen to believe i am not the only one. Quelling this aspect of the game would imho lower VTES to the level of MTG with all that entails... > > I do not think the language barrier was an issue there, as far as i > > can tell, all the foreign players were able to express themselves in > > English and could explain the situation clearly enough for James to > > take a decision if needed. In any case, Reyda was around and could > > have been called for some help or myself even, also i might now be > > regarded as a traitor by my fellow countrymen :) > > Yes ! you are british now ! but you are still cool ;) > I think benoit thought you were playing by the same rules. Benoit did tell me afterwards that the whole French group didn't know this way of playing (deal making that is) was so strong around here and hence was unprepared for it. But when i did go to Paris for a couple of tournaments and got Pentex Sub'd by my bleedy predator, i did manage to pass deals with my own prey for him to blow up the Pentex while i would hold off my predator. So French players do make deals, it is my understanding that the decks they play just don't create those situations where dealing can ensure VPs. > I must add that > he and Philippe (the other qualified french player) were ousted in a belgian > tournament in a totall collusive way and still have a bitter taste in the > mouth from it. > [to explain it simple : Phil's prey, at 1 or 2 pool, calls vote to switch > place, and become the prey of his fellow belgian. Then after the vote > succeds, he transfers out, giving totally undeserved 6 pool and 1 vp to his > friend who will go to the finals. That sounds like king making for us] That sounds like a very questionable move to me as well. But nothing close to this happened in Watford. > > > Any comments from the French guys? > > Yes ! plenty of comments. Also read the thread is started above =) > > (snip) > ABOUT FRANCOIS' "TURBO ARIKA DECK" =) > > > I really like the deck concept and the balls it took Francois to play > > it :) But i do not think it is invicible. No masters means no ToR3, > > Zilliah's Valley or other accelerators...therefore it gives the rest > > of the table about three turns to build up an answer. It occured to me > > that this deck must prompt a table response as soon as Arika hits the > > table. It is definately extremely powerful and deadly when ppl don't > > know what to expect, but as Francois experienced it during the final, > > once the info is out about what the deck does it's nearly game over. > > yes. And everybody around talked about his deck, so almost everyone knew it > was the #1 threat. > > > The major problem with the deck is the concept of "tunnel vision" > talking about the channel tunnel... next time, take the ferry, go to the deck and look around. There is much more than just what's ahead ;) > > Being totally prey oriented with very limited defences can cut the > > mustard in Paris but over here it has proven to be rather more > > difficult as only two of this kind of deck made it to the finals. > > i'm sure you meant "cut the mayonnaise" =) > Don't be fooled ! there is as many people who play toolbox than people who > play focus decks in france. This Turbo Arika deck is just an aberration, a > focused to the limit deck. Kind of freaky experiment =) Well it did work, didn't it? You can expect some clones popping up everywhere > See you Pierre =) I'll mail you for the E.C soon ! Although i do hope i'll be able to help the English contingent organising the trip, i seriously consider not bothering to attend the EC if table-dealing is going to be that neutered...Anyway we'll see how everything goes until then. P.

Pierre wrote: > a critical point. The fact that some rules can be added or other > suspended (like the NRA for the Final Nights pre-release) for official > tournaments makes me wonder what's next. As Robert Goudie pointed out The NRA rule was not suspended for the Final Nights prerelease. It was not applicable, so it was not applied. See the V:EKN rules. Also note that the pre-release events were all unsanctioned - meaning that the duty to follow the V:EKN rules was absent. > Again i'm calling all the European > players who intend on attending the EC to come forward and tell us if > they do deals and how they would feel if that whole aspect of the game > was banned. The question is moot, since the EC is a sanctioned event and will therefore follow the V:EKN rules (a fact which precludes making legal activity illegal). -- 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/

>===== Original Message From "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> ===== >"Tom Kassel" <thomas...@ntlworld.com> > >> > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> > >(snip) > >> I disagree completely, obviously. Two players announce publicly that >> they are splitting the table. That leaves the remaining three players >> to make a suitable response. They have several choices. Individuals >> might offer better (i.e. more reliable or attractive)deals to one of >> the pair, the three might cooperate to defeat the dealmakers, or >> individuals may try to oust their prey quickly before the dealmakers >> gain momentum. In practice, the last alternative is often adopted but >> it isn't the only choice. Benoit could certainly have relaxed the >> onslaught against his prey and turned his cryptic missions against me >> in return for his prey blocking my votes. > >I understand that. There are ways to cooperate, but it's difficult to set up >something when you have zero experience of table split dealing players : you >are just destabilized =) I think this stability thing can be overrated. :-) >And i doubt Benoit's english is good enough to make >an alliance and join them in vendetta against the dealers. Vendetta would, I believe, be against the rules, unless the players were trying to maximize their VP. Maximizing fun doesn't count. >Just one thing : was his prey really able to block your votes ? or is it >speculation ? > It would be a wild hope as he hadn't been able to intercept Benoit's too effectively but he could always claim that he had finally drawn into some intercept. (I can't remember his minions well enough to know it that would have been at all credible). >(snip) > >> The object of the game is VP. You get no extra points if you solely >> damage your prey. This is a multi-player game and it seems only >> sensible to enlist cooperation from other players whenever >> appropriate. > >The object of tournament is VP. The object of the game is to have fun. You >get extra self esteem bonus if you enjoy your own deck and play it well. But fun and playing well are highly subjective concepts. >Cooperation is a thing, complete wedding is another. I'm just seeing that >with my frenchman eyes, Tom ;) > There was no consummation in any case. :-) >> The whole enterprise is manifestly unfair, of course. > >Yes. It was unfair. Agreed, provided "It" refers to the game not the deal. > >> Seating order alone will screw the best designed decks. Dealmaking >> tends to reduce that particular lottery, provided that you choose a >> deck type which can act where it wishes rather than solely against its >> prey. I greatly prefer this kind of deck to purely speedy prey >> destruction, but tastes vary. > >I prefer to have support from what you may call a " temporary ally" on the >other side of the table. But i don't forget that, the point is using my deck >for killing prey, for VP and pool gain. > The point is VP. An English strategist once propounded the theory of the indirect approach which seems to apply to VTES at times. > > (snip) > >> > I couldn't know whether you were friends or not, but the fact is you >made >> > the deal at the very beginning of the game, firsts vamp out. You didn't >> > entered combat or something, so you took no risk. That's why he thought >you >> > were friends since you didn't even wanted to try to harm each other >> > >> That is simply untrue. My first action in the game was a KRC against >> Pierre. > >Okay, i must have misunderstood what Pierre said : he told me you never >entered combat (he played a tzimisce intercept deck) and he had 2 blood of >acid in hand when Jimmy Dunn came out. That must hurt ;) > He's correct there, no combat but not no hostile action. >> The deal was made later, when Benoit was already well advanced in >> destroying his prey. Benoit's prey, by the way, didn't greatly enjoy >> the way his position was demolished (entirely by Benoit - well, >> perhaps, not quite. I might have intercepted someone and binned him). >> That's the way it goes. Sometimes you get screwed. Tough. > >Sure Benoit's prey did not enjoyed the edge his predator had, and it's hard >to be screwed but it's part of the game ! your predator is here to kill you >anyway =) But now imagine Pierre's prey !! the guy took damage from KRC's >from his Grand predator ! he had no mean to intercept those, that's pretty >unfair... No, just pretty unfortunate. Perhaps he should have packed some vote defence. In any case, he wasn't complaining. >And it breaks the Prey predator relationship. >For benoît, collusion or not, the way you played broke the basic rules of >jyhad No, it just broke the convention with which he was comfortable. >: two people gang up to snatch the VP without paying attention to >who's whose prey. Maximizing VP's is not maximizing fun. But, hey, it's >tournament mind.... sometime you get screwed (remember your disarmed brujahs >=) i should have munched Donal at this time ! ) Only justified (and legal) if indicated by in-game considerations. Upsetting a countryman in a later game doesn't count. Presumably you would have done so if it had seemed sound strategy at the time. >, but sometimes it's really >bitter than usual because you realize that no matter how good you played, >some unholy alliance took the VP's out of your reach. > As I said in another thread, I don't think the deal had any affect on the VP Benoit could gain. His only hopes relied on me self-destructing in a way that I did not intend to do. >I repeat again : at the EC, we will play the standard VEKN Rules. But we >will examine suspicious deals. That's all. > >Hope to see you soon, Tom ! it was damn fun playing with you ! Do you plan >to come to the EC ? > I was glad to meet you too, Reyda. It's always nice to know faces behind the posts. Sadly you won't see me at the EC. One deal too few. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > So if i understand correctly, the EC will be played according to what > i would call French house rules. you understood incorrrectly. No deals allowed because the French > players don't like them or just can't handle them. May i remind you > that the E stands for European and not for Exclusively-French. may I remind you that other posts in this thread made it clear all the VEKN rules will be applied to the EC. So chill. Stone (snip) > pure deal-making deck :) I see all that as a weakness of the French > metagame and i'll be damned if i don't use it. The same way if i knew > that nobody plays deflections then i would capitalise on that fact > when i choose my deck. French posts are on thing. French metagame is another. I know many damn good french players who cannot afford an internet connection, or who don't have enough time to follow each and every post in the newsgroup. Stone

Reyda wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: > > I'm very sorry, but if the European Championships are going to be run in > > a manner where: > > > > - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled > > - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled > > - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled > > > > the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status > > *now*. > > don't get me wrong. we know what the rules are. We cannot forbid this kind > of deal. We just want to strongly *discourage* them. I hope there is no sanctioned tournament that is being judged or run in a way that has bias for or against any legal playing style. It is never the role of the judges or organizers to encourage or discourage any particular strategies or tactics, no matter how they may feel about them as players. If your group does not like something about how the game is played now, I would encourage you to work with Scott and White Wolf to correct the problem in the best way possible. And in the case of VP splitting, I'd love to see some progress in this regard - but not by communicating to players that certain ways of playing are "good ways" and others are "bad ways". Fred

In message <9k64t9$cri$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >> Fact: (Some) Players at Watford were *told* that the Prince of Paris >> was going to attempt to enforce this. >> >> This is not a "flaming post", this is a fact. > >This is not a "fact", this is a *rumor*. Re-read what I wrote. It is a fact that this is what was being said. *sigh* [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9k6e4s$3eg$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >> So if i understand correctly, the EC will be played according to what >> i would call French house rules. > >you understood incorrrectly. Then you need to, very quickly, take hold of every French player you know and tell them to stop lying and promoting illegal activities. Attempting to rig a tournament in this fashion is *extremely* serious. [ quoted text not captured ]

Reyda <re...@noos.fr> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 9k63j1$t08$1...@neon.noos.net... > > "SF" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> > > Before we go on criticism, i just want to say that most of what Stefano, first its stefan, > Said is not innocent at all. He tried hard to have the EC organized in > austria, and failed. This year's EC are held in Paris and he is simply not > happy with that. Now that you have read this disclaimer, you can continue > your reading ;) > when would i have tried to have the ec in vienna. i dont´t have anything to do with vekn politics, i don´t organize tourneys, nor do i care were the are held. more so i prefer paris to some other places in europe because it can be reached easily. i totally agree that the ec should not be held in the same place every year. so stop lying. i am just a normal vtes player who is afraid that after spending a lot of money he will be disappointed by some unfair rulings. > > Who was afraid ? except you ? there are more players in Paris, the playgroup > is dynamic and fench people start to distinguish on the tournament scene. > There is no hidden reason. > who said something about hidden reasons? but as a fact a lot of players voiced concerns about the ec in paris. > > all players are forced to play the french way. in order to prevent that i > > suggest that an international panel of judges is used in order to provide > > rulings in critical situations. > > Again, we won't force anyone to play our way. We frenchguys didn't created > Jyhad, ya know... We just have our playstyle. We don't think it's better or > worse either. Don't jump on this opportunity to say crap. If Judges from all > over the world want to come, they are welcome you said that deals that leave a player without any chance will not be allowed. > > e.g: james coupe, carl pilhatsch, some one from spain, italy and so on. > > the fun thing is that i heard from many different players who attended > > tourneys in france that the french use to gang up on outsiders. (just > > hearsay no accusations). > > This is total bullshit. Your hearsay are lies. you are trying to discredit > the french scene from a long time, and hearsay is not enough (since you > wrote "no accusation"). We want facts. Else shut up. > i never ever wrote anything about the french scene. you must mistaking me with someone else. since i had no facts i said it is hearsay. > > > I will make sure that *every* > > > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > > > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > > > your judge is breaking the rules. > > > > > may be you should provide some of those papers to the french judges! > > another useless verbiage. What happened ? you had your lolly pop stolen by > a french judge when you were a kid ? talking about useless verbiage. you said that judges will rule against legal deals, so i assumed they must not have read the rules, since i don´t think the would rule unfair on purpose. > > > > amen i would also like to ask jugdes to enforce that english is the table > > language and only english should be used when there are players at a table > > This is plain bullshit. If i want to ask a french guy : how must pool do you > have, i have the right to do it in french. But we'll certainly speak english > to our european guests. > NO YOU HAVE TO SPEAK ENGLISH ALL THE TIME DURING A GAME WERE NON FRENCH SPEAKING PLAYERS ARE INVOLVED. all communication is open during the game. since it is an english game english is the table language. > > that only speak english. (i would know if two french players would collude > > if the only speak french to each other) this has to be strictly enforced > and > > penalized > > So speaking french is colluding ?? I don't know how this is ruled, but what > happens in L.A. when two mexican americans exchange words in spanish ? are > they immediatly accused of collusion ? your logic stinks. We can still, > during tournaments, talk about everything in our native language, we are not > robots. And i might add that French people *hate* collusion. If a french guy > hears two people talking about colluding the judge will be here to settle an > exemple ;) > my mistake i meant i would NOT know if ...... but during a game were a foreigner is present you are not allowed to speak french only english. . > > so, Stefan, i don't understand what the point of your post as except the > "me too" thing with sneaky criticism of the french scene. Don't be jaleous, > there will still be cool tournaments in austria. it's up to you. no i voice concern about stuff you wrote about deal making i am not jealous, i have nothing to do with tournament in austria stefan > > reyda > > >

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > > >> Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and > >> non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. I will make sure that *every* > >> player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > >> legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > >> your judge is breaking the rules. > > > >You heard it here first. If you carry with you a copy of the rules, > >you, as a player, are entitled to overrule the judge on hand. > > Who said anything about overruling them? I said prove they're wrong. All can read what you said 8 lines up. You described a relatively clear recipe for long arguments with tournament judges. If you didn't mean anything about overruling judges, why did you say "you *cannot* stop it" (implying that judges will be enjoined from their rulings by the pintout-armed UK players). From what I've read, you are a tournament judge, and apparently a very good one, which is why I'm bewildered as to why you would promote such an activity. When the head judge says "that's my ruling," it doesn't matter how many print-outs anyone is armed with, and the judge is not obliged to stick around while he's "proved" to be "breaking the rules." > >Coupe, I don't care how angry you are at whatever was suggested > >by those stung by early table-split deals, you dare not suggest > >such a thing. > > F*ck off you tedious sanctimonious little w*nker. And apparently you are very angry indeed. You got tripped up by your own sanctimony about how the UK contingent was going to lay down the law with rulings printouts from the newsgroup, and now are trying to insult your way out of it. Stop. > Players have every right to expect to play by the rules. You clearly > don't have a clue what the f*ck they are. Players have no right to overturn a final decision by the head tournament judge, and even to suggest that they can (or that it is useful to carry around enough newsgroup literature to "prove that your judge is breaking the rules" in the face of such a decision) will make tournaments more time consuming and contentious. You know that this is right (as does anyone who has played in a judged deckmaster event and watched a rules lawyer try to bend a judge to his will), and you'll not back me down with your insulting mud slinging. Say something that's true, and I'll agree, say something that's insulting, and you'll just get my dander up and diminish the discussion and the newsgroup. > >There is no way organized tournaments could survive > >the idea that players can trump official judges; right, might, or > >whatever. > > Then judges must play by the official rules. This can only be corrected *after* a sanctioned tournament has been judged incorrectly by removing any sanctioning for future events judged by that person or group (or if the official judge or sponsoring organization promotes the rules deviation before the event, sanctioning could be stripped beforehand). Note that the frustrated statements of some of the European players after watching a very early table-splitting deal does not qualify as the latter. In any event, deputising the UK contingent with a ream of computer printouts is not acceptable. I've seen entire Magic Pro Tour qualifiers decided by a head judge incorrectly ruling on a card combination in violation of the rules, and that's really bad. I've had a friend disqualified from the finals match of another PT qualifier because he asked the judge why there was a delay. But these things would have been yet worse if the entire thing had been dragged out by some group of people who felt that they were empowered to spend whatever time it took in some futile attempt to show up the judge. - Jason Bell

> The concept of collusion *with a lot of players* is any deal that screws > them over. Case in point, I believe it was Matt Green (please someone correct me if I am wrong) who said, during the finals of the Watford tourny I attended, that it was collusion that I was ousting myself (via transfers) to give Legbiter the VP that Matt would have otherwise gotten his next turn after he traded places with Leggy. Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

In message <%kF97.64136$TM5.7...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Who said anything about overruling them? I said prove they're wrong. > >All can read what you said 8 lines up. You described a relatively >clear recipe for long arguments with tournament judges. Certainly. As LSJ has said, all players are free to discuss with a judge as to why they feel what they have done is valid play. Judges sometimes make mistakes and appreciate the catch. If the judge is not making a mistake, and is actively seeking to undermine the rules, I would note that it is they who produce a "clear recipe for long arguments". [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: zTaMZFEs...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9k64t9$cri$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> > writes > >> Fact: (Some) Players at Watford were *told* that the Prince of Paris > >> was going to attempt to enforce this. > >> > >> This is not a "flaming post", this is a fact. > > > >This is not a "fact", this is a *rumor*. > > Re-read what I wrote. It is a fact that this is what was being said. > > *sigh* sure. and some people are *told* that Aliens rule the world. Others are *told* that Santa Claus exists. Brilliant. *sigh* Stone

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: uzILxZGm...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9k6e4s$3eg$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> > writes > >> So if i understand correctly, the EC will be played according to what > >> i would call French house rules. > > > >you understood incorrrectly. > > Then you need to, very quickly, take hold of every French player you > know and tell them to stop lying and promoting illegal activities. > > Attempting to rig a tournament in this fashion is *extremely* serious. Reyda already made it plain in earlier posts it was a misunderstanding. I already posted that the VEKN rules will be applied at the EC. I can say this for sure since I will be one of the judges, and I speak on behalf of Stéphane Lavrut, Prince of Paris, co-organizer of the EC and Head Judge. Stone

In message <9k7an2$k60$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >> >This is not a "fact", this is a *rumor*. >> >> Re-read what I wrote. It is a fact that this is what was being said. >> >> *sigh* > >sure. and some people are *told* that Aliens rule the world. Others are >*told* that Santa Claus exists. These rumours are not coming from unknown crack-pots, however. These are coming from players heavily involved in the Paris scene, so far as I can tell. When such rumours come from credible sources, far, far more attention is paid to them. The difference should be obvious. Reyda has repeated, on here, that such tactics are going to be actively discouraged. Message-ID: <9k60qj$pgv$1...@neon.noos.net> specifically states this. From what and where are these players getting these notions? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <0CF97.116$5d.1...@newshog.newsread.com>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> writes >> The concept of collusion *with a lot of players* is any deal that screws >> them over. > >Case in point, I believe it was Matt Green (please someone correct >me if I am wrong) who said, during the finals of the Watford tourny >I attended, that it was collusion that I was ousting myself (via transfers) >to give Legbiter the VP that Matt would have otherwise gotten his >next turn after he traded places with Leggy. It was him who said it, but it was not collusion nor upheld. You were going to die and can choose the manner of your ousting. I believe Matt's words were driven more by the moment than anything. There are, however, many players who don't understand the concept of collusion *at all*. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> The concept of collusion *with a lot of players* is any deal that screws > >> them over. > >Case in point, I believe it was Matt Green (please someone correct > >me if I am wrong) who said, during the finals of the Watford tourny > >I attended, that it was collusion that I was ousting myself (via transfers) > >to give Legbiter the VP that Matt would have otherwise gotten his > >next turn after he traded places with Leggy. > It was him who said it, but it was not collusion nor upheld. You were > going to die and can choose the manner of your ousting. I believe > Matt's words were driven more by the moment than anything. Indeed. Wasn't this what you were trying to point out? I was just illustrating an example. Or maybe I'm having brain freeze and that's not what you were saying at all... Never mind me... Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<9k6e4s$3eg$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > So if i understand correctly, the EC will be played according to what > > i would call French house rules. > > you understood incorrrectly. No. Benoit did tell me and repeated the fact many times. I know it's been a while since the last time i spoke French but i don't believe I'm that rusty. The message was clear and simple: "The Prince of Paris will forbid this kind of deal", "Table-dealing like VP split will be forbidden" Man, difficult to get clearer than that. But now if Benoit was deliberately spreading that fact then you (and i mean the ppl who are in charge of the EC) better sort him out quickly and post an official quote from the Prince of Paris as soon as possible. I understand he might have some difficulties posting but you don't seem to experience the same problem so I believe he should be able to clarify everything (through you) before things really get much worse. > No deals allowed because the French > > players don't like them or just can't handle them. May i remind you > > that the E stands for European and not for Exclusively-French. > > may I remind you that other posts in this thread made it clear all the VEKN > rules will be applied to the EC. So chill. Why should i chill? I might be ok for you but when i'm going to fork out some money to come to Paris, it better be worth it. If it's only to be told that i can't play according to the official rules then i fail to see the point of the expense. I do not wish to slag off Benoit because he seemed to genuinely believe what he said as were some of the other players, so they must have heard that from somewhere. Philippe being the Tremere primogen, he must have access to info directly from Stephane so must know (hopefully) what's going on. If the prince never said what Benoit seems to believe then please may one of the organiser come forward and enlighten us all. One way or the other, an official response is needed now. > > pure deal-making deck :) I see all that as a weakness of the French > > metagame and i'll be damned if i don't use it. The same way if i knew > > that nobody plays deflections then i would capitalise on that fact > > when i choose my deck. > > French posts are on thing. French metagame is another. I know many damn good > french players who cannot afford an internet connection, or who don't have > enough time to follow each and every post in the newsgroup. Agreed, only a certain proportion of players has access to the net and care to post. But still the general upset of the French delegation in Watford after the table-splitting deals clearly shows that (and even Reyda agrees to that) they were unprepared for that level of dealing. IIRC those players who braved the Channel and the famous summer heat of England are good players and frequently attend tournaments and play sessions. Therefore if they were unprepared, it seems that there is a general lack of deals in the Paris scene...French posts are an indication of the French metagame, and anyway if i misread the metagame, it's my own mistake. I'm not basing my assessment of the metagame only on posts anyway. Some decks can do well regardless anyway. P.

"SF" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<9k60hc$st6$1...@www.univie.ac.at>... > > >That is absolut *bullshit* (or cowmerde if you want) for us. Because you > > >prey is killed by someone else's than his predator, and he even cannot do > > >anything to intercept it. The victim is doomed. He has Three enemies now > > > >Prey, Predator and Grand predator. He has absolutely no chance of > winning. > > >This is the kind of thing we want to avoid at the Europeans. We want to > give > > >a chance to every player. > > > > I'm very sorry, but if the European Championships are going to be run in > > a manner where: > > > > - the tournament rules are going to be over-ruled > > - legitimate deals are going to be over-ruled > > - LSJ's posts on how VP maximising deals work are going to be over-ruled > > > > the European Championships must relinquish V:EKN sanctioned status > > *now*. > > agreed > thats what many people were afraid of when the ec was awarded to paris. that > all players are forced to play the french way. in order to prevent that i > suggest that an international panel of judges is used in order to provide > rulings in critical situations. > e.g: james coupe, carl pilhatsch, some one from spain, italy and so on. I definately second that. The multi-judge system has proven its worth and having a judge (or playing judge) from each country would definately alleviate some of the worries exposed in this thread. I would be very suspicious of an all-French judging team, especially after this thread. Like you said each country could elect/volunteer one of them to act as some emergency judge who would be called in when/if the situation requires it. > the fun thing is that i heard from many different players who attended > tourneys in france that the french use to gang up on outsiders. (just > hearsay no accusations). Honestly i would be inclined not to believe that. But then again i could be wrong :P > > Some things may certainly come cross-table. If it's VP maximising and > > non-collusive, you *cannot* stop it. > > when playing kindred restructure or dramatic upheaval playing cross table > should not be called colusive( i had 6 kindred restructure in a 70 card > deck) > > > I will make sure that *every* > > player from the UK is provided with print-outs of as many rulings on > > legitimate VP maximising deals as is necessary for them to prove that > > your judge is breaking the rules. > > may be you should provide some of those papers to the french judges! The idea would be to distribute copies to everybody at the EC :) Hopefully the situation will be sorted and will not warrant the mass-production of such leaflets. > > If the European Championships are unable to run themselves under V:EKN > > sanctioning and the rules that that entails, I suggest that all persons > > involved with the Championships resign now and allow a legitimate > > tournament to be run instead. > > amen i would also like to ask jugdes to enforce that english is the table > language and only english should be used when there are players at a table > that only speak english. (i would know if two french players would collude > if the only speak french to each other) this has to be strictly enforced and > penalized Agreed again. However i can understand that some players will be at the advantage due to the fact that they are English or practice the language on a regular basis as opposed to players who only know what their cards do and have never actually spoken it. That's why having multi-lingual judges seems even more important to me. Having the opportunity to call a judge for some needed translation can help the EC run more smoothly imho. P.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> (snip) > >sure. and some people are *told* that Aliens rule the world. Others are > >*told* that Santa Claus exists. > > These rumours are not coming from unknown crack-pots, however. These > are coming from players heavily involved in the Paris scene, so far as I > can tell. Benoit is in now way involved in the Paris scene organisation. He is just a fellow player, and a pretty good one. The only french guy you saw, who is currently involved is Philippe Lang (Vekn primogen), the third qualified for the EC. (snip) > Reyda has repeated, on here, that such tactics are going to be actively > discouraged. Message-ID: <9k60qj$pgv$1...@neon.noos.net> specifically > states this. From what and where are these players getting these > notions? We will find a way to encourage active play instead of Vp split deals.

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 1ba5ca76.01073...@posting.google.com... > "Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<9k6e4s$3eg$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > > > So if i understand correctly, the EC will be played according to what > > > i would call French house rules. > > > > you understood incorrrectly. > > No. Benoit did tell me and repeated the fact many times. I know it's > been a while since the last time i spoke French but i don't believe > I'm that rusty. The message was clear and simple: "The Prince of Paris > will forbid this kind of deal", "Table-dealing like VP split will be > forbidden" Man, difficult to get clearer than that. But now if Benoit > was deliberately spreading that fact then you (and i mean the ppl who > are in charge of the EC) better sort him out quickly and post an > official quote from the Prince of Paris as soon as possible. I did already. 2 or 3 times. The quote, I mean, not sorting benoit out ;-) I havent got much input yet from the french people who attended the tournament. But this must be a misunderstanding due to the fact that benoit must have been pissed. Reyda already posted that there was also a misunderstanding. So, for the last time (hopefully), speaking on behalf of the organizers: The EC will follow *all* VEKN rules. This means VP-deals will be allowed as long as they are not collusion. I > understand he might have some difficulties posting but you don't seem > to experience the same problem so I believe he should be able to > clarify everything (through you) before things really get much worse. Again, I have done this already, in this thread. (snip) > > Why should i chill? I might be ok for you but when i'm going to fork > out some money to come to Paris, it better be worth it. Agreed. If it's only > to be told that i can't play according to the official rules then i > fail to see the point of the expense. I do not wish to slag off Benoit > because he seemed to genuinely believe what he said as were some of > the other players, so they must have heard that from somewhere. Maybe he misunderstood what 'collusion' exactly means. > Philippe being the Tremere primogen, he must have access to info > directly from Stephane so must know (hopefully) what's going on. If > the prince never said what Benoit seems to believe then please may one > of the organiser come forward and enlighten us all. One way or the > other, an official response is needed now. Say, you don't believe me or what? My real name is Pierre Tran-Van (Stone, Pierre...stupid nickname, I know :) ) http://www.multimania.com/ec2001/ I'm on the contact lists. No, I'm not 'Primogen' of anything. Or do you want the Prince of Paris to post himself??? And besides, LSJ already posted that he felt comfident in Stephane's ability to run the EC correctly. Or are you willing only to believe only people who posted 5 times a day? (snip) > Agreed, only a certain proportion of players has access to the net and > care to post. But still the general upset of the French delegation in > Watford after the table-splitting deals clearly shows that (and even > Reyda agrees to that) they were unprepared for that level of dealing. > IIRC those players who braved the Channel and the famous summer heat > of England are good players and frequently attend tournaments and play > sessions. Therefore if they were unprepared, it seems that there is a > general lack of deals in the Paris scene...French posts are an > indication of the French metagame, and anyway if i misread the > metagame, it's my own mistake. I'm not basing my assessment of the > metagame only on posts anyway. Some decks can do well regardless > anyway. Well, for me french (or whatever) posts are an indication of an individual's opinions and feelings, not necessarily being representative of a group. Besides, many people don't play at tournaments. So their gamestyle are different. Anyway, from what I have seen it is true VP deals are not common from what I've seen in France. This doesn't mean we can't handle it. Unless french people are well-known to be narrow-minded? I hope not. I mean, let's make this clear. All the french people who participate in organising the EC are a bunch of passionated players, who were delighted when White Wolf revived the game. As with all TCGs, they know full well a tournament scene is needed to make the game prosper. This is not a PR-like statement, but merely the truth. It turns out the tournament scene is run by the VEKN. This means french tournaments *must* abide by the VEKN rules in order to be sanctioned. This means the EC will abide by the VEKN rules. Do you seriously think the 15-20 people or so who contribute to the organization are a crowd of blind fools, who will say 'we don't like VP deals. So don't do any deal of that kind, or we'll screw you for good. And it's our country, so if you don't like our rules, get lost. And start speaking french. We won't tolerate any foreign language here.'? Jeez. Stone

In message <9k7kcu$ftt$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >We will find a way to encourage active play instead of Vp split deals. This is utterly, utterly stupid. You have been told many times that this style of play is in no way illegal and that attempting to engineer a tournament such that it fits the Paris play-style rather than the sanctioned rules is *not* allowable under the V:EKN rules. What you are asking for is not to run the European Championships. The person who comes out the other end won't be the Champion. They'll be the European Champion Except Maybe Possibly One Of The Players Who Was Encouraged To Change His Playstyle And Felt He Should. This is entirely illegal behaviour, attempting to alter play-styles based on external pressures. If you want to run your own play-groups like that, fine. If you want to run the European Championships, let everyone play by the rules with no "encouragement". I suggest you stop digging yourself into a bigger whole. If Paris ever wants a respected sanctioned V:EKN tournament again, a full and complete statement from the Prince and a retraction from *all* players concerned in spreading lies and illegal attempts to manipulate the tournament should be brought forward. I cannot see any way that this blatant, repeated attempt to undermine the rules of the game can in *any* way be justified. What you are proposing is illegal. Deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9k7m1a$6fl$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >And besides, LSJ already posted that he felt comfident in Stephane's ability >to run the EC correctly. Or are you willing only to believe only people who >posted 5 times a day? Players have been talking about "encouraging" alterations of play- styles. Whoever this is being done by, steps need to be taken to prevent it from altering the out-come. Reyda is continually posting that this will be done, regardless of everyone pointing out this is illegal. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:<tmedcdm...@corp.supernews.com>... > > >> The concept of collusion *with a lot of players* is any deal that > screws > > >> them over. > > >Case in point, I believe it was Matt Green (please someone correct > > >me if I am wrong) who said, during the finals of the Watford tourny > > >I attended, that it was collusion that I was ousting myself (via > transfers) > > >to give Legbiter the VP that Matt would have otherwise gotten his > > >next turn after he traded places with Leggy. > > It was him who said it, but it was not collusion nor upheld. You were > > going to die and can choose the manner of your ousting. I believe > > Matt's words were driven more by the moment than anything. > > Indeed. Wasn't this what you were trying to point out? I was just > illustrating an example. > Or maybe I'm having brain freeze and that's not what you were saying > at all... > > Never mind me... > > Sorrow I was sitting at a table at the SE North American Qualifier where both my predator and my prey were effectively hamstrung yet my grandprey/grandpredator who had already ousted someone, called my predator a kingmaker for not trying to kill mee. Needless to say, my grand predator killed my predator whilst I simultaneously ousted my prey. We had no collusion rules at the time, but needless to say that it was an unpleasant situation for all involved. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message [clip] > We had no collusion rules at the time, but needless to say > that it was an unpleasant situation for all involved. Yes, you did have collusion rules at the time. All V:TES tournaments have always had a clause prohibiting collusion. It is possible, based on the date of the event, that the new rule against playing toward goals outside of the goal of the current game was not yet in effect. -Robert

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> Who said anything about overruling them? I said prove they're wrong. > > > >All can read what you said 8 lines up. You described a relatively > >clear recipe for long arguments with tournament judges. > > Certainly. > > As LSJ has said, all players are free to discuss with a judge as to why > they feel what they have done is valid play. Judges sometimes make > mistakes and appreciate the catch. > > If the judge is not making a mistake, and is actively seeking to > undermine the rules, I would note that it is they who produce a "clear > recipe for long arguments". Of course, but if the judge were seeking to undermine the rules, the long arguments would not be useful, just time consuming. The judge has to have the final decision at the tournament he oversees. Anything else is a stairway into chaos. Unfortunately, if that were the case (that the judge were to intend to go renegade without warning), the only recourse would be post-facto praxis seizure (if the prince were the offending judge) by VEKN or LSJ or whoever has the votes to make it pass. Luckily, however, it looks like it was all basically a dust devil spawned by an irritating case of early table-splitting, since all the words I've read from anyone official-looking assure that the EC Paris is to be by the book. - Jason Bell

> > Congratulations on your victory! A nice deck, from what i saw, and not > really what i would call focussed, either - Hostile Takeovers and a > smidge of combat were nice touches. It was still by far the most focussed deck I had ever built (which may not be saying much) The combat was mostly just fake outs and the 2 Hostiles were put in because I'd much rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them. I never used them to nick a vamp anyway. But thanks :-) Tony

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> wrote > "SF" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote > > in order to prevent that i > > suggest that an international panel of judges is used in order to provide > > rulings in critical situations. > > e.g: james coupe, carl pilhatsch, some one from spain, italy and so on. > > I definately second that. The multi-judge system has proven its worth > and having a judge (or playing judge) from each country would > definately alleviate some of the worries exposed in this thread. Perhaps a collaboration between French and German judges would lead to a stronger, unified EC. Ahem. - Jason Bell (Sorry, but something about French players complaining about collusion drives me to bad WWII jokes)

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >We will find a way to encourage active play instead of Vp split deals. > > This is utterly, utterly stupid. You have been told many times that > this style of play is in no way illegal and that attempting to engineer > a tournament such that it fits the Paris play-style rather than the > sanctioned rules is *not* allowable under the V:EKN rules. I'm honestly curious about something. Is what Reyda attempting to do worse than what is being attempted by a growing cadre of excellent V:tES players, that is, to publicly, routinely, and strenuously assure each other that they always honor their deals? This group of players use this meta-game tactic to make their deals more orderly, more predictable, and therefore more likely. As long as Reyda is not talking about billy clubs in the parking lot, and instead is agitating for play where the non-deal making players (the rest of the table) cease playing regular Jyhad until they've dealt with the conspiracy in front of them (a two headed team organized to oust the table and split the loot), I'm not clear as to what is wrong, or at least any more wrong than the "you can always trust me" crowd. However, if he's spreading mis-information about what the rules will be to diminish the number of those deals, well, that's another conversation... - Jason Bell

> I think benoit thought you were playing by the same rules. I must add that > he and Philippe (the other qualified french player) were ousted in a belgian > tournament in a totall collusive way and still have a bitter taste in the > mouth from it. > [to explain it simple : Phil's prey, at 1 or 2 pool, calls vote to switch > place, and become the prey of his fellow belgian. Then after the vote > succeds, he transfers out, giving totally undeserved 6 pool and 1 vp to his > friend who will go to the finals. That sounds like king making for us] > It's not fun to have something like that thrown at you. But consider the following: 1) Note that this happened BEFORE the 'no out of game considerations'-rule. 2) The person he gave the VP was NOT a friend, only an aquaintance. 3) The person who transfered himself out had enough VP's to get into the finals. The person he gave the VP to (who was almost sure to go to the final) played a deck he knew he could handle in the final. 4) The player who transfered out (not really, he transfered until he had only 1 pool, but the result is the same.) knew that he had no chance in getting a VP. So he decided to make the best of a awful situation. 5) iirc, there had been a 'situation' in the first game of the tourney between the two players. I guess spite can have something to do with it. By current ruling, this can no longer happen. Besides, isn't tranfering out considered unspormanlike conduct? I know there was a heated debate. One of the French guys said that table splitting deals would be prohibitted in Paris. I hope he / they changed their mind(s). For me (and my playgroup), diplomacy (Andrew, note the non- captialisation!) is an aspect of the game that is as important as deck building and playing. Jeroen

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k654r$1f2$1...@neon.noos.net>... > "legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com > > (snip) > > > i think it's an unduly-limited view to think that the epitome of the > > game is killing your prey. Are you going to ban dramatic upheaval and > > Kindred Restructure too? What about Wall decks? > > No, but target=prey is one of the fundamental mechanics of Jyhad. And a good thing too. But some of the more creative deck-styles aim to subvert that mechanic. i well remember being victimised by Philippe Richer's anti-predator deck once. At the time i was really cross and went after him hell-for-leather, but in the cold dark of night i respect the typical-for-Bleu creativity of the concept. More prosaically, EVERY deck has a nemesis in Jyhad. When in the wrong relation to your nemesis you have the choice of just sitting there and dying, or trying to salvage SOMETHING from your bad luck through a table-splitting deal. This, i'ld suggest, IS playing your deck the way it was meant to be played. I play > Dramatic upheaval myself, i have nothing particular to say about it. Wall > decks, that does nothing against their prey, tend to unbalance the game by > giving total freedom to one player who won't have a predator at all 'til the > end of the game. Wall games tend to have 2 vp maximum. It's lack of > ambition if you want my opinion ;) i agree, but accept that people have the right to play them. > > (snip) > > Gee, that's pretty breathtaking. How do you know how someone else > > should play their deck which they've constructed? > > Pierre just told me he had an edge, since he could intercept whatever he > wants. he was also playing blood of acid, had 2 copies in his opening hand. > I doubt any brujah burned by aggravated damage can easily play disarm, > Decapitate, Tast of vitae or this kind of thing. And with the special of > Sascha, Pierre could have cycled for the right cards. > I've also been tom's prey during the second round. He was'n packing enough > dodges or long range damage to avoid the blood of acid nightmare. > Again, this is my personal thoughts. It wasn't so much the specifics of the Pierre/Tom/Benoit thing but rather the idea that you already KNOW how ANY deck SHOULD be played that rattled my cage. > > > Someone else telling me how i should play my deck is just petty > > tyrrany, as far as i'm concerned, and there's ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE > > that i will ever knowingly put myself in a position where this might > > happen. > > don't be wrong legbiter (by the way, now we saw each other, we can tell > there's a height difference. If you try to legbite me, it will surely be a > pain in the ass =] ) This is true. Reyda is small but perfectly-formed. No wonder James C LUSTS after him so, when he is not publicly ripping his entrails over the nature of legal play in jyhad. I don't want you to change your way of playing th game > ! i'm not a preacher ! i'm not a lawyer ! I'm not a tyrant ! I just say what > appears right to me. your are free to think i'm wrong ;) but at least i > explained why Benoit felt pissed of. Of course, on the EMOTIONAL level we ALL empathise with Benoit. Many is the blue fit i personally have pitched when someone has come across table at me, or dealt the table up to my disadvantage. It's no fun when it happens to you, and you feel raped and that your fun has been taken away. But i'm in no position to be all high and mighty about it, because i REGULARLY do EXACTLY the same thing to other people. And whether i do it or someone else does, IT IS LEGAL. > > (snip) > > It doesn't take genius to see that if two combat decks sit down next > > to each other they are BOTH doomed unless they do a table-splitting > > deal. Carried to its logical conclusion, your position would further > > erode the already-low status of combat decks in VTES. > > mmmm... I must agree on that. Why don't combat decks just pack some Dramatic > upheaval, this situation should occur... but there's still something inside > me that thinks those two combat decks worked in a different way : and i > still think that the Tzimisce had the edge. > > (snip) > > > > If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding > actions/stealth in > > > hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway), if someone transfers out > when > > > his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. Yes, sir. > We > > > are not stupid either. But we don't want that this kind of deals spoil > the > > > fun and make Jyhad look like diplomacy. Players come to the EC to play > their > > > decks, not to be the puppet of another guy who needs 2 or 3 VP to go to > the > > > finals. > > > > Maybe true for some. But many players come to the EC to win by any > > means legal within the rules. Are official VEKN rules going to be in > > place in Paris, or not? If they are not, i STRONGLY advise you to > > publicise the matter. > > the VEKN rules will be used, sir. We have no interest in imposing our > playstile to other people. But still, strange occurences will be examinated. > The Prince of Paris may still go backwards on this. But take Benoit's angry > words as it is : a word of frustration fro someone who thought it was > collusion. Now we know it isn't. Alright, i trust your word and accept what you are saying. > > > > > [to explain it simple : Phil's prey, at 1 or 2 pool, calls vote to > switch > > > place, and become the prey of his fellow belgian. Then after the vote > > > succeds, he transfers out, giving totally undeserved 6 pool and 1 vp to > his > > > friend who will go to the finals. That sounds like king making for us] > > > > Again, this is legal. He was in a losing position and chose the manner > > of his departure. > > Yes, we know that, but keep seeing is as "semi-legal"... But the fact is, > his move deprived Philippe of the finals. What's the motivation behind such > a move ? If you wanna suicide, why give the victory point to someone else ? > Can't you recognize that your predator was better than you on this one ? or > do you simply don't want a guy from outside your playgroup in the finals ? > the reason is still unclear. What if i switched place in watford to give a > french fellow player a free 6pool+1 VP and made him sweep the table ? No one > on the table should have thought "this is collusion" ? It wouldn't have been. And you are right to see this as a grey area. But Hard Cases make Bad Law. > > (snip) > > > A really interesting philosophical difference is apparent from this > > post and the other thread. The common ground we share is liking to > > play Jyhad for fun. > > Yes =) > > > Where we differ is in the definition of fun, at > > least in tournament play. > > this is also true =) > > > i'm not presuming to tell you how to have > > fun, but you appear to think that if me having fun compromises your > > fun then i should be penalised. i find this unacceptable. > > It's a misunderstanding. We don't want you to play in a different way. We > want to penalize collusion, Good! and *disencourage* VP split deals. This is the bit that still worries me a little. But if you accept that they are legal, then there's no insurmountable problem. That's all ! > don't take Benoit's words seriously : he thought it was collusion when he > said that. Again, i accept this assurance and the words of the other Pierre so that, work permitting, i WILL come to Paris as soon as may be. > > reyda > (see ya legbiter ;] ) Yeah, game on, brother.

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: 68f2e9f8.0108...@posting.google.com... (snip) > Again, i accept this assurance and the words of the other Pierre so > that, work permitting, i WILL come to Paris as soon as may be. call me Stone...this will avoid any confusion :) I have a silly question...is 'legbiter' some kind of slang or just a made-up nickname?? Stone

jeroen rombouts wrote: > By current ruling, this can no longer happen. Besides, isn't tranfering out > considered unspormanlike conduct? Only if the player who does so isn't in a lost position already. If you've already lost (or cannot gain more VPs than you currently have), the method an manner of your inevitable ousting is inconsequential, from your POV. -- 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/

[snip] > > >We will find a way to encourage active play instead of Vp split deals. > > > > This is utterly, utterly stupid. You have been told many times that > > this style of play is in no way illegal and that attempting to engineer > > a tournament such that it fits the Paris play-style rather than the > > sanctioned rules is *not* allowable under the V:EKN rules. > > I'm honestly curious about something. > > Is what Reyda attempting to do worse than what is being > attempted by a growing cadre of excellent V:tES players, > that is, to publicly, routinely, and strenuously assure each > other that they always honor their deals? > This group of players use this meta-game tactic to make > their deals more orderly, more predictable, and therefore > more likely. > > As long as Reyda is not talking about billy > clubs in the parking lot, and instead is agitating for > play where the non-deal making players (the rest of the > table) cease playing regular Jyhad until they've dealt with the > conspiracy in front of them (a two headed team organized > to oust the table and split the loot), I'm not clear as to > what is wrong, or at least any more wrong than the "you > can always trust me" crowd. > [snip] Yes it is worse. The problem is the fact that it is illegal under the current V:EKN tournament rules. Besides that it also inhibits players who incorporate deal-making as an equal important part of their game from doing so. Moreover dealmaking is an integral part of this game and as such should not and cannot be excluded. Breaking your word on a deal in a way that assures you to get more VP's than under the deal is also an intergral part of the game. If you don't like that, don't deal. But if you don't deal, don't expect/prevent others from doing so. Just because it is not liked does not mean that it is not allowed. As long as the V:EKN does not issue rules that prevent deal-making, it is allowed in all sanctioned VTES tournaments. Period. Encouraging players not to table-split is in direct conflict with the tournament rules and by that scares the shit out of me. Tim Eijpe

> > > Philippe being the Tremere primogen, he must have access to info > > directly from Stephane so must know (hopefully) what's going on. If > > the prince never said what Benoit seems to believe then please may one > > of the organiser come forward and enlighten us all. One way or the > > other, an official response is needed now. > > Say, you don't believe me or what? My real name is Pierre Tran-Van (Stone, > Pierre...stupid nickname, I know :) ) Man, i know you, now that i know who i'm talking to, it makes it easier to believe ;) Oh and i use to have the same nickname...partially due to the use of illegal substances as well :) Anyway I just wanted to make things very (very) clear. The situation has been clarified > http://www.multimania.com/ec2001/ > I'm on the contact lists. No, I'm not 'Primogen' of anything. > Or do you want the Prince of Paris to post himself??? That would be appreciated, not so much for me but for the rest of the ppl who have followed this thread and are understandably worried. However, having some very unreliable connection myself, i can definately understand why Stephane might have some problems posting :) > And besides, LSJ already posted that he felt comfident in Stephane's ability > to run the EC correctly. Or are you willing only to believe only people who > posted 5 times a day? Nope, I'm cool now, i personally have buried the hatchet (but not too deep :) Reading the rest of this thread and other posts, i now see that the situation that arised was based on a misunderstanding about whether collusion had occured or not. Still i think it was important the the point had to be made. <snip metagame> > It turns out the tournament scene is run by the VEKN. This means french > tournaments *must* abide by the VEKN rules in order to be sanctioned. This > means the EC will abide by the VEKN rules. Good enough for me. > Do you seriously think the 15-20 people or so who contribute to the > organization are a crowd of blind fools, who will say 'we don't like VP > deals. So don't do any deal of that kind, or we'll screw you for good. And > it's our country, so if you don't like our rules, get lost. And start > speaking french. We won't tolerate any foreign language here.'? Although improbable, it is not impossible :) But i have faith on the abilities of the organisers of the EC to avoid those pitfalls. However Reyda did mention more than a couple of times that table-splitting deals will be discouraged, and that still is cause for concern as i don't see what would give the organisers the right to influence the game (and how they intend to enforce such things...) There are a number of side-events organised already where house rules can be enforced and that's great. Especially the War Zone,mmmmm, pain.... Anyway i will certainly be in Paris for the Qualifier, and since i don't need to play it i can offer my candidature for judging on the day ;) See you in September P.

"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@mailandnews.com> a écrit dans le message news: e96a9e4b.01080...@posting.google.com... (snip) > Moreover dealmaking is an integral part of this game and as such > should not and cannot be excluded. Breaking your word on a deal in a > way that assures you to get more VP's than under the deal is also an > intergral part of the game. If you don't like that, don't deal. But if > you don't deal, don't expect/prevent others from doing so. Just > because it is not liked does not mean that it is not allowed. As long > as the V:EKN does not issue rules that prevent deal-making, it is > allowed in all sanctioned VTES tournaments. Period. Encouraging > players not to table-split is in direct conflict with the tournament > rules and by that scares the shit out of me. > > Tim Eijpe You should read the other posts in this thread. the EC will follow all VEKN rules, this is 100% official. Stone

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 1ba5ca76.01080...@posting.google.com... (snip) > > http://www.multimania.com/ec2001/ > > I'm on the contact lists. No, I'm not 'Primogen' of anything. > > Or do you want the Prince of Paris to post himself??? > > That would be appreciated, not so much for me but for the rest of the > ppl who have followed this thread and are understandably worried. > However, having some very unreliable connection myself, i can > definately understand why Stephane might have some problems posting :) yes, he doesn't have access to LAN-type internet access anymore, so retrieving the zillion or so mails from the newsgroup would be a pain, with 56 or 28k modem. Besides, he's quite busy at the moment (hmm...or is that 'for the moment'? darn). People need not be worried. LSJ already said he trusts Stéphane's ability as a Head Judge. (snip) > > Do you seriously think the 15-20 people or so who contribute to the > > organization are a crowd of blind fools, who will say 'we don't like VP > > deals. So don't do any deal of that kind, or we'll screw you for good. And > > it's our country, so if you don't like our rules, get lost. And start > > speaking french. We won't tolerate any foreign language here.'? > > Although improbable, it is not impossible :) But i have faith on the > abilities of the organisers of the EC to avoid those pitfalls. However > Reyda did mention more than a couple of times that table-splitting > deals will be discouraged, and that still is cause for concern as i > don't see what would give the organisers the right to influence the > game (and how they intend to enforce such things...) No fear to have. The only things that will be enforced will be the VEKN rules. > There are a number of side-events organised already where house rules > can be enforced and that's great. Especially the War Zone,mmmmm, > pain.... > Anyway i will certainly be in Paris for the Qualifier, and since i > don't need to play it i can offer my candidature for judging on the > day ;) Even if you're already qualified, please do *not* forget to registrate via e-mail. > > See you in September > P. It'll be cool to see who are all the people posting. :) See you in September, Stone

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. I have only just started catching up with some of this feedback. My new job simply doesn't give me the time to wade through this newsgroup properly any more. Hopefully I'll have some proper comments/reporting out by the end of the week... > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], and all the guys n > gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford > includes Paris and Gothenburg. Well I'm just glad everyone enjoyed themselves. Big thanks definitely to James Coupe for judging and sweating his a*** off on our behalf. Shame we picked the hottest day of the year to sit inside and play cards.. :) > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] but had > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, This is somewhat of a bone of contention. My jaw hit the floor when I first saw it. I have to say it was it was a great combo, but it pushes play to the borders of unsportsmanship. Time for someone to take a long, hard look at Soul Gen properly? :) Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London

Jason Bell wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > > >We will find a way to encourage active play instead of Vp split deals. > > > > This is utterly, utterly stupid. You have been told many times that > > this style of play is in no way illegal and that attempting to engineer > > a tournament such that it fits the Paris play-style rather than the > > sanctioned rules is *not* allowable under the V:EKN rules. > > I'm honestly curious about something. > > Is what Reyda attempting to do worse than what is being > attempted by a growing cadre of excellent V:tES players, > that is, to publicly, routinely, and strenuously assure each > other that they always honor their deals? It depends on who Reyda means by, "we". If he means himself as a player and other players, then no. I got the impression he was talking about the judges and other tournament organizers. If so, then that's absolutely bad!!! Any effective means of encouraging and/or discouraging any type of legal play, including just *talking* about encouraging and/or discouraging some type of legal play by tournament officials is introducing bias. It has no place whatsoever in the conduct of an official tournament. One way to look at stuff like this, imagine how you'd feel if a tournament official or judge said something akin to the same thing about the strategy your favorite tournament deck was based on. E.g., "We'll be doing everything in our power to discourage players from competing with weeny decks.". Or, "We would like the players to take into account that the use of stealth/bleed in this tournament will be frowned upon." It might not mean anything, but it doesn't make you feel that good about attending such a tournament. Since there's no rule against VP splitting, I don't understand the point of doing this - other than to take some fun out of this tournament and pump the stress level up that much more. Fred

> O yes, a REAL piece of craft. Of course, the idea is not completely > new. But Francois' genius is that he has made the trick work so that > in principle he can roll the whole table IN ONE TURN. Archons won't > save you, rush will only save you if you do it IMMEDIATELY, and > deflection will only save you up to a point. Here is how the deck > works: > > Bring out Arika. > Equip Arika with soul gem. Forgotten Labyrinth if necessary, Lost in > Crowds just in case that isn't enough. > Freak Drive. > Call PS: Berlin [stealth combo as before]. Awe, burning all but 2 of > Arika's blood for 40-odd votes. > Force of Will at INFERIOR. Modify with Daring the Dawn. Add > Conditioning, bleed for 8. Arika burns. Because of PS Berlin THIS > Arika is a 12-cap with a soul-gem, so the next card in your crypt will > come into play on full blood if it is younger. Wow, look! The next > vampire is Arika! And now she does EXACTLY the same series of moves as > above. Just for spice, Francois packs Distractions which he plays so's > to draw 5 cards and discard - necessary to set up the combo reliably. > That's obf, cel, pre, for and dom - a working 5-discipline deck, > forsooth! > this deck is hardly new. I remember the days when there were tons of decks like this. They bled with Return to innocence. Fun anecdote: in a tourney a couple of years ago, both my prey and my predator played Arika-only decks! Jeroen

Tim Eijpe wrote: > Yes it is worse. The problem is the fact that it is illegal under the > current V:EKN tournament rules. Besides that it also inhibits players > who incorporate deal-making as an equal important part of their game > from doing so. > > Moreover dealmaking is an integral part of this game and as such > should not and cannot be excluded. Breaking your word on a deal in a > way that assures you to get more VP's than under the deal is also an > intergral part of the game. If you don't like that, don't deal. But if > you don't deal, don't expect/prevent others from doing so. I agree with you that this an area the organizers and judges should stay away from. That said, I do want to take issue with your second point. I don't know whether it's just the existing personality of Jyhad players or if the game just works better this way. But no one ever really breaks their word on these deals that I've ever notice. Hence, this is not a drawback to making them. It's not like you really have to fear the doublecross for the most part. I suppose once in a blue moon, some unwise player pulls something. But then he gets a reputation for it and pays for it that way, in spades. This is the problem with VP splitting in tournaments right now. There's little downside. Fred

In message <bXO97.66130$TM5.7...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Of course, but if the judge were seeking to undermine the rules, >the long arguments would not be useful, just time consuming. They would be perfectly useful, in allowing you to go to the V:EKN chair showing that you had clearly explained, with references, why you were correct and that this was *not* merely a mistake the Judge had made. In this instance, you would clearly have proof that the Judge was not performing his clearly designated function. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

In message <DOQ97.4128$lB.8...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes >By current ruling, this can no longer happen. Besides, isn't tranfering out >considered unspormanlike conduct? If you were on 12 pool with a fair chance of going somewhere, yes it probably could be. (And may well warrant game loss, rather than zero VP.) (This assumes that it wasn't part of a "loss-making deal" and was simply done spontaneously by the player concerned.) Assume, say, that it's your transfer phase and a Reversal of Fortunes is in play. When your predator starts their go, you'll soon by ousted by the Army of Rats in play, because you only have one pool. Ousting yourself via transfers, there, is no different. Obviously, these represent two extremes. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <xdP97.66132$TM5.7...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >I'm honestly curious about something. > >Is what Reyda attempting to do worse than what is being >attempted by a growing cadre of excellent V:tES players, >that is, to publicly, routinely, and strenuously assure each >other that they always honor their deals? >This group of players use this meta-game tact It's very clearly different. First of all, there is nothing in the rules that prevents any given player developing a reputation. In game, I am strongly limited towards only acting towards my best interests in the game (or, at least, better interests). The fact that you are *not* required to double-cross a previously winning-deal in order to get a better outcome for yourself shows, IMO, that the tournament rules clearly rely on some principle of reputation still being possible. Of course, you are not required to honour the deal, similarly. Hoists and petards. Secondly, the developing of a reputation (be it real or spurious) will not significantly aid you. You need to be in a position to exploit that reputation which, if your deck crumbles, you won't be. For instance, Legbiter (taking one example of a player with a good reputation) had some absolutely terribly crypt draws meaning that it was very hard for him to get into a position where he could tip the balance of the table, or whatever. Thirdly, if at all points a winning deal is made, it doesn't matter what their reputation is. You may trust them to help you more but you still need a winning deal. The proposition of Reyda is to significantly alter as many playstyles as possible with no "winning deal" coming out of it. It's tantamount to pseudo-collusion, attempting to alter the results of a tournament due to the applying of external pressures. [ quoted text not captured ]

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> (snip cool comments about Francois' Turbo Arkia deck) > this deck is hardly new. You must have made a mistake, sir. Everything is talking about an old trick deck then ? I'm sure everyone saw it as a threat. Can i be wrong ? > I remember the days when there were tons of decks > like this. They bled with Return to innocence. Ah ! you mean a deck packing IC and bleeding with RtI... This is *totally different*. You bleed once a turn. There was no room for the soul gem since a succesful RtI removes the vampire from the game. You had to transfer out another vampire. They were not so scary, but above all they were as i mentioned *totally different*. It's the reason other veteran players, like Rob didn't comparred those decks with "Turbo Arika". Are you trying to minimize the impact this deck had on all other players ? > Fun anecdote: in a tourney a couple of years ago, both my prey and my > predator played Arika-only decks! Interesting anecdote. But we know Arika is a popular vampire. When you are using 11 pool an a vamp, yes, she is a good investment. Even her power rocks : look at all those KRCG, Barrens, HG, Powerbases that will be reduced to ashes without a single move...

In message <9k92ni$mlb$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >You should read the other posts in this thread. the EC will follow all VEKN >rules, this is 100% official. Can you please keep the lying, almost-collusive players from promoting lies and illegal tactics then? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: q5AqzfFI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9k92ni$mlb$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> > writes > >You should read the other posts in this thread. the EC will follow all VEKN > >rules, this is 100% official. > > Can you please keep the lying, almost-collusive players from promoting > lies and illegal tactics then? > The situation has been clarified already, in a post related to a different thread. Besides, people have free will to post as they want. If other people are willing to believe 'non-official' posts, so be it. I wrote on behalf of the EC organizers to point out the EC will follow all VEKN rules. If people feel like believing otherwise, I can't do anything about it. Stone

In message <9k9l7h$ndh$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >> Can you please keep the lying, almost-collusive players from promoting >> lies and illegal tactics then? >> > >The situation has been clarified already, in a post related to a different >thread. And they are continuing to do it, regardless. These are now clearly actions of players. You must deal with these blatant attempts to undermine the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <9k9l7h$ndh$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> > writes > >> Can you please keep the lying, almost-collusive players from promoting > >> lies and illegal tactics then? > >> > > > >The situation has been clarified already, in a post related to a different > >thread. > > And they are continuing to do it, regardless. > > These are now clearly actions of players. You must deal with these > blatant attempts to undermine the rules. Just as I cannot keep players from offering incorrect answers to questions on public forums, the officials of the EC cannot keep other players from posting incorrect information. Stone has dealt with the attempts to undermine the rules - he corrected the misinformation (just as I post corrections to faulty answers). "A bit of advice: Always... no,no. Never... forget to check your references." [ quoted text not captured ]

> "A bit of advice: Always... no,no. Never... forget to check your references." Nice Real Genius reference there LSJ. Have fun this weekend. If any of my Michigan boys give you any trouble just post here and I'll send Noal out to deal with them. Matt

In message <3B685E3B...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >> These are now clearly actions of players. You must deal with these >> blatant attempts to undermine the rules. > >Just as I cannot keep players from offering incorrect answers to questions >on public forums, the officials of the EC cannot keep other players from >posting incorrect information. They are now not "posting incorrect information". They are now posting their intent to alter the results of the tournament via engineering play-styles to suit themselves. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B685E3B...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes > >> These are now clearly actions of players. You must deal with these > >> blatant attempts to undermine the rules. > > > >Just as I cannot keep players from offering incorrect answers to questions > >on public forums, the officials of the EC cannot keep other players from > >posting incorrect information. > > They are now not "posting incorrect information". They are now posting > their intent to alter the results of the tournament via engineering > play-styles to suit themselves. No one official, from what I've seen. In fact, as well, the unofficial sources that said so (that I've seen) have also recanted. At any rate, how could/should the officials censor this newsgroup to prevent such posting? The officials have dealt with the "attempts to undermine the rules" by posting corrections to the misinformation. That should be sufficient. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B686246...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >> They are now not "posting incorrect information". They are now posting >> their intent to alter the results of the tournament via engineering >> play-styles to suit themselves. > >No one official, from what I've seen. In fact, as well, the unofficial >sources that said so (that I've seen) have also recanted. Message-ID: <9k7kcu$ftt$1...@hadron.noos.net> has not yet been retracted, so far as I have seen. The players attempting such blatantly illegal manipulation must be dealt with, or this undermines everything that has ever gone into establishing a stable set of rules and rulings. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Tim Eijpe wrote: > > Yes it is worse. The problem is the fact that it is illegal under the > > current V:EKN tournament rules. Besides that it also inhibits players > > who incorporate deal-making as an equal important part of their game > > from doing so. No player or group of players is entitled to protection of their play style. If Reyda or anyone else agitates for turning the rest of the table against deal makers, that has to be allowed just as much as the right of players to make deals in the first place. In fact, if the original deal is one that makes a 3-2 split more likely, it is the other 3 players' responsibility to do whatever they can to break that up before it reaches fruition. > > Moreover dealmaking is an integral part of this game and as such > > should not and cannot be excluded. Breaking your word on a deal in a > > way that assures you to get more VP's than under the deal is also an > > intergral part of the game. If you don't like that, don't deal. But if > > you don't deal, don't expect/prevent others from doing so. I see nothing wrong with adopting a play style or deck style that can punish players for turning Jyhad into a team game. > I agree with you that this an area the organizers and judges should stay > away from. > > That said, I do want to take issue with your second point. I don't know > whether it's just the existing personality of Jyhad players or if the game > just works better this way. But no one ever really breaks their word on > these deals that I've ever notice. Hence, this is not a drawback to making > them. It's not like you really have to fear the doublecross for the most > part. I suppose once in a blue moon, some unwise player pulls something. > But then he gets a reputation for it and pays for it that way, in spades. So, here I ask again: If the "you can trust me" players were to use this forum (or any other method) to spread another player's reputation as a deal-breaker such that players are less likely to deal with him in the future, how is that worse than Reyda attempting to do? Should any player describing a double-cross be pilloried as someone undermining that player's ability to make deals in Jyhad? > This is the problem with VP splitting in tournaments right now. There's > little downside. The larger problem is that if this situation persists, Jyhad under VEKN could become a team game, with teams chosen earlier and earlier in games so that the dealing player can assure himself that he's on the inside of the 3-2 deal, instead of one of the 0-0-0. One can track the argument all the way to turn 1, before the first player plays a master card: "Well, I felt I had to be the first to make a 3-2 deal, because if I wasn't part of one of those deals, my chances of getting any VPs would not be maximized." Before you dismiss this, consider that the most recent and controversial table split happened before either dealing player had been in a single combat, as far as I've read. - Jason Bell

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > > Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > > > >We will find a way to encourage active play instead of Vp split deals. > > > > > > This is utterly, utterly stupid. You have been told many times that > > > this style of play is in no way illegal and that attempting to engineer > > > a tournament such that it fits the Paris play-style rather than the > > > sanctioned rules is *not* allowable under the V:EKN rules. > > > > I'm honestly curious about something. > > > > Is what Reyda attempting to do worse than what is being > > attempted by a growing cadre of excellent V:tES players, > > that is, to publicly, routinely, and strenuously assure each > > other that they always honor their deals? > > It depends on who Reyda means by, "we". If he means himself as > a player and other players, then no. I got the impression he was > talking about the judges and other tournament organizers. If so, > then that's absolutely bad!!! Yes, I totally agree with that, if anyone is trying to sway judging away from VEKN for a VEKN event instead of advocating a "attack the dealers" play style, it is not something I can defend. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] But the pressures of developing and keeping "reputations," with the accompanying increased likelihood that deals will be honored is just such an external pressure that alters tournament results. How is one external pressure allowable but another pseudo-collusion? But even leaving that aside, as long as the game goes: First: Public deal develops between Player A and Player B Next: Players C, D, E publicly agree to a deal where they cease hostilities until A and B are ousted, then the game will continue Then it can't possibly matter if anyone is publicising or agitating for such behavior before the tournament. Both First and Next are legal deals made publicly without any secrecy. If it did matter, then all the players loudly clamoring for assurances that their deals will be legal for EC would be just as guilty, for trying to make deal-making a more likely play style. - Jason Bell

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B686246...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes > >> They are now not "posting incorrect information". They are now posting > >> their intent to alter the results of the tournament via engineering > >> play-styles to suit themselves. > > > >No one official, from what I've seen. In fact, as well, the unofficial > >sources that said so (that I've seen) have also recanted. > > Message-ID: <9k7kcu$ftt$1...@hadron.noos.net> has not yet been retracted, > so far as I have seen. > > The players attempting such blatantly illegal manipulation must be dealt > with, or this undermines everything that has ever gone into establishing > a stable set of rules and rulings. Ah. I thought I had seen a retraction from Reyda. But I cannot find it now. Reyda, could you explain both your position/involvement in the EC. If you have any official role in the EC, would you please confirm that you will not, despite previous messages to the contrary, be discouraging legal play? Thanks, Scott [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > This is the problem with VP splitting in tournaments right now. There's > > little downside. > > The larger problem is that if this situation persists, Jyhad under VEKN > could become a team game, with teams chosen earlier and earlier in games > so that the dealing player can assure himself that he's on the inside of > the 3-2 deal, instead of one of the 0-0-0. One can track the argument > all the way to turn 1, before the first player plays a master card: > "Well, I felt I had to be the first to make a 3-2 deal, because if I > wasn't part of one of those deals, my chances of getting any VPs > would not be maximized." Before you dismiss this, consider that > the most recent and controversial table split happened before > either dealing player had been in a single combat, as far as I've > read. I'm not quite sure if there's a way to read the rules that allows for this kind of logic. But I agree, I've never cared for how all this works. For one thing, I notice that at certain times, weakness becomes strength. For instance, one of the problems with making a 3-2 split is if one player or the other can not make a credible argument that he can NOT sweep the table. Double negative translation: to make the deal legally, both players must prove themselves unable to sweep the table, if I understand LSJ correctly. In fact, the "3" player must be able to claim that he can not possibly get more than three victory points. And the "2" player must be able to claim he can not possible get more than two. However, with the Succubus club and a good "wall" player positioned in the rear and a good forward attacking player (e.g. stealth-bleed) player bleeding forward and a Succubus Club, both players may conclude that their expected victory point harvest will likely be made larger by making such a deal. So the question is, how to make themselves "weak enough" to make their victory point claims that makes the deal legal? That's just weird. And not at all something that happens in a good game (IMO). If I've analyzed it wrong or have the rules interpretations factually wrong, by all means help me out. Fred

> > You should read the other posts in this thread. the EC will follow all VEKN > rules, this is 100% official. > Stone Actually I did. In my enthousiasm, anger, dismay, I was simply sprouting my concerns and did not make that clear. I have read the complete thread, and YES I have read the statement that the EC will be following V:EKN rules. I am glad for that. My concern was the fact that there was a possibility of a major event that would be sanctioned by the V:EKN where judges would encourage players not to make table-split deals, thus deviating from the official rules. That and only that was my point, which I obviously did not stress enough. I hope the EC will be a great event. Tim Eijpe

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B684732...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] True. Still having the possibility or option to break the deal for your (short-term) advantage IS important IMO. I am not advocating to do so, but if breaking a deal could potentially give your the tournament, you could start thinking about it. But yes in most cases it is best just to follow up on the deal. And I understand the concerns on table-splitting. I hate to be on the short end of that too. There isIMO a downside to splitting a table. People see that and recognize that. Which could lead to you being a VERY big target in the next rounds. If I see a split at a table and I will be facing the player in another round I will be very wary. Aside from that I agree that there is little downside. Although not grabbing more VPs is a downside to me. I tend to go for the sweep every game. Only if it is appearant I will not will I possibly make a split deal. OK I AM a VP hungry bastard, and I'd rather loose than not try. But that's just me. Tim

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01072...@posting.google.com>... > Hey, i'm just back from the VERY BEST tourney i have EVER been to. > Great work, dave and mike [and james for judging], and all the guys n > gals from strange places who turned up. Well, strange for Watford > includes Paris and Gothenburg. > > Anyway, i got roundly kicked [1VP overall in the tourney] but had > TREMENDOUS fun, and saw a LOT of REALLY new and thought-provoking > stuff. Best thing i saw: Francois Alix's turbo-Arika deck, gangrel > Fame for the new century. Biggest regret: not getting to play Rob, > Barney, Tom, Will or Reyda. But really, NO regrets. This was CCG > playing at its most raw, intense, SUPERB level. Thanks again to > everyone who made it possible! As one of the foreigners at Watford I´d like to comment some too. The tournament: Hot as hell facilities and some slow starting up was the only bad points imho. Wish we had those nice, big pubs over here to hold our tournaments in. Hat off for that. Judge seemed knowledgable and the playing spirit was nice. Not competative at all compared to other ones I have been too. (Played METW at international tournament level plus M:TG and ST:CCG) Personally I was going to bring my favclan the Snakes but realized that it was too weak.(Yup, been playing them alot to make it tournamentworty but it just wouldn´t work.) So I ended up playing the only other deck I had brought with me for fun; !Toreador. Unfortenately I ended up at Francois table in the second round and missed a VP by one card(always like that isn´t it...). Third round I ended up as predator to the tournament winner and scared him a bit when I(again!) went down with one cards difference but pretended I had something to block/counter that last minion. Sheila with Art of Pain sure kicks the crap out of those weenies heh. Felt ok for a fundeck. Dealing: I can only speak out of experience from the Gothenburg playstyle and say that dealing is a very rare occasion. The reason is very simple; this isn´t a landslide game like SW:CCG or METW and agreeing to divide VP´s is unsportsmanlike to the other participants in a tournament. Example is my friends IC deck experience in the first round at the tournament. He suprised the table with ousting his first prey to fast for comfort. At this point the rest of the table agrees to cooperate to bring him down. Fairly understandable. But in the same deal they agree to split the rest of the VP´s all over. I can say that that would NEVER happen over here. Alliances, when they are made, are temporary. Had I been at that table I had just laughed at such a suggestion. I´m here to win. End of story. Ousting the IC-guy just sets the stakes to an even level for the rest of the players. Going further smells of Nepotism. /Mattias

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<9k8osp$aim$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > "legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: > 68f2e9f8.0108...@posting.google.com... > > (snip) > > > Again, i accept this assurance and the words of the other Pierre so > > that, work permitting, i WILL come to Paris as soon as may be. > > call me Stone...this will avoid any confusion :) Alright. > > I have a silly question...is 'legbiter' some kind of slang or just a made-up > nickname?? Really a made-up nickname, but with a story behind it. Legbiter was a common name for Viking/Saxon swords. Because of the mysterious expensive alchemical nature of smithing [or so it seemed to the barbarians], the whole process of making weaponry was seen to be magical, and ipso facto pretty much ALL swords were magical and had names [another one was Nailing, which IIRC was offered to Beowulf when he went down into the fen to finish off Grendel, but politely declined by him]. Some smiths were magical, too - eg Wayland Smith. The reason Legbiter was a common name is that if you try to hit someone with a sword and they defend with a shield or by trying to knock the blow away with their hands, the most likely point of impact is the left thigh of your opponent. i chose the name because it sounded malkavian and mad, and later i discovered that in legend if you bury a magic sword it turns into a vampire, which is kinda neat -prequel/backstory sorta thing, if you will. > > Stone

Tim Eijpe wrote: > > > And I understand the concerns on table-splitting. I hate to be on the > short end of that too. There isIMO a downside to splitting a table. > I'm no fan of early table-splitting and I'd like to see Succubus Club banned, but until then, when prey-predator tries a tablesplitting deal with succubus club, you're still three persons left for a temporary alliance. First 'ousting-too-be' will have to try bouncing bleeds and politely ask his/her prey to hurt the incoming minion as hard as possible. As soon as anything burning a location comes up wait until the predator in the splitting pair has the club and all minions and assault everytning except the club until the burning-action is the only one left. That should give the three people left with a good opportunity to tear down the remaining threat. After that game could proceed as usual. In the mean-time, 'the man in the middle' will have to resque anything his/her predator has in torpor and diablerize anything anything in torpor belonging to the splitting pair. Deals are a part of the game, and so are counter-deals. Sten During -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

Frederick Scott wrote: > if I understand LSJ correctly. In fact, the "3" player must be able to > claim that he can not possibly get more than three victory points. And Not exactly. Since '3' is more VPs than anyone else, the "3" player has achieved a win (the most VPs). This is as good as one can do. > the "2" player must be able to claim he can not possible get more than > two. Correct, since the deal means that the "2" player will not win it cannot be made if the "2" player has a reasonable chance at winning otherwise. > So the question is, how to make themselves "weak enough" to make their > victory point claims that makes the deal legal? That's just weird. And > not at all something that happens in a good game (IMO). Allowing 3/2 splits for no good in-game reason is certainly not something that I'd like to see any more of. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > The players attempting such blatantly illegal manipulation must be dealt > > with, or this undermines everything that has ever gone into establishing > > a stable set of rules and rulings. > > Ah. I thought I had seen a retraction from Reyda. But I cannot find it now. > Reyda, could you explain both your position/involvement in the EC. > > If you have any official role in the EC, would you please confirm that you > will not, despite previous messages to the contrary, be discouraging legal > play? It seems I'm awake before him, so I'll post...hope you don't mind, Reyda ;-) First thing: He posted in the 'Red Herring question thread' (August, 1st) hi there ! okay i'm leaving my personal crusade against table split for the moment. Just a question to ask... (snip question, end of quote) Second thing: This is the list of 'official' people involved in the EC http://www.multimania.com/ec2001/Contacts/index.html Reyda is in no way involved in the EC, from an official point of view. He happens to be a friend of several, if not all, of the players. Period. Third thing: *again*, writing as a judge *and* on behalf of Stéphane Lavrut, the EC will follow *all* VEKN rules. This means, among many other things, that legal play will be enforced, and therefore 'discouraging legal play' will not be enforced. Stéphane cannot post for the moment, due to lack of decent internet access. For those who didn't bother to see the list of contacts, Stéphane is the Prince of Paris, co-organiser of the EC, and Head Judge. Last thing: I'm getting tired of writing the same thing over and over. I know Reyda is well-known, both as a player and as a poster in the newsgroup. I'm not. But I can claim the 'the EC will be done by the book' is an official statement, but it seems only a few people are willing to believe this. Stone

"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@mailandnews.com> a écrit dans le message news: e96a9e4b.01080...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Judges will not encourage players not to make table-split deals. Judges will not deviate from the official rules. > > I hope the EC will be a great event. > > Tim Eijpe So do I. Stone

>===== Original Message From "Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> ===== [ quoted text not captured ] You pointed that out in your last post, which was very very clear. Thank you. BUT I was talking about my concerns that this *could* possibly happen, not that it would. The EC will be using the V:EKN Rules. You pointed that out several times now. And I am glad. But you must agree that it is scary when *anyone* claims the rules would not be enforced. That and only that is the point for my post. It scares me that *anyone* would encourage *anyone* in an organized sanctioned constructed tournament to deviate from the V:EKN Rules. I guess this is why this is becoming a large thread. BTW maybe you should/could post your message above in a seperate post, so that every one sees it. I am sure there are a lot of readers who have lost interest in this thread. Then you will only need one post that says it all. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, Cheers:) Tim Eijpe

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<9yX97.5977$lB.10...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... > > O yes, a REAL piece of craft. Of course, the idea is not completely > > new. But Francois' genius is that he has made the trick work so that > > in principle he can roll the whole table IN ONE TURN. Archons won't > > save you, rush will only save you if you do it IMMEDIATELY, and > > deflection will only save you up to a point. Here is how the deck > > works: > > > > Bring out Arika. > > Equip Arika with soul gem. Forgotten Labyrinth if necessary, Lost in > > Crowds just in case that isn't enough. > > Freak Drive. > > Call PS: Berlin [stealth combo as before]. Awe, burning all but 2 of > > Arika's blood for 40-odd votes. > > Force of Will at INFERIOR. Modify with Daring the Dawn. Add > > Conditioning, bleed for 8. Arika burns. Because of PS Berlin THIS > > Arika is a 12-cap with a soul-gem, so the next card in your crypt will > > come into play on full blood if it is younger. Wow, look! The next > > vampire is Arika! And now she does EXACTLY the same series of moves as > > above. Just for spice, Francois packs Distractions which he plays so's > > to draw 5 cards and discard - necessary to set up the combo reliably. > > That's obf, cel, pre, for and dom - a working 5-discipline deck, > > forsooth! > > > this deck is hardly new. As i say above at the beginning of the quote, the IDEA is not new. But Francois has taken what used to be a cool trick deck and turned it into a total trouser-trembling nightmare. Kudos to him! I remember the days when there were tons of decks > like this. They bled with Return to innocence. i remember the RtI/Soul gem nights as well. This is worse than rti, and maybe even worse than old Gangrel Fame, which is i think the only other deck i've seen with the same awesome machine-like relentlessness. It takes you 3-4 turns to bring out Arika with Francois's deck. If you are not dead by then, the rest of the table should be yours by the end of the first turn on which you actually get to take any minion actions. You do realise that NRA does NOT apply to the new copy of Arika who comes out when the soul gem triggers? This is the killer bit of the combo. You don't just bleed for 8. You bleed until you run out of Arikas or library cards, AND YOU DO ALL OF IT IN ONE [1!] TURN!!!!!! <Snip>

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > So the question is, how to make themselves "weak enough" to make their > > victory point claims that makes the deal legal? That's just weird. And > > not at all something that happens in a good game (IMO). > > Allowing 3/2 splits for no good in-game reason is certainly not something > that I'd like to see any more of. I agree with that, too. I'd just like neither thing to be true. Perhaps that's all easier said than done. Good reason to continue to explore the "games won" finalist criteria, IMO. Fred

Tim Eijpe <tim....@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:<3B80...@MailAndNews.com>... (snip) > >Judges will not encourage players not to make table-split deals. > >Judges will not deviate from the official rules. > > > >> > > You pointed that out in your last post, which was very very clear. Thank > you. > > BUT I was talking about my concerns that this *could* possibly happen, not > that it would. The EC will be using the V:EKN Rules. You pointed that out > several times now. And I am glad. > > But you must agree that it is scary when *anyone* claims the rules would not > be enforced. No, I disagree. If people are willing to believe non-official posts, *especially* when "official explanations" have been made in a way thats allows no misunderstanding, then something is wrong, sorry. As LSJ said, when someones asks a question, and someone else answers before LSJ does, with an incorrect answer, do people jump to their feet and say "yikes!! so this card is a killer! let's write a zillion posts to point out that it's broken, let's get the flames on the newsgroup (or something like that, due to bad english, but you get the picture)"? Do they? No. That's because LSJ's answers are official ones. For myself, I wait to see LSJ's answer to a question. People should wait to see "official" answers to questions related to the handling of the EC, IMO. That and only that is the point for my post. It scares me that > *anyone* would encourage *anyone* in an organized sanctioned constructed > tournament to deviate from the V:EKN Rules. I guess this is why this is > becoming a large thread. > > BTW maybe you should/could post your message above in a seperate post, so > that > every one sees it. I am sure there are a lot of readers who have lost > interest > in this thread. Heh. Their loss ;-) All of this arised in this thread, so it seems normal to reply in it. But then, my news server didn't show your post, I am writing this from goggle. Then you will only need one post that says it all. > Ok, I'll do it...I think that Stéphane will get the chance to post anyway soon. > Anyway, thanks for the explanation, > > Cheers:) > > Tim Eijpe You're welcome. Stone

In message <9kbbc6$ht6$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> writes >Last thing: >I'm getting tired of writing the same thing over and over. I know Reyda is >well-known, both as a player and as a poster in the newsgroup. I'm not. But >I can claim the 'the EC will be done by the book' is an official statement, >but it seems only a few people are willing to believe this. At what point will Reyda be disqualified for his actions, then? He is, very obviously, attempting to manipulate the results of the tournament in a non-legal manner. I cannot see any other option for players attempting such. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9k9ire$f01$1...@neon.noos.net... > > "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> > (snip cool comments about Francois' Turbo Arkia deck) > > > this deck is hardly new. > You must have made a mistake, sir. Everything is talking about an old trick > deck then ? I'm sure everyone saw it as a threat. Can i be wrong ? No, they are talking about a new VARIANT of an old trick. See below > > I remember the days when there were tons of decks > > like this. They bled with Return to innocence. > > Ah ! you mean a deck packing IC and bleeding with RtI... This is *totally > different*. No, I'm not. You bleed once a turn. There was no room for the soul gem since > a succesful RtI removes the vampire from the game. It does now; It didn't then. You had to transfer out > another vampire. They were not so scary, but above all they were as i > mentioned *totally different*. Look at all the past tenses I used in my bit about the RtI deck: These decks were extremely popular in the days before Rti got errata. Return to Innocence (original version) action, 4 blood Requires a ready vampire. D bleed your prey with +x bleed, where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. Burn this vampire if this action is successful. This means Soul Gem could be used. Even better, there was no need to drain Arika of her blood to burn her. It's the reason other veteran players, like > Rob didn't comparred those decks with "Turbo Arika". Are you trying to > minimize the impact this deck had on all other players ? No, I'm not. I was simply pointing out that the concept was not a new one. It is a scary deck, of course, and extremely hard to get to work. Jeroen

You do realise that NRA does NOT apply to > the new copy of Arika who comes out when the soul gem triggers? This > is the killer bit of the combo. You don't just bleed for 8. You bleed > until you run out of Arikas or library cards, AND YOU DO ALL OF IT IN > ONE [1!] TURN!!!!!! > The old Arika/Soul Gem/RtI decks could also do it in 1 turn. I fail to see your point. Again, I'm not trying to "diss" the deck, I tried to make one myself a couple of weeks ago and i couldn't get it to work. It probably takes some kind of deck building genius to get it to work properly. Jeroen

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> > Ah. I thought I had seen a retraction from Reyda. But I cannot find it now. > Reyda, could you explain both your position/involvement in the EC. I have no involvment at all in the EC organisation =P except a small task which is writing the Paris VEKN tournament reports. (i'm entitled as their "harpy") I am *only* a jyhad player, and thus have *zero* authority on what will be done. > If you have any official role in the EC, would you please confirm that you > will not, despite previous messages to the contrary, be discouraging legal > play? The Prince of Paris and his judge won't discourage anyone. I think all the fuss came from the "we" i used ! (again, english is a wonderful language;) ) This meant "we, the players" and not "we, the judges" because i am only a player ! The judge can only sancionate *blatant collusion* and not table split deals if they are done in a regular fashion (players talking in front of others, etc...) Some players (led by me) who dislike VP split much than others want everyone to have fun with their decks. Table splitters will play as usual, but with stronger resistance from the fench players ;) I posted first on this newsgroup to react at what was said about the allegations of "collusion" by Benoit. Now we all know it wasn't collusion, merely a very-early table split deal. (and now you know that french people dislike this kind of deal). I can't understand why the thread went so bigger, people throwing arguments from all sides =/ I also posted a small text about our inherent inability to conclude table split deal, it was humorous and not serious at all, and in no case wanted to show any superiority from our playstyle above yours : Against all expectations, the reaction was hudge. Deal making is part of your playstyle and you can't help it ;) **Here are also three quotes from my precedent posts : [about collusion] "I repeat again : at the EC, we will play the standard VEKN Rules. But we will examine suspicious deals. That's all." [assuming there was no rollover deal made] " If someone doesn't kill a prey low on pool (with bleeding actions/stealth in hand or damaging votes that will pass anyway), if someone transfers out when his chances of winning are 50% or more, we'll call the judge. Yes, sir. We are not stupid either. " [about enforcing VEKN rules in EC] "Again, we won't force anyone to play our way. We frenchguys didn't created Jyhad, ya know... We just have our playstyle. We don't think it's better or worse either." [about the VEKN rule of maximizing VP ] We don't want situations where people willingly give VP they still can gain to other players. This is a bad move for the game and shows disrespect to other players on other tables who are struggling to gain VPs. We [the french players] can't *forbid* that, but we'll strongly disencourage this. I refuse to be a judge just because i know i cannot stand those occurences. ** Does it make sense ? it's my personal crusade against table split deal. I hope the dealmakers are ready to have their butt kicked ;) Hope this clarifies a lot of things. I didn't want to interfere with the organization of the EC ;) and, again, i am in no way related to the EC. I'm independent and will remain independent. Reyda ------- I may climb perhaps to no great heights, but I will climb alone. Cyrano De Bergerac

>You don't just bleed for 8. You bleed > until you run out of Arikas or library cards, AND YOU DO ALL OF IT IN > ONE [1!] TURN!!!!!! the thing is you HAVE to watch it in action to appreciate how mad it is! You can run the scenarios over in your head, but it means nothing unitl you hear people gasp as they are literally robbed of 25-30 pool! I stuck together a guesstimate of this deck on the Yahoo VTES club. I reckon for a 90 card library, there are enough actions to do it about 13 times. That's 13 lots of 8 point bleeds. That's 104 bleed. That 104 bleed falls on the table in one turn. That is not pretty. I could be wrong in my guessing, I suppose, but I was thinking if there was a way of doing it with any other smaller vampires other than Arika, and it is practically impossible. Maybe Ramjan Rishi (Cammie Scholar), but he lacks superior fortitude, Obf for Stealth and +2 bleed at basic (knocking 39 bleed off the total). Similar for Sweaty Nash and Tim Crowley. It is a fluke deck, that uses a corner case ruling, that runs off over 50 rare and desirable cards. I salute him for making it work, but I am not too worried about the ramifications on the game - how many decks like that can be made? Answer - One. DH

-- "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: > At what point will Reyda be disqualified for his actions, then? > > He is, very obviously, attempting to manipulate the results of the > tournament in a non-legal manner. I cannot see any other option for > players attempting such. James Coupe, you are clearly trying to eliminate a good player from the scene ! this is unsportsmanship ;) I'm scared already of allt he fuss that came out from my post ! i never think you would go so far ! If you really want to personnaly fight me, as the offended person, i have the choice of weapons. I'll let you have the day and hour of the duel. I'll choose Soul Calibur on Dreamcast. All characters allowed. I will wield a broad, one edged, oriental sword (that means i'll select Hwang Sungkyung). Do you still want to fight me ? =) reyda [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9ke362$c9v$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >James Coupe, you are clearly trying to eliminate a good player from the >scene ! this is unsportsmanship ;) I am attempting to have the players trying to illegally manipulate the European Championships dealt with. If this involves you being "eliminated from the scene", so be it. You are attempting seriously illegal manipulative actions; you, and others doing similar, must be dealt with. Any player attempting this level of manipulation and pseudo-collusive action would almost automatically be excluded from any tournament I was running. What you and others have attempted to do is covered under 160: "This section deals with intentionally committed infractions that can give a player a significant advantage over others." 161 - Collusion and 163 - Fraud, which are the two closest infractions, both have a penalty of disqualification. [ quoted text not captured ]

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<Vata7.8255$lB.16...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... [ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for Philippe Lang, it's original creator =) François Alix

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: Noxznb+P...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <9ke362$c9v$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >James Coupe, you are clearly trying to eliminate a good player from the > >scene ! this is unsportsmanship ;) > > I am attempting to have the players trying to illegally manipulate the > European Championships dealt with. Wow ? come on, you are taking this too seriously. did i tried to bribe a judge or something ? i just posted my thoughts on *usenet*, as everyone else does. I never claimed i talked in any official manner. I was not masquerading under a false name like "Prince of Paris" or "Paris headjudge". It was only me, Reyda. You remember me ? the small guy asking about mind rape's stealing timing ! > If this involves you being "eliminated from the scene", so be it. You > are attempting seriously illegal manipulative actions; you, and others > doing similar, must be dealt with. Hey ?! You lend me a power i clearly do not have !! (except the power of irritating people, obviously) -Am i a member of a secret society ? do i have mob connections ? can i lead you to bankruptcy or shoot you and you family in the knees if you make deals on first round ? i guess the answer is *no*. Just relax, james ! playing too much on tournament level may prove to be bad for the nerves. > Any player attempting this level of manipulation and pseudo-collusive > action would almost automatically be excluded from any tournament I was > running. What you and others have attempted to do is covered under 160: What do you mean by pseudo collusive ?! > "This section deals with intentionally committed infractions that can > give a player a significant advantage over others." Yes ? can my opinion give me advantage over others ? i doubt so ! the way i think can always penalize me because even if i'm screwed up, i'll tempt to win anyway without using VP spli deals. I guess that's a disadvantage cause no one will dare to propose me such deal now =) > 161 - Collusion and 163 - Fraud, which are the two closest infractions, > both have a penalty of disqualification. When did i fraud ? i only told you that frenchmen are not accustomed to VP split deals, and tend to dislike them. Expect strong resistance. It's a cultural fact, not a secret plot !! the fact is, would it have been decetive collusion or a secret masterplan, i wouldn't talk openly about it on usenet, you know... reyda (and i still think you are a nice guy) -- Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it. Winston Churchill

Reyda wrote: > Hey ?! You lend me a power i clearly do not have !! (except the power of > irritating people, obviously) -Am i a member of a secret society ? do i have > mob connections ? can i lead you to bankruptcy or shoot you and you family > in the knees if you make deals on first round ? i guess the answer is *no*. > Just relax, james ! playing too much on tournament level may prove to be bad > for the nerves. > You play Vtes? No? then the obvious answers to most of your questions should be: Yes You have Powers that we clearly cannot see You are a member of a secrect Society You do have mob connections, or at least in your deck. You will led me to banrupt my pool You will shoot the Family Mechanic and you may not break my knees, but could decapitate me instead. Raille

(snip) > I am attempting to have the players trying to illegally manipulate the > European Championships dealt with. > > If this involves you being "eliminated from the scene", so be it. You > are attempting seriously illegal manipulative actions; you, and others > doing similar, must be dealt with. Who are the so-called "others doing similar"? If you want to accuse someone of something, name him. Stone

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<Vata7.8255$lB.16...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... > You do realise that NRA does NOT apply to > > the new copy of Arika who comes out when the soul gem triggers? This > > is the killer bit of the combo. You don't just bleed for 8. You bleed > > until you run out of Arikas or library cards, AND YOU DO ALL OF IT IN > > ONE [1!] TURN!!!!!! > > > The old Arika/Soul Gem/RtI decks could also do it in 1 turn. I fail to see > your point. Actually, you are quite right. In theory, they could. But in my night, we never saw this actually work. Did you? Francois has got it to work, REPRODUCIBLY, through the clever use of Distractions. Have you ever heard of this trick before? i never have. > Again, I'm not trying to "diss" the deck, I tried to make one myself a > couple of weeks ago and i couldn't get it to work. It probably takes some > kind of deck building genius to get it to work properly. Indeed, and this is what Francois has done. We aren't disagreeing really, i think. He has taken what we call Friday Afternoon Talk and made it something scary. Until you're on the receiving end of this you won't REALLY know what i mean. > > Jeroen

maybe the soul gem should be errated so that the new minion comes to play during your influence phase! Stefan > > It is a fluke deck, that uses a corner case ruling, that runs off over > 50 rare and desirable cards> > DH

----- Original Message ----- From: Reyda <re...@noos.fr> Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:04 PM Subject: Re: Watford -Let's finish this =) > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> > > > Ah. I thought I had seen a retraction from Reyda. But I cannot find it > now. > > Reyda, could you explain both your position/involvement in the EC. > > I have no involvment at all in the EC organisation =P > except a small task which is writing the Paris VEKN tournament reports. > (i'm entitled as their "harpy") > I am *only* a jyhad player, and thus have *zero* authority on what will be > done. > well reyda, you gave me the impression that you were writing based on statements from the ec organisational teams. i dídn´t know that you were representing all french players :-))))) or do you think that you deserve the imperial plural :-)))))). if it is your personal crusade please keep it personal and don´t use we (by the way english is not an excuse for you because in french there is also a distinction between je and nous) > > The Prince of Paris and his judge won't discourage anyone. I think all the > fuss came from the "we" i used ! (again, english is a wonderful language;) ) > This meant "we, the players" and not "we, the judges" because i am only a > player ! > The judge can only sancionate *blatant collusion* and not table split deals > if they are done in a regular fashion (players talking in front of others, > etc...) > > Some players (led by me) who dislike VP split much than others > want everyone to have fun with their decks. Table splitters will play as > usual, but with stronger resistance from the fench players ;) > do you really think only french players will resist table splitters? i am sure that all three other players will try to prevent the table splitters to succede, but reading the posts about watford some french player were not able to adapt to this situation and fell to the table splitters. if anyone would declare an table split an turn one than naturally all other 3 players would turn against them and most likely will oust them. it seems this french player was not willing to change his mind from attaking his prey to attaking the table splitter. this seems to be a slight weakpoint in the strong and fearsome french metagame. a flaw someone suggested to use by making deal making decks. reyda i have no problem with your personal crusade if you keep it personal. so please use i instead of we. > I posted first on this newsgroup to react at what was said about the > allegations of "collusion" by Benoit. Now we all know it wasn't collusion, > merely a very-early table split deal. (and now you know that french people > dislike this kind of deal). I can't understand why the thread went so > bigger, people throwing arguments from all sides =/ because you made it look as if the prince of paris won´t allow table splitting deals at the ec. if you would just have written, i don´t like tablesplitting deals and will find legal ways to prevent these (by forging an alliance against the table splitters with the other two players at my table) than no one would have complained. > I also posted a small text about our inherent inability to conclude table > split deal, it was humorous and not serious at all, and in no case wanted to > show any superiority from our playstyle above yours : > it sounded serious and believe me noone thinks that the french playstyle is superior to any other playstyle just different. > **Here are also three quotes from my precedent posts : > > > [about the VEKN rule of maximizing VP ] > We don't want situations where people willingly give VP > they still can gain to other players. This is a bad move for the game and > shows disrespect to other players on other tables who are struggling to gain > VPs. We [the french players] can't *forbid* that, but we'll strongly > disencourage this. I refuse > to be a judge just because i know i cannot stand those occurences. don´t speak for the french players, use i ,don´t use we!!!!!!!! > > Hope this clarifies a lot of things. I didn't want to interfere with the > organization of the EC ;) and, again, i am in no way related to the EC. I'm > independent and will remain independent. > long live the independents hope to see you at the ec stefan > Reyda

In message <9ki86c$2cge$1...@www.univie.ac.at>, SF <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> writes >maybe the soul gem should be errated so that the new minion comes to play >during your influence phase! There are many and various possible errata: - Determine age of the vampire by the capacity of the vampire alone when in play. (That is, temporary capacity altering effects can't be used as is the case both here and in the Lasombra/Vitae Slave deck) - Bring the vampire into play with the stipulation they can't act until the start of your next minion phase - Return the Soul Gem to your hand. (So you get *another* chance to block it being equipped, but it's free (no pool) anyway.) - Tap the Soul Gem when inherited. Soul Gem does not function when tapped. - Soul Gem cannot bring out a copy of a vampire who would contest the vampire being burned. (A good one for RPG purists, too.) etc. The issue is not *what* errata to issue, but *whether* or not errata is needed. Successive Rules Teams have looked at the issue and left Soul Gem alone. This is not, of course, an argument in itself for no change, but it does suggest that some considerable arguments have to be brought forward on a theoretical level, along with empirical evidence where possible, to demonstrate that it *is* Soul Gem that *needs* fixing. And, of course, it needs to be clearly demonstrated that this is not just because Soul Gem is the current most powerful card in the game (or close to) and is simply the next in line to be errata-ed. [ quoted text not captured ]