Report from the First Belorussian Nationals (Sep 1-2)

Ladies and gentlemen, Let me describe our first Nationals here. We had 26 players, which is the absolutely largest tournament ever played in Minsk, and we enjoyed five guests from Lithuania. Unfortunately, there were no other guests, but we had some new players, attracted by high level of the tournament and the prizes. The prize support was outstanding for Belarus - a box of boosters, and there were special prizes for the "fair play", for the "good play" (outside the Finals) and for the most original deck. Overall, it was a great day of serious competition, and I was happy to judge such event. I will not provide the full stadings here, since most of you never seen our players anyway. Top five players are: 1. Evgeniy Zakharenkov 3 GW 11 VP 2. Nerijus Mikalajunas 2 GW 8.5 VP 3. Julius Stonis 2 GW 8 VP 4. Alex Minov 2 GW 7.5 VP 5. Andrew Kashpar 2 GW 5 VP As you see, players needed at least 2 GW to get into the finals, almost like at the EC or NAC :) The final seating is: Julius -> Andrew -> Nerijus -> Evgeniy -> Alex. Evgeniy (Melidiadus) is our top player, and he played the dreadful disciplineless weenie that I hate with passion :) He planned to oust Alex pretty fast and then oust Julius prior to be ousted by Nerijus who played a very interesting Setite horde of Waters of Duat and Bimas. Unfortunately for Melidiadus, he got too heavy crypt opening (all 2-caps is too heavy for him!) and bad hand. Nerijus exploded like a rocket, having 8 minions at the end of turn 4. Alex played an !Brujah bruise&vote that was too slow to stop weenies, so he was ousted first. (Nevertheless, getting into the finals is a great personal achievement for him, since he is a relatively new player, and he deserves the congratulations). But Julius influenced Arika and several weenies and generated the great amount of pool (something like 35), and it was obvious that Nerijus was going to oust his prey faster. The last player, Andrew Kashpar, run his own version of "Cybelotron" (see the decklists below) and controlled Anthelios and Cybele with Celerity and Soul Gem of Etrius. When Cybele Called the Great Beast (with OBF DAI OBE, if I recall it right), the game suddenly shifted: Evgeniy could play Tribute to the Master each turn with his Parthenon, Andrew could bleed for 6 each turn, while Nerijus had no defense against bleed and was inevitably ousted in a few turns. Then the situation became unstable, since all players could hit their preys almost without any reaction; only speed of gaining pool and dealing pool damage mattered. Evgeniy was very low on pool and tried to deal with Andrew, but the latter refused the deal and ousted his second prey. Nerijus had Secure Haven on his Arika, but The Great Beast with Herald of Topheth torporized all his weenies, and the game was clear, though Arika performed two actions almost each turn with Forced Marches. "Cybelotron" worked without faults, and Andrew had enough pool to influence Nergal, that was PTOed, and then influence him again! Julius conceded only after depleting all his library. Here are the decklists of the finalists: ---------------------------Andrew Kashpar (winner) CRYPT ------- Cybele * 8 Nergal * 4 LIBRARY ------- Call of the Great Beast * 8 Contagion Renewed Vigor * 8 Summoning Elder Impersonation * 4 Psychomachia * 4 Cloak the Gathering * 4 Spying Mission * 2 Swallowed by the Night * 2 Lost in Crowds * 4 Carlton Van Vyk Mylan Horseed Herald of Topheth * 2 Conflagration * 6 Fear of the Void Below * 4 Fortshritt Library Minion Tap * 8 Direct Intervention Sudden Reversal Celerity * 6 Vast Wealth * 5 Bleeding the Vine Archon Investigation Dreams of the Sphinx Golconda * 2 Redeem the Lost Soul Visit From the Capuchin * 2 Life Boon Parthenon * 2 Soul Gem of Etrius Anthelios, the Red Star * 2 Repulsion Giant's Blood -----------------------Evgeniy Zakharenkov CRYPT -------- Igo the Hungry Huang, Blood Cultist Franciscus Smudge, the Ignored Basil Royce Hasina Kesi March Halcyon Angela Decker Navar McClaren Nik Antoinette DuChamp Brasil Vliam Andor Sadie Carter Guiliano Vincenzi Aaron Duggan, Cameron's Toady Samson Frederick the Weak LIBRARY -------- Parthenon * 6 Pentex Subversion * 3 Fortschritt Library Effective Management * 8 Kaymakli Nightmares Tribute to the Master * 3 Computer Hacking * 28 Dodge * 20 Anthelios, the Red Star * 2 Golconda, the Inner Peace Mylan Horseed (Goblin) Thin-Blooded Seer * 3 Direct intervention Wash >From a Sinking Ship Brainwash * 6 Dreams of the Sphinx * 2 Antediluvian Awakening Aranthebes, the Immortal -------------------------Nerijus Mikalajunas (Snake Pit) Sir Mariott D'Urban * 3 Hadrian Garrick * 2 Nepata * 2 Count Ormonde Basil Julius Lena Rowe Antoinette DuChamp Obfuscate * 14 Blood Doll Visit From the Capuchin * 3 Dreams of the Sphinx * 2 Sudden Reversal Tribute to the Master * 3 Archon Investigation Direct Intervention Opium Den * 3 Perfectionist Secret Passage * 2 Waters of Duat * 12 Bima * 6 Qetu the Evil Doer Mylan Horseed (Goblin) Night Moves * 9 Mummy's Tongue Aranthebes, the Immortal Entrancement Psychic Veil * 2 Veil the Legions * 4 Cloak the Gathering * 6 Spying Mission * 2 Swallowed by the Night * 3 Lost in Crowds * 3 Majesty * 4 Staredown * 2 --------------------------Julius Stonis (Camarilla Board office) CRYPT -------- Arika * 4 Gwendolyn Leandro Michael Luther Mustafa Rahman Ohanna Marciana Giovanni, Investigator Samson Royce LIBRARY -------- Ventrue Headquarters Information Highway * 7 Secure Haven * 6 Dreams of Sphinx * 2 Zillah's Valley * 2 Direct Intervention Wash Archon Investigation Minion Tap * 8 Learjet * 3 Mind Rape Ancient Influence Reins of Power Political Stranglehold Protect Thine Own Banishment * 4 Kine Resources Contested * 6 Forced March * 7 Voter Captivation * 6 The Kiss of Ra * 2 veil the Legions * 2 Elder Impersonation * 3 Marked Path Cloak the Gathering * 3 Spying Mission * 4 Lost in Crowds * 3 Majesty * 3 Catatonic Fear Rolling with the Punches * 2 Deflection * 6 --------------------------------Minov Alex Hektor * 4 Armin Brenner * 4 Smash * 2 Henry Tailor Jacques Molay Powerbase: Madrid Dreams of the Sphinx * 2 Fame * 2 Haven Uncovered * 2 Gang Territory * 2 Blood Doll * 5 Black Forest Base Depravity Celerity Fortitude Rumble * 4 Bum's Rush Leather Jacket Mylan Horseed Kine Resources Contested * 2 Anarchist Uprising * 2 Dogs of War * 2 Disputed Territory * 2 Ancient Influence Reins of Power Political Stranglehold Forced March * 6 Iron Glare * 6 Voter Captivation * 3 Flash * 3 Pursuit * 7 Immortal Grapple * 5 Fast Hands * 2 Undead Strength * 5 Thrown Sewer Lid * 4 Rolling with the Punches * 3 Superior Mettle * 3 Decapitate Disarm * 2 Taste of Vitae * 2 On the Qui Vive * 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quite obviously, the decklists were *required* at the tournament, and nobody whined about that. I asked the players to count number of cards in their prey's library and report to me. Almost all decklist problems were found during the first round, and I asked the players with problematic decklists to fix them, and issued Warnings. This is the most simple and effective way to minimize chances of the "Hungarian problem" (some players got Game Loss in the finals for illegal decks or decklists) until we get the new Penalty Guidelines. Thus, I recommend the same procedure to all serious judges. Yours, Ector

In article <1190544958.7...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I will not provide the full stadings here, since most of you never > seen our players anyway. Top five players are: How is it relevant that most of us will never see your players? It is always fun to see who was playing and how they did. > CRYPT > ------- > Cybele * 8 > Nergal * 4 Just a procedural/posting thing--general consensus is that it is best to post decks like: 8x Cybele rather than Cybele x8 (or whatever) Just makes it easier to read. > Quite obviously, the decklists were *required* at the tournament, and > nobody whined about that. I asked the players to count number of cards > in their prey's library and report to me. Almost all decklist problems > were found during the first round, and I asked the players with > problematic decklists to fix them, and issued Warnings. This is the > most simple and effective way to minimize chances of the "Hungarian > problem" (some players got Game Loss in the finals for illegal decks > or decklists) until we get the new Penalty Guidelines. Thus, I > recommend the same procedure to all serious judges. Sigh. You ever going to give this up? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On Sep 23, 3:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1190544958.797068.313...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Quite obviously, the decklists were *required* at the tournament, and > > nobody whined about that. I asked the players to count number of cards > > in their prey's library and report to me. Almost all decklist problems > > were found during the first round, and I asked the players with > > problematic decklists to fix them, and issued Warnings. This is the > > most simple and effective way to minimize chances of the "Hungarian > > problem" (some players got Game Loss in the finals for illegal decks > > or decklists) until we get the new Penalty Guidelines. Thus, I > > recommend the same procedure to all serious judges. > > Sigh. You ever going to give this up? > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man ROFLMAO. ho ho ho thud...

On Sep 23, 6:55 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I asked the players to count number of cards > in their prey's library and report to me. That would have been the point when I would have gone home. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] How in god's name could anyone consider playing this unimaginitive, flavourless shite to be fun? Seriously....

On Sep 24, 12:55 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: [snip dodge / computer hacking deck list] > How in god's name could anyone consider playing this unimaginitive, > flavourless shite to be fun? > > Seriously.... Yeah. More to the point, how did someone manage to win two tables with this deck...

On Sep 24, 10:55 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > How in god's name could anyone consider playing this unimaginitive, > flavourless shite to be fun? > > Seriously.... It's no worse than weenie Dom powerbleed. Besides, in an environment that fosters "serious" as opposed to "fun" play what kind of decks were you expecting? On a more serious note however, congratulations to you, Ector for running the event, and to the winner. Please however don't expect anyone else to want to play the way you do. I play (and judging from everyone's responses on various threads) for fun. Sure we can play competitively in tournaments, but I never loose sight of that "fun" quality. There is no way in hell that I would want to spend hours, and sometimes whole days playing a game that wasn't. Cheers Sutekh_23

[ quoted text not captured ] It looks like Aanthebes is in here to contest. The fact that vamps less than 5 can play undermines it a little. What's the point of playing it to hold off a weenie horde if that weenie horde can play it and contest it? Perhaps it should only be allowed to be played by vamps >= 5. Chris.

IMO weenie decks are way out of balance and White Wolf should create some ruling to bring equilibrium into the game. Example: a 1-3 cap have -1 bleed/-1 stealth when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a ready older vampire. Or 75% of your deck must be made up of vampires 4 cap and up. I'm sure better rules could be created but you get my point I hope. Cards like Aranthebes the Immortal (UNIQUE) are not enough to address this, in fact I often see 1-3 copies of him in many weenie decks. As for the Imbued, don't get me started...

[ quoted text not captured ] Alternate transfer rule: Methuselahs get up to 5 transfers maximum. It costs 1 transfer to move a minion from inactive to active. It costs 5 transfers and 1 pool to move a crypt card from crypt to uncontrolled. That is all. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Congrats on completing the first national event for Belorussia. Quite an accomplishment indeed! And to all the haters of weenie sleaze (and I count myself as one of them), TOO BAD. The game structure rewards this type of deck so it is perfectly legitimate to take to a premiere event and try it against tough competition. Sure, the guy with the Hector deck probably deserves more props for style and ingenuity, but there is nothing wrong with playing to win. Hate the game, not the player. Jeff Or is that love the game, hate weenies and imbued? :)

> More to the point, how did someone manage to win two tables with this > deck... It's real easy. I Effective Management. I bring up 4 minions on turn 1. I brainwash the guy my prey transferred to. I bleed him 4 times with Computer Hacking and pay 1 to see 1. Next turn I Computer hack him 3-4 more times and influence out 2 more minions. If he starts tranferring to another minion, I brainwash that one too. Or maybe his prey's next minion, because lets face it, he'll be my prey in 3 minutes time. If he ever manages to influence out a minion to block me, I dodge whatever he throws at me, and he's not playing dedicated combat because it doesn't win at tourneys so my minions don't go down. Oh shit, my prey's ousted, fancy that. I pull out more minions. I bleed with CH every turn. I dodge. If i lose a minion or two, who cares, they cost me one pool. My predator can't bleed fast enough to cope with my vp pool and Tributes to the Master. Oh shit, i won, fancy that. 100% pure awesome.

> It's no worse than weenie Dom powerbleed. I am in complete agreement. > Besides, in an environment that fosters "serious" as opposed to "fun" > play what kind of decks were you expecting? Ones that couldn't be played and won with by a trained circus seal maybe? Sorry, but this deck really is at the arse-end of every spectrum of deck building known to man. If VTES were a living organism, this deck would be bowel cancer. If VTES were Chuck Norris, this deck would be "Braddock: Missing in Action III"

> Hate the game, not the player. Nah, I pretty much dislike both. That the game rewards this kind of monosyllabic, protozoan deck design is pretty sad. What's sadder is that these decks very, very seldomly win big tourneys but you always get some poon who INSISTS on playing one. They make the finals all the time, but by the time that last game of the day rolls around, everyone sitting at the finals table knows exactly what the deck does and works together to annihilate it. So at the end of the day, you made a deck that didn't win, and nobody who played against you had any fun, whatsoever. Pretty sweet deal.

> suddenly shifted: Evgeniy could play Tribute to the Master each turn > with his Parthenon, FIX ANTHELIOS !!! -- "All Hail the Lords of the Night !" Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you meant : > Oh awesome, i won, fancy that. > > 100% pure shit. [ quoted text not captured ]

I hate neither game nor player of the game, just sharing my thoughts on the weenie archetype. I was not questioning legitimacy, nor authenticity. There is nothing wrong with playing to win, every now and again I play weenie and Imbued decks. I was questioning their balance in the game. Call me crazy but IMO balanced means more fun and challenge. > The game structure rewards this type of deck so it is perfectly > legitimate to take to a premiere event and try it against tough > competition. Sure, the guy with the Hector deck probably deserves more > props for style and ingenuity, but there is nothing wrong with playing > to win. > The game structure rewards this type of deck so it is perfectly > legitimate to take to a premiere event and try it against tough > competition. Sure, the guy with the Hector deck probably deserves more > props for style and ingenuity, but there is nothing wrong with playing > to win. > > Hate the game, not the player. > > Jeff > > Or is that love the game, hate weenies and imbued? :)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

>> Or is that love the game, hate weenies and imbued? :) Better yet : love the game, hate no-brainer decks, despise players who don't try to have a shot at anything even remotely original and / or interesting to play - not to mention totally unbalancing, and that seldom wins on really good tables because good players will always find a way to gang up on such cheese. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Or maybe his prey's next minion, because lets face it, he'll be my > prey in 3 minutes time. Brainwash can only be played on prey. But yeah - everything else you said is on the money. Quite often, decks like this will take 1 or 2 VP a game and that is it. They then get shut down or killed. Atonement + Concealed + Gun and some way of untapping is all that it takes to nuke this deck, but you've got to get it off first, or play those cards. DI or blocking his attempt to get Aranthebes out is also important, but even accounting for Aranthebes in play and not contested, with a Hack, he is still bleeding for 1. I've been including Domain Challenge and Snipe hunt in vote decks lately just to kill off decks like these, and in a tournament I would think of including Domain Challenge or Anarchist Uprising anyway to kill off decks like these, hoping that those with votes would pass them. Combat can't really hose them either, because there are just so many of them, and you won't have enough rush. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

On Sep 24, 2:56 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > >> Or is that love the game, hate weenies and imbued? :) > > Better yet : love the game, hate no-brainer decks, despise players who don't > try to have a shot at anything even remotely original and / or interesting > to play Just to play devil's advocate for a minute :) How many Tier 1 decks vary all that much? How many versions of Nos prince/ parity shift decks have you seen? How many AAA decks have you seen? How many shambling horde decks have you seen? How many imbued champion/ determine decks with Jennie, Travis and Memories of mortality have you seen? Need I go on........ - not to mention totally unbalancing, and that seldom wins on really > good tables because good players will always find a way to gang up on such > cheese. > -- Hmm, good players, you may have hit the problem right there :) > "All Hail the Lords of the Night !" > Seconded!! > Orpheus Sutekh_23

> Quite often, decks like this will take 1 or 2 VP a game and that is > it. They then get shut down or killed. Yeah, but people still insist on bringing them every year. And they tend to knock out and ruin the game of many good and interesting decks, simply because those decks didn't pack an Atonement and a Magnum. Chances are, you get stuck as the prey of one of these things, the round is just a total write off for you. Doesn't really matter what you play, doesn't matter how skillful a player or diplomat you are. Just pack your stuff up and go have a smoke, because sorry, you don't get to play for the next two hours. Thanks for coming all the way from the other side of the country. It's the one thing I truly loathe about big tournaments. Watching some poon pilot a no-skill brainwash/weenie horde and ruining people's sh*t just infuriates me.

> How many Tier 1 decks vary all that much? Originality is not really the issue, as i see it. The real issue is this: If you sit to the left of a deck like this, chances are you don't get to play. At all. You don't get to influence out a minion, you don't get to tap a card before you're down to 3 or 4 pool. Hordes, Imbued, Arika, whatever, very few decks deny you the ability to play the game in any real sense of the word. These kinds of decks do. Not many decks can live through having all it's minions brainwashed and being bled for upwards of 8 per turn on turn 2. These decks are absolutely no fun to play against, and require absolutely no skill whatsoever to play. That's the bottom line.

>> >> Or is that love the game, hate weenies and imbued? :) >> >> Better yet : love the game, hate no-brainer decks, despise players who >> don't >> try to have a shot at anything even remotely original and / or >> interesting >> to play > Just to play devil's advocate for a minute :) How much does a Devil's Advocate get paid ? > How many Tier 1 decks vary all that much? Never enough in my opinion. > How many versions of Nos prince/ parity shift decks have you seen? > How many AAA decks have you seen? > How many shambling horde decks have you seen? > How many imbued champion/ determine decks with Jennie, Travis and > Memories of mortality have you seen? Wayyyyy too much for my tastes. > Need I go on........ No you don't, we obviously agree. But : a) None of those decks are really easy to play : voting requires much effort, undertanding of table balance, dealing etc. Weenie decks are no-brainers. b) as Noodleboy and I already mentionned it, those decks tend to do a few VPs and then die, leaving the table totally unbalanced, and really winning only when meeting decks and players unable to react. > - not to mention totally unbalancing, and that seldom wins on really >> good tables because good players will always find a way to gang up on >> such >> cheese. >> -- > Hmm, good players, you may have hit the problem right there :) Might be. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 23, 4:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1190544958.797068.313...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > I will not provide the full stadings here, since most of you never > > seen our players anyway. Top five players are: > > How is it relevant that most of us will never see your players? It is > always fun to see who was playing and how they did. If so, here you are: 1 Evgeniy Zakharenkov 3 11 2 Nerijus Mikalajunas 2 8,5 3 Julius Stonis 2 8 4 Alex Minov 2 7,5 5 Andrew Kashpar 2 5 6 Zhmyh 1 4 7 Vlad Mazanik 1 3 8 Alexandr Levicev 1 2,5 9 Aleksandra Kutyreva-Leviceva 1 2 10 Igor Mozhnyakov 0 2,5 11 Anoer 0 2 11 Engeniy Kobelev 0 2 13 Evgenii Benkovski 0 2 14 Motejus Jimonis 0 2 15 Dmitry Belostotsky 0 2 16 Ivan Chebunin 0 1,5 17 Pavel Viatluhin 0 1 18 Ragnareh 0 1 18 Vadim Grigorev 0 1 20 Maria Semenova 0 1 21 Templar 0 1 22 Evgenij Solovei 0 1 23 Tatsiana Sabel 0 0,5 24 F9SSS 0 0,5 25 s2Ler 0 0 26 Kirill Jag 0 0 > Just a procedural/posting thing--general consensus is that it is best to > post decks like: > > 8x Cybele > > rather than > > Cybele x8 (or whatever) > > Just makes it easier to read. Sorry for that... I will follow this pattern next time. > > Sigh. You ever going to give this up? > Surely I do - when I give up judging :) Because judging is a serious job, and ignoring such useful tools as decklists makes it significantly harder. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess that if a judge would make a deckcheck at your table, you'd slap his face? :) Or shoot him? :) Yours, Ector

> > Sigh. You ever going to give this up? > > Surely I do - when I give up judging :) Because judging is a serious > job, and ignoring such useful tools as decklists makes it > significantly harder. When I used to play and run Warhammer Tournaments, we found that the game actually improved in play (sportsmanship and quality), when not only were decklists made mandatory, and checked (with errors penalised - no matter how minor), and when before a game you and your opponent had to swap lists. This did remove some of the trick armies, but meant that those few players who liked to fudge the rules, or sometimes, even purposefully misrepresent their troops and/or cheat, were driven out of the game. Players by swapping their lists at the beginning of the game started to play a lot more relaxed and took on board that yes, this was a game. Winning seemed to become second rate to having fun - even in large tournaments (for Australia) where we were getting 60+ people. Now, obviously it's a lot different showing a decklist to an opponent in V:TES than it is showing an army list in Warhammer. There isn't really that much that can be hidden in an army when the models are displayed on the table and when you have to explain to the opponent anyway what kind of equipment the guy is carrying, (heavy armour, lance, barded warhorse etc or a unit with 30 Night Goblins, Spears, Standard Bearer, Musician and Champion). But decklists that can be viewed and checked against all decks during a tournament IMO is a good thing. Might get a little tedius for the really big tournaments ala the EC etc, but accountability can't be bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 24, 5:23 am, sutekh_23 <beck...@aapt.net.au> wrote: > > It's no worse than weenie Dom powerbleed. IMHO, it's worse. Dom powerbleed is slower, and can be out-played with a lot of bounce. This deck can be stopped only by the dedicated weenie killers like Aranthebes, No Secrets from the Magaji or such. > Besides, in an environment that fosters "serious" as opposed to "fun" > play what kind of decks were you expecting? Serious play is NOT opposed to "fun" play. But if you really trying to win, you are building the most efficient decks for that, even if they are boring and killing fun. Why the most efficient decks are not fun - this is the problem of the game. > On a more serious note however, congratulations to you, Ector for > running the event, and to the winner. Thanks a lot! > Please however don't expect > anyone else to want to play the way you do. I play (and judging from > everyone's responses on various threads) for fun. Sure we can play > competitively in tournaments, but I never loose sight of that "fun" > quality. There is no way in hell that I would want to spend hours, and > sometimes whole days playing a game that wasn't. Please excuse me, but "judging for fun" sounds like a nonsence for me. A judge is constantly forced to make important decisions that affect the whole tournament, and his job is no fun even if all players are receiving a lot of fun. That said, I should add that we had a lot of fun at the Nationals. All players were happy with it. Everybody can have fun as long as he doesn't violate any rules. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] What a bunch of whining girls on this NG. For real. And I seriously doubt you would've gone home. Childish nonsense. Would you be there to have fun or to throw immature tantrums? If a decklist is required, you'd object to it being checked in the first round instead of going to the finals? The others: The weenie deck did *not* win. A baali deck won. Nice job of organizing, Ector. And thanks for the good report. Cheers, B

> The others: The weenie deck did *not* win. A baali deck won. Which shows exactly the point noodle had made. -- "All Hail the Lords of the Night !" Orpheus

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think he objects to you using decklists in your tournaments. You want to use decklists? Fine. Go ahead. But I'm tired of evangelizing - being told over and over and over and over and over again how we all should embrace decklists as The One True Path to Salvation. For example, I have not heard the French players complaining how us northeners use far too little table talk. Because they understand that *we do it differently, and we don't want to do it their way.* And they have no problem with that. HG -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

<angus_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1190602634....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps its time to fix Aranhtebes and simply remove his "uniqueness" Raille and reprint him as a common. :)

>> Surely I do - when I give up judging :) Because judging is a serious >> job, and ignoring such useful tools as decklists makes it >> significantly harder. > > I don't think he objects to you using decklists in your tournaments. > > You want to use decklists? Fine. Go ahead. Decklists are good for your health. What imports is what the penalties should be : I think that judging on an individual basis is necessary, because it should be obvious when a small unintentional mistake has no impact at all on the game. > But I'm tired of evangelizing - > being told over and over and over and over and over again how we all > should > embrace decklists as The One True Path to Salvation. Each his own way, sure. > For example, I have not heard the French players complaining how us > northeners use far too little table talk. Because they understand that > *we do it differently, and we don't want to do it their way.* > And they have no problem with that. Me french and methinks you talk too much. ;-) (just killing, err, kidding of course) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> IMO weenie decks are way out of balance and White Wolf should create >> some ruling to bring equilibrium into the game. Example: a 1-3 cap >> have -1 bleed/-1 stealth when bleeding a Methuselah who controls a >> ready older vampire. Or 75% of your deck must be made up of vampires 4 >> cap and up. I'm sure better rules could be created but you get my >> point I hope. Cards like Aranthebes the Immortal (UNIQUE) are not >> enough to address this, in fact I often see 1-3 copies of him in many >> weenie decks. As for the Imbued, don't get me started... >> > > Perhaps its time to fix Aranhtebes and simply remove his "uniqueness" > > Raille > and reprint him as a common. :) Aranthebes is an enormous tool in wall decks, not just against weenies. He certainly needs no boost. But I'm sure there'll be more alternatives against weenies around, and I'm all for it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:1190618394.0...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 5:23 am, sutekh_23 <beck...@aapt.net.au> wrote: >> >> It's no worse than weenie Dom powerbleed. > IMHO, it's worse. Dom powerbleed is slower, and can be out-played with > a lot of bounce. This deck can be stopped only by the dedicated weenie > killers like Aranthebes, No Secrets from the Magaji or such. > >> Besides, in an environment that fosters "serious" as opposed to "fun" >> play what kind of decks were you expecting? > Serious play is NOT opposed to "fun" play. But if you really trying to > win, you are building the most efficient decks for that, even if they > are boring and killing fun. Why the most efficient decks are not fun - > this is the problem of the game. > >> On a more serious note however, congratulations to you, Ector for >> running the event, and to the winner. > Thanks a lot! > >> Please however don't expect >> anyone else to want to play the way you do. I play (and judging from >> everyone's responses on various threads) for fun. Sure we can play >> competitively in tournaments, but I never loose sight of that "fun" >> quality. There is no way in hell that I would want to spend hours, and >> sometimes whole days playing a game that wasn't. > > Please excuse me, but "judging for fun" sounds like a nonsence for me. > A judge is constantly forced to make important decisions that affect > the whole tournament, and his job is no fun even if all players are > receiving a lot of fun. There was no mention of Judging for fun, just playing for fun. At times judging is fun, but occasionally when you judge you have to be decidedly NOT fun. At least to someone or other. Raille

On 24 sep, 11:18, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > > On Sep 23, 4:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Sigh. You ever going to give this up? > > > Surely I do - when I give up judging :) Because judging is a serious > > job, and ignoring such useful tools as decklists makes it > > significantly harder. > > I don't think he objects to you using decklists in your tournaments. > > You want to use decklists? Fine. Go ahead. But I'm tired of evangelizing - > being told over and over and over and over and over again how we all should > embrace decklists as The One True Path to Salvation. Decklists are the only way you will ever go to V:tES heaven. Repent now or abandon all hope. Decklists are like gun control. There's a right side and a wrong side, but you can make up arguments for both! Did you know who ELSE instituted the use of decklists after he had become reigning prince? > For example, I have not heard the French players complaining how us > northeners use far too little table talk. Because they understand that > *we do it differently, and we don't want to do it their way.* > And they have no problem with that. > > HG They just oust you with the help of their newly acquired tabletalk buddies. I wouldn't complain either! > hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, > iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey I try! :P Cheers, Bram

On Sep 24, 5:38 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > Decklists are good for your health. What imports is what the penalties > should be : I think that judging on an individual basis is necessary, > because it should be obvious when a small unintentional mistake has no > impact at all on the game. Exactly. I can see the point of decklists but, say, when you screw up, because you were hung over, from partying the night before in what may be the one time in your life you ever see Budapest[1], after you've spent thousands of dollars to get there (hey, took the scenic route).... is getting disqualified *really* appropriate? And if there are judges of big events who think that it is, I'd just as soon get rid of decklists. [1] This didn't actually happen to me in the EC, since I function about the same whether I'm hung over or not, and I played Assamites which means such things as final tables are usually a distant concern. Just saying..... -- David Cherryholmes

On Sep 24, 12:36 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > FIX ANTHELIOS !!! I hate the card too. But I'd say with Anthelios, Dragonbound, Unmasking, and that one the Imbued like to play, the odds are good enough of seeing events that you could include some anti-event tech in your deck. Obviously I'm quite comfortable calling for changes to the game where they seem needed, but I'm not sure any event is worth banning when I see very few people include any defense against them in their decks in the first place. That should be tried first. -- David Cherryholmes

On 24 syys, 09:55, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Sep 23, 4:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > In article <1190544958.797068.313...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > 6 Zhmyh 1 4 > 11 Anoer 0 2 > 18 Ragnareh 0 1 > 21 Templar 0 1 > 24 F9SSS 0 0,5 > 25 s2Ler 0 0 Who's next? Scratch Furry, DESTROYER of WORLDS!!! I think, in all seriousness, you should present the Huggybears in your next lineup. Beyond that, managing a 26 player tournie is a good feat. Good job. I recall when I ran my first two tournies. We required counting of preys decks and other stuff. Didn't really add anything, nor did it take anything away. Decklists, though, are a bitch.

On 24 Sep, 09:20, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > On 24 sep, 09:05, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 9:46 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 23, 6:55 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > > I asked the players to count number of cards > > > > in their prey's library and report to me. > > > > That would have been the point when I would have gone home. > > > I guess that if a judge would make a deckcheck at your table, you'd > > slap his face? :) Or shoot him? :) > > > Yours, > > Ector > > What a bunch of whining girls on this NG. For real. > And I seriously doubt you would've gone home. Childish nonsense. Would > you be there to have fun or to throw immature tantrums? > > If a decklist is required, you'd object to it being checked in the > first round instead of going to the finals? Yeah, really - its not like he took his cock out and shoved it down your throat. Its only a request/requirment from the tournament organizer. Even if your right and decklists shouldn't really be neded - dont cut your nose of to spite your face.. its really no big deal either way. (of course DQ'ing people for clearly innocuous mistakes is a different matter) Ant

On Sep 24, 2:55 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > If so, here you are: Thank you. I always like seeing everyone's name and how they did. Even if I will never see or hear from them in my life :-) > Sorry for that... I will follow this pattern next time. Not a problem. Just makes it easier to read, really. > Surely I do - when I give up judging :) Because judging is a serious > job, and ignoring such useful tools as decklists makes it > significantly harder. Sigh. Really. It doesn't. I have run an awful lot of tournaments. And played in an awful lot of torunaments. Big ones and small ones, serious ones and goofy ones. And never once have I required ot been required to present a deck list. And it has never been a problem. Ever. If you like using deck lists and your players are happy giving you deck lists, great! Keep doing what you are doing. But it would make everyone much more likely to be positively disposed to you if you stopped trying to force this on to everyone, and implying that if you don't use deck lists, your events are illegitimate. -Peter

On Sep 24, 4:01 pm, Oko <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 syys, 09:55, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 4:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > In article <1190544958.797068.313...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > 6 Zhmyh 1 4 > > 11 Anoer 0 2 > > 18 Ragnareh 0 1 > > 21 Templar 0 1 > > 24 F9SSS 0 0,5 > > 25 s2Ler 0 0 > > Who's next? Scratch Furry, DESTROYER of WORLDS!!! > I think, in all seriousness, you should present the Huggybears in your > next lineup. You know, each player selects his register name himself. And if a player wants to be registered as Anoer or Ragnareh (she is Anoer's wife, BTW), who am I to protest? :) Yours, Ector

On Sep 24, 5:32 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >. But it would > make everyone much more likely to be positively disposed to you if you > stopped trying to force this on to everyone, and implying that if you > don't use deck lists, your events are illegitimate. > Actually, using decklists helps my players to develop a serious attitude for the tournaments, which is extremely good. Many players use deckbuilding programs and bring printed decklists. So I really cannot see any reason of avoid them. Yours, Ector

On Sep 24, 11:14 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Actually, using decklists helps my players to develop a serious > attitude for the tournaments, which is extremely good. > Many players use deckbuilding programs and bring printed decklists. So > I really cannot see any reason of avoid them. Which, as noted, if that works for you, great! If everyone likes doing this, and you like having it done, more power to you. Hurrah! But, as noted, your constant war to make deck lists mandatory for all events is something that a lot of folks think is a wildly bad idea. For reasons that have been explained at length many other times. And your constant implication (outright statements?) that if tournaments don't have deck lists, they are iligitimate and non serious tends to, well, make folks negatively disposed to most of your suggestions. -Peter

Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in news:1190630543.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On 24 sep, 11:18, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) > wrote: >> You want to use decklists? Fine. Go ahead. But I'm tired of >> evangelizing - >> being told over and over and over and over and over again how we all >> should >> embrace decklists as The One True Path to Salvation. > > Decklists are the only way you will ever go to V:tES heaven. Repent > now or abandon all hope. > Decklists are like gun control. There's a right side and a wrong side, > but you can make up arguments for both! Decklists are fine, when implemented properly (useless otherwise). All decklists should be verified against deck contents before the first tournament round. That's the only way to confirm what the nature of instances of deck changes are (are they someone else's card? ...are they cheating?) A Game Loss before the finals when no other deck check has been made in a tournament at all is a thing of the past. No Judge would be foolish enough to do such again. Ector _almost_ used decklists correctly in this tournament, which is actually a lot better than any other example I've ever seen. > Did you know who ELSE instituted the use of decklists after he had > become reigning prince? > Hitler. He used deck lists...;-) DaveZ AW

Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in news:1190622029.1...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On 24 sep, 09:05, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> On Sep 23, 9:46 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On >> Sep 23, 6:55 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> >> > > I asked the players to count number of cards >> > > in their prey's library and report to me. >> >> > That would have been the point when I would have gone home. >> >> I guess that if a judge would make a deckcheck at your table, you'd >> slap his face? :) Or shoot him? :) >> >> Yours, >> Ector > > What a bunch of whining girls on this NG. For real. > And I seriously doubt you would've gone home. Childish nonsense. Would > you be there to have fun or to throw immature tantrums? > > If a decklist is required, you'd object to it being checked in the > first round instead of going to the finals? > To be honest, he didn't check it. He just made sure the total library cards were equal to the decklist's total. "Almost right" is still wrong. DZ AW

On Sep 24, 3:05 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I guess that if a judge would make a deckcheck at your table, you'd > slap his face? :) Or shoot him? :) Wow. To answer your questions: no. John Eno

On Sep 24, 4:20 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > What a bunch of whining girls on this NG. For real. That's awesome. Thanks! > And I seriously doubt you would've gone home. Childish nonsense. Would > you be there to have fun or to throw immature tantrums? To have fun. That's why I wouldn't bother to count the cards in someone else's deck - it's not fun. > If a decklist is required, you'd object to it being checked in the > first round instead of going to the finals? That's not what Ector required. John Eno

On Sep 24, 9:15 am, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, really - its not like he took his cock out and shoved it down > your throat. Huh. Who said I'd object to that? Us whining girls love that kind of treatment. Didn't you know? > Its only a request/requirment from the tournament > organizer. Even if your right and decklists shouldn't really be neded > - dont cut your nose of to spite your face.. its really no big deal > either way. Had Ector wanted to check all the decklists? He should go nuts and so so. Had he wanted me to count the cards of someone else's deck? No thanks. John Eno

In article <Xns99B583E8FB...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hitler. He used deck lists...;-) I love you. Again. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

In article <1190617857.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > But decklists that can be > viewed and checked against all decks during a tournament IMO is a good > thing. Might get a little tedius for the really big tournaments ala > the EC etc, but accountability can't be bad. Ah, clearly you missed this all last time around. Yes. If properly implemented, deck lists can be handy. And keep everyone honest. But by "properly implemented", I likely mean "check deck against deck list at the start of every round, as otherwise it doesn't really keep anyone from tweaking their deck between rounds, if that is what you are trying to keep folks from doing". And as checking every deck against its deck list before every round is likely to add a great deal of time to the length of an already long tournament, this is unlikely to pay off much. That, and as cheating is easy even without changing your deck between rounds (if you are inclined to cheat in the first place, and you can't cheat by tweaking your deck between rounds 'cause an hour+ is added to the length of the event by having folks check their decks against the deck list at the start of every round, you'll likely find another way to cheat that can't be stopped by deck checks), and in reality, changing your decks between rounds is probably the *least* effective way to cheat in VTES you can come up with, and 'cause most folks aren't inclined to cheat anyway, is it really worth the effort? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1190595313.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > How in god's name could anyone consider playing this unimaginitive, > flavourless shite to be fun? > > Seriously.... Hey, ya know? A deck is a deck. If this is the kind of deck that works and makes you win (did this deck win?), then it is the right deck to play in a big serious tournament. That *you* think it is unimaginitive is mostly irrelevant, as what is or is not "imaganitive" is totally subjective. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 24, 5:16 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1190617857.248699.173...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > But decklists that can be > > viewed and checked against all decks during a tournament IMO is a good > > thing. Might get a little tedius for the really big tournaments ala > > the EC etc, but accountability can't be bad. > > Ah, clearly you missed this all last time around. > > Yes. If properly implemented, deck lists can be handy. And keep everyone > honest. But by "properly implemented", I likely mean "check deck against > deck list at the start of every round, as otherwise it doesn't really > keep anyone from tweaking their deck between rounds, if that is what you > are trying to keep folks from doing". And as checking every deck against > its deck list before every round is likely to add a great deal of time > to the length of an already long tournament, this is unlikely to pay off > much. That, and as cheating is easy even without changing your deck > between rounds (if you are inclined to cheat in the first place, and you > can't cheat by tweaking your deck between rounds 'cause an hour+ is > added to the length of the event by having folks check their decks > against the deck list at the start of every round, you'll likely find > another way to cheat that can't be stopped by deck checks), and in > reality, changing your decks between rounds is probably the *least* > effective way to cheat in VTES you can come up with, and 'cause most > folks aren't inclined to cheat anyway, is it really worth the effort? You can instead randomly check X number of decks each round. Which is certainly not guaranteed to catch anyone (assuming there's someone to catch), but presumably should have *some* effectiveness at catching and/or deterring deck-changing (again, assuming that deterrent is even needed). And it would also reduce the number of games where someone accidentally plays one card up or down because they forgot to get their Fame or Disarm back. See, decklists make combat decks better. You should be all in favor of this, Peter :) witness1

> Decklists are like gun control. There's a right side and a wrong side, > but you can make up arguments for both! The only wrong side of gun control is someone else controlling the barrel of the gun the you are looking down

> Hey, ya know? A deck is a deck. If this is the kind of deck that works > and makes you win (did this deck win?), then it is the right deck to > play in a big serious tournament. a] No, it didn't win. b] There are plenty of other, far more successful tier 1 variants that someone can play in a big serious tournament, that won't utterly ruin the game for anyone it sits to the right of. Come on, Peter. You've been playing this game long enough to know how utterly sh*tful being the prey of a deck like this is. I know you like to be PC and all, but defending a deck like this is beyond the pale. > That *you* think it is unimaginitive is mostly irrelevant, as what is or > is not "imaganitive" is totally subjective. It's not irrelevant at all. When you get down to it, this board is 90% subjective opinion. I'm just sharing mine, as these kinds of decks are a topic I [and others] feel quite strongly about.

On Sep 23, 5:55 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Ladies and gentlemen, > > Let me describe our first Nationals here. We had 26 players, which is > the absolutely largest tournament ever played in Minsk, and we enjoyed > five guests from Lithuania. Congratulations! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In article <1190679505....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > a] No, it didn't win. So then what is the big deal? > b] There are plenty of other, far more successful tier 1 variants that > someone can play in a big serious tournament, that won't utterly ruin > the game for anyone it sits to the right of. Lots of decks ruin the game for anyone who sits to the right of it. Kind of the whole point of the game is to ruin your prey. I play rush decks a lot. And a great deal of the time, my initial prey? Totally out of the game as soon as they sit down. They take no actions. Then they get ousted. It happens with lots of decks. Why is the Caitif/computer hacking deck so much worse than the many, many others that effectively do the same thing? > Come on, Peter. You've been playing this game long enough to know how > utterly sh*tful being the prey of a deck like this is. I know you like > to be PC and all, but defending a deck like this is beyond the pale. It is shitful being the prey of lots and lots of different decks. All the time. Being the prey of a combat deck? Often horrible. As you don't take actions. And you can't defend yourself (unless, ya know, you can defend yourself). You get your vampires wiped out, you take no actions, and you get ousted. Quickly. Powerbleed decks do more or less the same thing. As do weenie bleed decks. And weenie vote decks. It happens. It is never fun to be the prey of that sort of thing, no, but well, it happens. > It's not irrelevant at all. When you get down to it, this board is 90% > subjective opinion. I'm just sharing mine, as these kinds of decks are > a topic I [and others] feel quite strongly about. Oh, that wasn't what I meant. Of course it is your opinion, which you are totally entitled to. But if your opponent wants to play a deck like this, they can do so. And sometimes, well, it will kill you. Which is a drag. But how is it any more of a drag to be killed by a Caitif/Computer Hacking deck then it is a Malkavian S+B deck or a weenie Pot Rush deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1190669199.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > You can instead randomly check X number of decks each round. Which is > certainly not guaranteed to catch anyone (assuming there's someone to > catch), but presumably should have *some* effectiveness at catching > and/or deterring deck-changing (again, assuming that deterrent is even > needed). How is it a deterrent from deck changing? If I were inclined to cheat by changing my deck between rounds (which rarely actually helps anything, really, but we'll go with it for now...), I'd change my deck between rounds--chances are I'm not going to have my deck checked anyway, and if I get caught and DQed? I claim it was an accident and suck up the loss. > And it would also reduce the number of games where someone > accidentally plays one card up or down because they forgot to get > their Fame or Disarm back. Heh. If you are playing a Rush deck, you should be counting your cards after every round anyway :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> So then what is the big deal? To quote a wise man: "If you sit to the left of a deck like this, chances are you don't get to play. At all. You don't get to influence out a minion, you don't get to tap a card before you're down to 3 or 4 pool. Hordes, Imbued, Arika, whatever, very few decks deny you the ability to play the game in any real sense of the word. These kinds of decks do. Not many decks can live through having all it's minions brainwashed and being bled for upwards of 8 per turn on turn 2. These decks are absolutely no fun to play against, and require absolutely no skill whatsoever to play. That's the bottom line. " > Lots of decks ruin the game for anyone who sits to the right of it. Kind > of the whole point of the game is to ruin your prey. I play rush decks a > lot. And a great deal of the time, my initial prey? Totally out of the > game as soon as they sit down. They take no actions. Then they get > ousted. It happens with lots of decks. Why is the Caitif/computer > hacking deck so much worse than the many, many others that effectively > do the same thing? Because most decks can be defended against. If you're playing rush to the right of me and I didn't pack combat defense, well, my bad, I die. If I've got a fist full of fortitude, hey Pete, come on over and flail away. Ditto bleed and flick. Ditto votes and DTs. How can you defend against a deck that doesn't let any of your minions even hit the table? I saw a deck like this played at our qualifier last month, and in it's "best" game, it ousted it's prey before he got to take a single action. Literally, he did not get to tap a card before he was ousted. Where is the is the fun in that? Moreover, where is the fun in PLAYING a deck like that? Just sitting there, ignoring your predator and playing solitaire? What worse, what really, really sh*ts me to tears is that these decks seldom if ever actually WIN. They just ruin people's fun, throw the table balance all to hell and give the game to their grandprey. So why do people keep playing them? Why don't these poons just stay home and play solitaire on the computer? Rush, votes, these deck types have the ability to change direction, to move with the state of the game. They have the ability to make deals, they can work themselves out of a tight spot with diplomacy and skill. As opposed to: "Bleed you with computer hacking." "I block." "Dodge." "Bleed you with computer hacking." "Bleed you with computer hacking." "Bleed you with computer hacking." "Bleed you with computer hacking." "I'm done." > Oh, that wasn't what I meant. Of course it is your opinion, which you > are totally entitled to. But if your opponent wants to play a deck like > this, they can do so. And sometimes, well, it will kill you. Which is a > drag. But how is it any more of a drag to be killed by a Caitif/Computer > Hacking deck then it is a Malkavian S+B deck or a weenie Pot Rush deck? If i get ousted by S+B, or Pot Rush, I was at least given the opportunity to interact with the table, and attempt to defend myself. If I get bled for 16-20 pool before I even get a minion on the table, that's a different story. I'm not questioning the right of people to play a deck like this. I'm questioning the mindset that leads one to think it's a good idea. I'm asking what kind of person actually enjoys playing this monosyllabic crapolla?

> I'm not questioning the right of people to play a deck like this. I'm > questioning the mindset that leads one to think it's a good idea. I'm > asking what kind of person actually enjoys playing this monosyllabic > crapolla? I'll tell you on Sunday Jason.... :D --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

On Sep 23, 11:09 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > More to the point, how did someone manage to win two tables with this > > deck... > > It's real easy. > > I Effective Management. > I bring up 4 minions on turn 1. > I brainwash the guy my prey transferred to. If not a single person on the table has the mental capacity to get rid of the brainwash, then they deserve to lose. > I bleed him 4 times with Computer Hacking and pay 1 to see 1. > Next turn I Computer hack him 3-4 more times and influence out 2 more > minions. > If he starts tranferring to another minion, I brainwash that one too. > Or maybe his prey's next minion, because lets face it, he'll be my > prey in 3 minutes time. ...because you can't. Brainwash may ONLY be played on your prey. > If he ever manages to influence out a minion to block me, I dodge > whatever he throws at me, and he's not playing dedicated combat > because it doesn't win at tourneys so my minions don't go down. > > Oh shit, my prey's ousted, fancy that. > > I pull out more minions. I bleed with CH every turn. I dodge. If i > lose a minion or two, who cares, they cost me one pool. My predator > can't bleed fast enough to cope with my vp pool and Tributes to the > Master. > > Oh shit, i won, fancy that. > > 100% pure awesome. 100% pure hyperbole. The archtype is so fast that it's next prey is completely set up and put the weenie computer hacking deck directly in its sites as well. Every other player on the table then proceeds to blow the deck directly off the table. I have seen these decks. They win once or twice because no one realized how hyperactive they are. After that.... Everyone just turns on it. It will get 1 VP per round and never make the finals. Its success is its own downfall. I imagine that Ector's group has on average has no more than 2-3 years experience. I could be wrong, but that deck generally doesn't get advanced players who aren't its initial prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

> And as checking every deck against > its deck list before every round is likely to add a great deal of time > to the length of an already long tournament, this is unlikely to pay off > much. So how about checking randomly decks of those, whose game has already finished early? From my experience, at least half of the players have nothing to do for the last 15-30 minutes of a round, after they have been ousted/swept the table. Why not take their decks and inspect them, while the others continue to play the round? Just a thought. -- -bur

On 24 Sep, 18:12, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 24, 9:15 am, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, really - its not like he took his cock out and shoved it down > > your throat. > > Huh. Who said I'd object to that? Us whining girls love that kind of > treatment. Didn't you know? Fair enough. > > Its only a request/requirment from the tournament > > organizer. Even if your right and decklists shouldn't really be neded > > - dont cut your nose of to spite your face.. its really no big deal > > either way. > > Had Ector wanted to check all the decklists? He should go nuts and so > so. OK - no problem here.. > Had he wanted me to count the cards of someone else's deck? No >thanks. So - let me get this right. Your happy to provide a decklist (well not happy, but you would do it). Your happy do have your deck checked to that decklist. If he asks you to perform a _quick_ cardcount on your preys deck you would walk out and go home! That is pretty fucking ridiculous dont you think? Ant

On 25 Sep, 09:11, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Sep 23, 11:09 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > > > More to the point, how did someone manage to win two tables with this > > > deck... > > > It's real easy. > > > I Effective Management. > > I bring up 4 minions on turn 1. > > I brainwash the guy my prey transferred to. > > If not a single person on the table has the mental capacity to get rid > of the brainwash, then they deserve to lose. One turn of no transfers to that vamp is frequently enough to fuck that dudes game, for the first prey at least. [ quoted text not captured ] Deffo agree that a table of old times shoudl be able to stopm a pile of turd liek thhis from winning, however..... I think that is kinda Jasons whole point - they are not good at winning games, they are good at randomly fucking 1 persons game up per table. Thats bad. > I imagine that Ector's group has on average has no more than 2-3 years > experience. > > I could be wrong, but that deck generally doesn't get advanced players > who aren't its initial prey. Sure, your probably right - but the original point still stands. ant

On Sep 25, 2:13 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > Because most decks can be defended against. So can Brainwash. > If you're playing rush to > the right of me and I didn't pack combat defense, well, my bad, I die. If you are playign Brainwash to the right of me and I didn't pack Sudden Reversal, well, my bad, I die. > Where is the is the fun in that? Where is the fun in getting to take a couple actions but being bled for 20 in three turns anyway by a Dom/Obf deck? Where is the fun in getting a minion out, having it rushed into torpor, bringing out another minion, having that one rushed into torpor, and then being ousted? The differenceis pretty minimal. Yeah, any any of those cases, it sucks. But sometimes that happens. > I'm not questioning the right of people to play a deck like this. I'm > questioning the mindset that leads one to think it's a good idea. I'm > asking what kind of person actually enjoys playing this monosyllabic > crapolla? 'Cause sometimes it works. -Peter

On Sep 25, 4:21 am, "I. M. Bur" <bural...@gmail.com> wrote: > So how about checking randomly decks of those, whose game has already > finished early? From my experience, at least half of the players have > nothing to do for the last 15-30 minutes of a round, after they have > been ousted/swept the table. Why not take their decks and inspect > them, while the others continue to play the round? Then it isn't random. If you are checking the decks of the people who finish early, and I am cheating and changing my deck between rounds? I play extra slowly, just to make sure we don't finish early. Not slow enough to be called for stalling, I just, ya know, take my time. -Peter

On Sep 25, 4:11 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > I could be wrong, but that deck generally doesn't get advanced players > who aren't its initial prey. And the converse of that is that it does generally get its first prey, whether they are "advanced players" or not. It would probably be a better game if such decks couldn't be constructed, since 1 player out of 5 just not getting to play is probably not good. But hey, some people like final tables that time out, and some people like bypassing the whole "play" thing. *shrug* -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] No, oust extra quickly. That will give you time to remove the extra cards you put in, get your deck checked, and then change your deck again. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Sep 24, 9:33 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1190669199.619424.265...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > You can instead randomly check X number of decks each round. Which is > > certainly not guaranteed to catch anyone (assuming there's someone to > > catch), but presumably should have *some* effectiveness at catching > > and/or deterring deck-changing (again, assuming that deterrent is even > > needed). > > How is it a deterrent from deck changing? If I were inclined to cheat by > changing my deck between rounds (which rarely actually helps anything, > really, but we'll go with it for now...), I'd change my deck between > rounds--chances are I'm not going to have my deck checked anyway, and if > I get caught and DQed? I claim it was an accident and suck up the loss. The average benefit for your level of cheating needs to exceed the expected chance of DQ - if on average you're getting caught and losing more than your cheating is helping you, the system works, IMO. I don't think changing your cards up a bit is going to give you enough of a benefit to bother, unless X is a really small percentage of the players (such as zero). witness

Anthony Coleman <Bunti...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1190714394.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Consider what the number count implies. He's putting John in to the position of establishing the false baseline against which future infractions may be judged. I say 'false' because of course, the only thing that's been checked is whether the number of library cards matches the number on the decklist, regardless of content. All that means is that a cheater must be sure to keep his card count constant, which is a reasonable thing to do, anyways. So again, even with a quick count, the decklists still fail to establish a verification of library content before the game begins, and so its impossible to say whether later infracitons found are mere mistakes or cheating... _and_, now the checked player may have another tournament participant (John) to share the blame for any errors discovered later... Establishing this kind of a system of mutual distrust among players is _exactly_ the reason why I disagree with Ector's broader view on tournament play. I'd have no interest in participating in such an event, and its safe to say that few other VTES players would, either. DZ AW

On 25 Sep, 14:11, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > AW- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I don't really think it implies all of that... mutual distrust etc do you not think your over extrapolating slightly? and I still think its a bit extreem to walk out of a tourny because someone asks you to cardcount your preys library. Thats all I'm sayign really... walking out over something like that is silly. However I also don't think its necessary (nor do I really think decklists are necessary..) - not because I dont think cheating happens - I'm pretty damn sure it does... but cheating by changing your library is going to have minimal to no effect. The bigger problem is deck stacking - and its so easily dealt with its frustrating. Make shuffling by predators mandatory... its so annoying when you see your grand predator, when offered a cut/shuffle reply with "no, I trust you..." a Bit off topic I guess :O) but the thoughts just struck me when I was replying...

On Sep 25, 8:31 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > The average benefit for your level of cheating needs to exceed the > expected chance of DQ - if on average you're getting caught and losing > more than your cheating is helping you, the system works, IMO. I don't > think changing your cards up a bit is going to give you enough of a > benefit to bother, unless X is a really small percentage of the > players (such as zero). I don't think changing up your cards a bit is going to give you enough of a benefit to bother even when there *aren't* deck lists. Add in that most people aren't inclined to cheat in the first place, and you end up with a really limited incentive to worry about using deck lists to try and stop cheating. Deck lists are good for making sure your deck is in one piece after each game, sure, but if that is the reason for deck lists, there is zero need to apply a penalty for in incorrect deck list. -Peter

On Sep 25, 10:34 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Sep 25, 8:31 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > The average benefit for your level of cheating needs to exceed the > > expected chance of DQ - if on average you're getting caught and losing > > more than your cheating is helping you, the system works, IMO. I don't > > think changing your cards up a bit is going to give you enough of a > > benefit to bother, unless X is a really small percentage of the > > players (such as zero). > > I don't think changing up your cards a bit is going to give you enough > of a benefit to bother even when there *aren't* deck lists. Add in > that most people aren't inclined to cheat in the first place, and you > end up with a really limited incentive to worry about using deck lists > to try and stop cheating. Well, yes. "Worth bothering with" is going to be different for different folks. But if the average net gain of the cheating is less than the average net loss due to disqualification, then we don't even have to account for whether cheaters think of the payoff as "worth it" in the sense of the amount of effort they have to put into it, because they lose more than they gain (on average) even if they do put in the effort. witness1

On Sep 25, 9:11 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Consider what the number count implies. He's putting John in to the > position of establishing the false baseline against which future > infractions may be judged. I say 'false' because of course, the only > thing that's been checked is whether the number of library cards matches > the number on the decklist, regardless of content. All that means is > that a cheater must be sure to keep his card count constant, which is a > reasonable thing to do, anyways. So again, even with a quick count, the > decklists still fail to establish a verification of library content > before the game begins, and so its impossible to say whether later > infracitons found are mere mistakes or cheating... _and_, now the checked > player may have another tournament participant (John) to share the blame > for any errors discovered later... Dave Z. for the win! The above is exactly what I'm driving at - just expressed way more clearly than I would have, and with less conversation-diluting snark. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough I guess - I mean, I still think you should just suck it up and count the cards - not walk out.. but to each their own. :O) penis/mouth comment retracted Ant

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:55:58 -0700, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > This is the most simple and effective way to minimize chances of the > "Hungarian problem" (some players got Game Loss in the finals for > illegal decks or decklists) until we get the new Penalty Guidelines. I'm not sure I'm extatic about your phrase-creating side... > Thus, I recommend the same procedure to all serious judges. I AM THE LAW. YOU WILL BE JUDGED. ...I need a T-shirt like that. Maybe then I'd look like a serious judge. :) -- Regards, Daneel

> So can Brainwash. Yes. By two cards in the entire set, which even if you decide to play, will only take up a small proportion of your deckspace. > If you are playign Brainwash to the right of me and I didn't pack > Sudden Reversal, well, my bad, I die. Even if you pack Suddens, how many have you got? Three? What are the odds of you having one in your hand on your opening draw? Because you HAVE to have it in the opening turn of the game, or tough luck. It's harder to defend against this kind of assault than any other I'm aware of. You MUST be playing Sudden/Wash and MUST draw it in the first 8 cards of your deck. Otherwise, thanks for coming, no fun for you. > Where is the fun in getting to take a couple actions but being bled > for 20 in three turns anyway by a Dom/Obf deck? If a given player didn't count on meeting stealth bleed in a big tourney, which is probably the most common archetype in play at the moment, then he has bigger problems than I care to recount. As for getting rushed to death, well yeah, if you didn't pack some combat defense you can't really be blamed, since combat decks are pretty scarce. But the difference between getting your minions out and having the opportunity to react vs never having a minion hit the table at all are quite profound, at least to my eyes. > 'Cause sometimes it works. What price, victory?

> > 'Cause sometimes it works. > > What price, victory? Depends on the rarity of the card, and how much they are going for on ebay. Oh, sorry - for a second I thought we were discussing Tragic. :D It all boils down to how important the game win is to people, and what they see as enjoyment. You don't find these kinds of decks fun to play or play against. Someone else might (though who would find it fun to play against one - I have no idea). Some people find Stealth Bleed enjoyable, some find it boring. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'll tell you on Sunday Jason.... :D OK, you point them out, I'll drag them out back to kick the ever lovin' crap out of them.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok. BTW Jason, have you got say 8 Brainwash and 20 Computer Hacks spare.... I'm just asking coz, well, a friend wants to know. :P Seriously, I'm bringing some combat, but whether I'll play it or not, I don't know. You should go combat at the Nats though. As reigning champ, it's your duty to carry the combat banner. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Seriously, I'm bringing some combat, but whether I'll play it or not, > I don't know. You should go combat at the Nats though. As reigning > champ, it's your duty to carry the combat banner. I promise my deck will have combat cards in it. :)

> It all boils down to how important the game win is to people, and what > they see as enjoyment. Yeah absolutely. I just wonder what kind of person gets enjoyment out of playing a deck that's the VTES equivalent of beating on a blind guy. I can't understand the mentality that the game is all about the WIN, that the actual one hundred and twenty minutes of game itself is devoid of any kind of emotional content, that the best multiplayer card game in the world is at it's best when you're playing it by yourself, that the two and a half hours you spend in a final is only satisfying if you've won at the end, by no matter what means. I don't understand how one gets to that kind of headspace.

[ quoted text not captured ] By playing Imbued? ;)

> > I don't understand how one gets to that kind of headspace. > > By playing Imbued? ;) Bam! [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Or maybe caitiff Praxis seizure with a million KRCs? Bam Bam!

On Sep 25, 9:27 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > Yes. By two cards in the entire set, which even if you decide to play, > will only take up a small proportion of your deckspace. Sure--but Brainwash is hardly a lockdown. Someone else can burn them. You can have vampires that have a capacity of 4 or less. Brainwash is not actually that effective. And then you could have a Sudden in your hand. > Even if you pack Suddens, how many have you got? Three? What are the > odds of you having one in your hand on your opening draw? Because you > HAVE to have it in the opening turn of the game, or tough luck. You have 4 vampires. Your Brainwash predator goes before you, so you don't have any blood on the first vampire he Brainwashes. So he is randomly picking one. And is just as likely to get the one you don't care about him brainwashing as not. > It's harder to defend against this kind of assault than any other I'm > aware of. You MUST be playing Sudden/Wash and MUST draw it in the > first 8 cards of your deck. Otherwise, thanks for coming, no fun for > you. Well, not so much. He is only playing 1 Brainwash a turn (does he also have a Parthenon in play? How many Parthenons does he have? As many as you have Suddens?). He plays one on a dude, it isn't the most important dude, you get out one of your smaller dudes, or you get his predator to burn the Brainwash. > If a given player didn't count on meeting stealth bleed in a big > tourney, which is probably the most common archetype in play at the > moment, then he has bigger problems than I care to recount. Why are you willing to give S+B a "well, if you didn't prepare for it, sad for you" when you aren't weenie bleed? > As for > getting rushed to death, well yeah, if you didn't pack some combat > defense you can't really be blamed, since combat decks are pretty > scarce. But the difference between getting your minions out and having > the opportunity to react vs never having a minion hit the table at all > are quite profound, at least to my eyes. The difference is pretty minimal. And I'm hard pressed to imagine a situation where Brainwash is so effective that it keeps you from getting any minions out ever. As Brainwash just isn't that effective. > What price, victory? Like, I hope you aren't misunderstanding me here--yes, I agree that it sucks that sometimes you get ousted without any chance at all. But lots and lots of decks can do that--heck, when I play weenie Rush in competition, which I still do on a regular basis, at least 1 game out of the 2 or 3 preliminary rounds, my prey does not take a single action--he gets out a guy, I kill it, he gets out another guy, I kill it, he then either stops getting out guys and gets ousted slowly or he keeps getting out guys and I dunk them and he gets ousted quickly. But takes no actions. Which sucks for him. But happens. One year at a Qualifier? I got the first oust in the room, ousting my prey in, like, 10 minutes from the start with a Rush deck. He took no actions, except maybe rescuing himself from torpor once. And sometimes I get ousted this quickly by some really fast deck. It happens. All the time. As the game is about ousting your prey, and sometimes someone is really efficient at ousting their prey. Which is a drag sometimes, sure. But part of the game. Yes. Brainwash is sometimes horrible to be subject to ("T1: Parthenon/ Brainwash! T2: Brainwash/Brainwash! Suck on that!"). But most of the time, it kinda doesn't so much. -Peter

In article <1190788379.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > Yeah absolutely. I just wonder what kind of person gets enjoyment out > of playing a deck that's the VTES equivalent of beating on a blind > guy. I dunno man, whenever I play a Rush deck, I *hope* it is like beating on a blind guy... > I can't understand the mentality that the game is all about the WIN, > that the actual one hundred and twenty minutes of game itself is > devoid of any kind of emotional content, that the best multiplayer > card game in the world is at it's best when you're playing it by > yourself, that the two and a half hours you spend in a final is only > satisfying if you've won at the end, by no matter what means. I don't think anyone (well, very few people in any case) consider the game in these terms. But once and a while, it is worth the effort to push the boundries of the game design. And some sort of Caitif/Parthenon/Brainwash/Computer Hacking deck is certainly pushing the boundries of the game. And I agree that it is really unfortunate to be sitting next to a deck like this, but if such decks can win (as opposed to regularly get 1VP and then flare out), it is probably a problem with the game itself (rather than a problem with someone for wanting to play such a deck); if such decks have trouble winning, then, well, it is a self correcting problem. Yeah, it is horrible to be sitting as the prey of such a deck, but again, it is horrible to be sitting as the prey of lots of decks that keep you from playing the game. But as long as the decks that keep you from playing the game aren't game dominating, then they aren't really a problem. People will generally not play them much, as they don't win. Yeah, kind of a drag when someone *does* play one, but a lot of decks are a drag ("Look! I Sensory Deprive every vampire you put into play as soon as it hits the table! Yaa!"). Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On Sep 26, 6:19 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > I promise my deck will have combat cards in it. :) Combat cards that do damage right? :-)

> By playing Imbued? ;) Cold as ice!

> Or maybe caitiff Praxis seizure with a million KRCs? Actually i think one of those was on the finals table last year at the nats :P

On Sep 25, 3:11 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Establishing this kind of a system of mutual distrust among players is > _exactly_ the reason why I disagree with Ector's broader view on > tournament play. I'd have no interest in participating in such an event, > and its safe to say that few other VTES players would, either. First, i played 3 tournaments with Ector judging (i was some weeks in Minsk with work) and i can tell you, those tournaments were at no time different than other tournaments in europe (and i know many of those). Yes, whiterussian players get sometimes louder, but that do finn or spanish players too. And that is the problem i have with your statement. Every judge has a personality in judging. Do i like all those different attitudes? No. There are judges who forbid to be in the playing area after you are ousted. There are judges who are very harsh to be in control of the tournament. There are judges, who are very liberal (like me), because they think there are only adult players. But as long as a judge is no real asshole and doesnt make absolutely ridicoulous decisions, the fun of the game does depend more on the other players. So IMO your statement is an insult to every judge, who has an individual personality and is no robot, and to the players of Minsk, who you dont know. Frank

> > Or maybe caitiff Praxis seizure with a million KRCs? > > Actually i think one of those was on the finals table last year at the > nats :P Close, Andrew Daley was playing a Legacy of Pander vote deck with plenty of KRC's and Con Ags. [ quoted text not captured ]

x5m...@gmx.de wrote in news:1190879981.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > On Sep 25, 3:11 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Establishing this kind of a system of mutual distrust among players >> is >> _exactly_ the reason why I disagree with Ector's broader view on >> tournament play. I'd have no interest in participating in such an >> event, and its safe to say that few other VTES players would, >> either. > > First, i played 3 tournaments with Ector judging (i was some weeks in > Minsk with work) and i can tell you, those tournaments were at no time > different than other tournaments in europe (and i know many of those). > Yes, whiterussian players get sometimes louder, but that do finn or > spanish players too. > My comments were not about Ector's tournaments, per se. They were about the anticipated impact of implementing his "serious play" ideology at all sanctioned tournaments. Indeed, this is all hypothetical, because Ector himself hasn't fully implemented what he advocates here on the group. Indeed, he cannot without more support for his ideas in the wider VTES community... > And that is the problem i have with your statement. > > Every judge has a personality in judging. Do i like all those > different attitudes? No. There are judges who forbid to be in the > playing area after you are ousted. Unless you have proven yourself to be a distraction to game play, this is poor officiating, and should have been reported, either to LSJ, or Oscar. > There are judges who are very harsh > to be in control of the tournament. There are judges, who are very > liberal (like me), because they think there are only adult players. > But as long as a judge is no real asshole and doesnt make absolutely > ridicoulous decisions, the fun of the game does depend more on the > other players. > What this basically boils down to from my perspective is this: Ector is advocating for a more narrow judging guidelines and a more uniform tournament experience, and this aspect of what he says is Good, because judging between different tournaments would become more consistent if there is greater training and more examples from which to derive a good Judging foundation. The particular personality of the judge becomes somewhat more removed from officiating. But in so doing, we would basically be moving away from a "use your own judgment" model, to a "use _this_ judgment" model, if you will. Thus, as we go about making Judging more uniform, we also consolidate under a single judging ideology. Ector would have his ideology as the model, as he describes here. I and others who express an opinion here think it would be detrimental to the game, and have ideas of our own about what that uniform judging policy/ideology would look like. > So IMO your statement is an insult to every judge, who has an > individual personality and is no robot, and to the players of Minsk, > who you dont know. > *shrug* I think I've clarified above that my comments were not directed at the Minsk group, but at Ector's ideal model of what tournament play and judging "should be", which again has nothing to do with your group. As to insulting every judge, well, since most of those who have bothered to express an opinon share some or all of my views, I'll just chalk that up as a little bit of hyperbole worth ignoring... DaveZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > x5m...@gmx.de wrote in >> There are judges who forbid to be in the >> playing area after you are ousted. > > Unless you have proven yourself to be a distraction to game play, this is > poor officiating, and should have been reported, either to LSJ, or Oscar. Not so. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec2.4

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:QUOKi.1302$yc5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com: [ quoted text not captured ] "The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit **all** specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament." ** emphasis mine. This is not what x5mofr said. As I read it, he's saying the judge is establishing a rule that only excludes those spectators who are former table players, and doing so without a request from a player. The sentence above doesn't allow the judge to cherry-pick which spectators stay, and which go. It does give him the right to clear off _all_ spectators, if he so chooses. Even then, as a spectator (ex-player or not), I would expect there to be a damned compelling reason for a judge to choose to utilize this authority. Without that compelling reason, it remains poor officiating, whether its supported by the text of the rules, or not... DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:QUOKi.1302$yc5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com: > >> atomweaver wrote: >>> x5m...@gmx.de wrote in >>>> There are judges who forbid to be in the >>>> playing area after you are ousted. >>> Unless you have proven yourself to be a distraction to game play, >>> this is poor officiating, and should have been reported, either to >>> LSJ, or Oscar. >> Not so. >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec2.4 >> > > "The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit **all** specatators at any > table(s) or round(s) of the tournament." > > ** emphasis mine. This is not what x5mofr said. As I read it, he's saying > the judge is establishing a rule that only excludes those spectators who > are former table players, and doing so without a request from a player. Hmm. He didn't indicate "only". If you like to read it that way, fine. Anyway, it's still fine. > The sentence above doesn't allow the judge to cherry-pick which spectators > stay, and which go. Nor does it prohibit it, or say "it is poor officiating to do so". > It does give him the right to clear off _all_ > spectators, if he so chooses. Even then, as a spectator (ex-player or > not), I would expect there to be a damned compelling reason for a judge to > choose to utilize this authority. Without that compelling reason, it > remains poor officiating, whether its supported by the text of the rules, > or not... A matter of opinion.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:efPKi.1308$yc5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Agreed. DZ AW