Obligation to Speak Out?

I was just curious as to whether or not people think there should be an obligation to speak out when there's a rules violations (both a "moral" view and an official, tournament view). For example, I'm sure lots of you have come upon situations where the game that you're playing (or watching) has a minor rules violation. When do you think it's an obligation to remind the other person and when do you think it's a case of "too bad, so sad"? Let me illustrate with some examples: #1. Once in a game, one of my vampires was assaulted by Tutu with a Meat Hook. I got hit for 3, he pressed, and then got hit for another 3. Now the other player was under the interpretation that Meat Hook only grants you one press each combat (whereas it gives a press each time you strike with it). So since the other player didn't read the card text carefully, I didn't say a word and combat ended. Should I have said anything? (Or not? It's not *my* fault he didn't read the card!). (Tangent question: Meat Hook grants an optional press you strike at close and it isn't dodged right? So if you attack with a Meat Hook and hit, and then take two additionals and hit again, you have 3 optional presses to continue? Hmmm...). #2. I'm in a game where my grandpredator is in combat with my predator. My grandpredator has a vamp with 6 blood, my predator has a vamp with 5 blood. Each strikes with hands (so 5 and 4 now). And my predator then plays a Lightning Reflexes for 5 additional strikes (which was good since it torporized my predator's vamp). Should I felt an obligation to remind everything that Lightning Reflexes could only have provided 4 additionals (1 + X)? Or is okay to feign ignorance and since no one else remembered to read the text? #3. I'm watching a game (I've been ousted) where one of one player's key vamps is down to 2 blood. During his untap phase, he burns Jake Washington to bring that vamp up to 6 blood. Should I have made an offhand remark to remind him that Jake only works on an empty vampire? In all of the above cases, even if you *should* speak up (if you believe so), there's really no way to prove you did anything wrong by not speaking up! (Since you could feign ignorance or sometime afterwards you can "remember" the right text). And in particular, if you're not in the game, you're supposed to call a judge but that may be problematic if you constantly see problems and are calling over a judge every 5 minutes or so. And everyone always hates kibitzers of course!!! Furthermore, to sort of "justify" not speaking out, I think it's sort of okay because it balances all the times when you *know* the correct ruling but everyone else (including the judge) does things incorrectly. I've had cases when I was unable to convince people that Thetmes and Regina were titled, that Tomb of Ramses only gains counters when transfers are made to *that* vampire (as opposed to any of their other vampires), or you can't Psyche! after Illusions of the Kindred. So...any thoughts or stories about when you did or did not remind people of a ruling? Halcyan 2 P.S. An additional two questions, as well: #1. In a previous tournament report (the EC I believe), the judge mentioned that in the final, someone forgot to pay for contesting and was forced to yield the vampire (instead of allowing him to pay the pool). Can you do this? "The cost to contest a card is one pool, which you pay during each of your untap phases. Instead of paying the cost to contest the card, you may choose to yield the card. A yielded card is burned. Any cards or counters stacked on the yielded card are also burned." Instead of simply being *forced* to yield, shouldn't the person be allowed to retroactively make the choice? I mean otherwise, I'd play with Society of Leopolds, and if my prey moved to their Master phase without burning a blood I'd say "Aha! That means you have to burn the vampire!" I mean, shouldn't all of these cases sort of mirror Arika's ruling? "Arika's Prey cannot end her untap phase if she controls a location that she hasn't burned a pool for, even if she gained control of that location sometime during her untap phase. [LSJ 19990405]" So you can't end your untap phase without paying to contest or yielding? Or...? #2. I know that you aren't allowed to hide or misrepresent any public information, but are you allowed to hide any cards that aren't supposed to be there in the first place? For example, Archon and Praxis Seizures go into ash heap when played but people may keep them on the vamp as reminders. Or if someone plays a Rider Clause, he/she may keep the card "in play" as a reminder even though it should go to the ash heap. So...if I play one of those cards and someone insists that I "keep it in play as a reminder," am I allowed to hide the card? Is there anything wrong with hiding the Praxis Seizure: Seattle card under Gideon? If anyone asks about his Princedom, of course I'll answer. But since the card shouldn't actually be in play in the first place, this really isn't hiding/misrepresenting public info, is it? Thanks!

On 15 Oct 2001 21:49:16 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > Is there anything wrong with hiding the Praxis Seizure: Seattle card >under Gideon? Yes, the card MUST go into the ashheap, in the order it was played. By not doing this, you are in the wrong.

Dimis wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The card goes into the ash-heap. The ashheap is a heap, ie it's unordered. Sten During

[ quoted text not captured ] Uh, no it isnt, it iss most definately ordered, otherwise what is the point of Waste management plant (i think thats the one) the page that puts the TOP card of your ash heap, and places it on the bottom of your library. If it were unordered, then there is no top card.

Dimis wrote: > > > > >The card goes into the ash-heap. The ashheap is a heap, ie it's unordered. > > > > Sten During > > Uh, no it isnt, it iss most definately ordered, otherwise what is the > point of Waste management plant (i think thats the one) the page that > puts the TOP card of your ash heap, and places it on the bottom of > your library. If it were unordered, then there is no top card. Waste Management Operation can be tapped to take a card, that is any one card, from your ashheap, to the bottom of your library (which in difference from your ashheap definitely is ordered). Sten During

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup, youre right, but i am sure there is a page that targets a specific page in the ashheap, ill look for the corresponding rulings

>> Uh, no it isnt, it iss most definately ordered, otherwise what is the >> point of Waste management plant (i think thats the one) the page that >> puts the TOP card of your ash heap, and places it on the bottom of >> your library. If it were unordered, then there is no top card. > >Waste Management Operation can be tapped to take a card, that is >any one card, from your ashheap, to the bottom of your library >(which in difference from your ashheap definitely is ordered). Correct. (WMO takes any ashheap card and there is no order to your ashheap). And for the other point, I know that technically and officially, the cards are supposed to go to your ashheap. But as I said, lots of people don't do this for convenience's sake. This doesn't make it right or anything, but constantly demanding everything to follow the exact tournament rules will make you seem overly anal I think. =) Halcyan 2

On 15 Oct 2001 23:25:55 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >Correct. (WMO takes any ashheap card and there is no order to your ashheap). > >And for the other point, I know that technically and officially, the cards are >supposed to go to your ashheap. But as I said, lots of people don't do this for >convenience's sake. This doesn't make it right or anything, but constantly >demanding everything to follow the exact tournament rules will make you seem >overly anal I think. =) yeah, but it is a tournament. It may SEEM overly anal, but if it is keeping YOU on top of your game, then so be it. If i am able to make a fatal error due to NOT being overly anal, or allow someone to get away with a illegal move due to it, which are both possible, ill be anal, thank you very much :)

>yeah, but it is a tournament. It may SEEM overly anal, but if it is >keeping YOU on top of your game, then so be it. If i am able to make a >fatal error due to NOT being overly anal, or allow someone to get away >with a illegal move due to it, which are both possible, ill be anal, >thank you very much :) Yeah, if you're not anal you may make an error (or someone else may get away with something). But if you're too anal, people will get annoyed and think you're dragging the game too long. It may be harder to make nice deals and you'll find little subtle problems (like those extra KRC points going to you!). Damned if you don't, damned if you do! =) Halcyan 2 (Maybe this anal-ity deserves it's own separate thread?)

Dimis wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Hmm, I usually place transient cards with a permanent effect visibly under the vampire affected as a reminder. If I can get the card back with Sargon Fragment for example I'm usually at a loss until I can play it again, but sure, it's supposed to go to the ashheap. I just feel it's more fair play to visibly have my Archons etc in plain sight. Sten During

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, like everything else in vampire, you have to find the happy medium :) Analness without annoying too many :)

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > I was just curious as to whether or not people think there should be an > obligation to speak out when there's a rules violations (both a "moral" view > and an official, tournament view). > > For example, I'm sure lots of you have come upon situations where the game that > you're playing (or watching) has a minor rules violation. When do you think > it's an obligation to remind the other person and when do you think it's a case > of "too bad, so sad"? Let me illustrate with some examples: > > #1. Once in a game, one of my vampires was assaulted by Tutu with a Meat Hook. > I got hit for 3, he pressed, and then got hit for another 3. Now the other > player was under the interpretation that Meat Hook only grants you one press > each combat (whereas it gives a press each time you strike with it). So since > the other player didn't read the card text carefully, I didn't say a word and > combat ended. Should I have said anything? (Or not? It's not *my* fault he > didn't read the card!). (Tangent question: Meat Hook grants an optional > press you strike at close and it isn't dodged right? So if you attack with a > Meat Hook and hit, and then take two additionals and hit again, you have 3 > optional presses to continue? Hmmm...). If I understand this correctly, the problem here is not that a rules violation occurred, just that the other player didn't use his optional press that you would normally have expected him to use for a reason you didn't understand..._probably_, but not necessarily, because he didn't understand the card correctly. In this situation, I would likely speak up in an informal game and may or may not choose to in a tournament game. I often do unless it's a high-caliber player who I don't perceive would ever dream of doing the same for me. And I wouldn't twitch the first eyebrow at anyone else who chose not to speak up. > #2. I'm in a game where my grandpredator is in combat with my predator. My > grandpredator has a vamp with 6 blood, my predator has a vamp with 5 blood. > Each strikes with hands (so 5 and 4 now). And my predator then plays a > Lightning Reflexes for 5 additional strikes (which was good since it torporized > my predator's vamp). Should I felt an obligation to remind everything that > Lightning Reflexes could only have provided 4 additionals (1 + X)? Or is okay > to feign ignorance and since no one else remembered to read the text? Since I'm part of the game, I'd feel obligated to speak up and insure the game was played by the correct rules. I would expect other players to do the same, though if they failed to I wouldn't sit around interrogating them as to whether their feigned ignorance was a game or not. 1) I can't read mind; and 2) it's just a game and this isn't the sort of thing that pisses me off. But for myself, this is not the type of tactic I'd prefer to win by. > #3. I'm watching a game (I've been ousted) where one of one player's key vamps > is down to 2 blood. During his untap phase, he burns Jake Washington to bring > that vamp up to 6 blood. Should I have made an offhand remark to remind him > that Jake only works on an empty vampire? Since I'm not part of the game, I would not. I might mention it to a judge who was watching the game but I would not interact with the players. This could be seen as coaching for one thing. I'm even a little uncomfortable telling a judge because I feel like if one player has "watchers" who speak up every time something illegal happens that is not is his interests, it's not fair unless all the players have watchers. (Or all the watchers are non-partisan in their willingness to speak up.) I dislike unfair games as much or more than I dislike seeing minor rules violations take place, even if they have significant consequences. > P.S. An additional two questions, as well: > > #1. In a previous tournament report (the EC I believe), the judge mentioned > that in the final, someone forgot to pay for contesting and was forced to yield > the vampire (instead of allowing him to pay the pool). Can you do this? That's a technical question I'll leave to the experts... > #2. I know that you aren't allowed to hide or misrepresent any public > information, but are you allowed to hide any cards that aren't supposed to be > there in the first place? For example, Archon and Praxis Seizures go into ash > heap when played but people may keep them on the vamp as reminders. Or if > someone plays a Rider Clause, he/she may keep the card "in play" as a reminder > even though it should go to the ash heap. So...if I play one of those cards and > someone insists that I "keep it in play as a reminder," am I allowed to hide > the card? Well, first of all, someone can't "insist that you keep it in play as a reminder". If you're doing the legal thing, how can anyone force you to do anything else? If you do choose to keep it out in front of you (it still technically counts as being in your ash heap or out of the game, as appropriate, under any circumstances), I don't see the issue with you dictating the terms involved. If they don't care for those terms, just put the card wherever it physically belongs and go on. Fred

In general, I try to be a good sport about these things, but each example is different so I'll attack each one individually. > #1. Once in a game, one of my vampires was assaulted by Tutu with a Meat Hook. > I got hit for 3, he pressed, and then got hit for another 3. Now the other > player was under the interpretation that Meat Hook only grants you one press > each combat (whereas it gives a press each time you strike with it). So since > the other player didn't read the card text carefully, I didn't say a word and > combat ended. Should I have said anything? (Or not? It's not *my* fault he > didn't read the card!). I don't think it's that obvious from the card text and so I would be inclined to forgive any player that isn't aware... once. I would probably ask 'Do you want to press?'. If he answers 'No.' so be it. If he answers 'I don't have any presses', I think I would clue him in that he does indeed have a press. This way, I am not taking advantage of his ignorance so much as assuming that he does not *want* to press. > #2. I'm in a game where my grandpredator is in combat with my predator. My > grandpredator has a vamp with 6 blood, my predator has a vamp with 5 blood. > Each strikes with hands (so 5 and 4 now). And my predator then plays a > Lightning Reflexes for 5 additional strikes (which was good since it torporized > my predator's vamp). Should I felt an obligation to remind everything that > Lightning Reflexes could only have provided 4 additionals (1 + X)? Or is okay > to feign ignorance and since no one else remembered to read the text? This isn't a matter of sportsmanship--the rules are being violated (albeit in ignorance). I would definitely chime in and let them know, in as unobtrusive a way as possible (and probably piss them all off anyway). > #3. I'm watching a game (I've been ousted) where one of one player's key vamps > is down to 2 blood. During his untap phase, he burns Jake Washington to bring > that vamp up to 6 blood. Should I have made an offhand remark to remind him > that Jake only works on an empty vampire? Same as #2. A rule is being violated and this should not be allowed. However, nine times out of ten it is probably innocent and therefore not worth a hassle. Merely reading off the text of the card should be sufficient. Of course, you're also not in the game any more. Is it your business? Yeah... I think so, but some would disagree. You'll probably piss someone off by saying something but since the rules are being broken, I don't think anyone will complain too loudly. > In all of the above cases, even if you *should* speak up (if you believe so), > there's really no way to prove you did anything wrong by not speaking up! True, but IMHO I'd feel obligated to speak up. Don't get me wrong... I'm fairly vicious as far as taking advantage of wording of deals etc. But not speaking up when an actual rule is being violated would be unethical in my opinion. > (Since you could feign ignorance or sometime afterwards you can "remember" the > right text). And in particular, if you're not in the game, you're supposed to > call a judge but that may be problematic if you constantly see problems and are > calling over a judge every 5 minutes or so. And everyone always hates kibitzers > of course!!! Feigning ignorance is the wrong thing to do IMHO but calling a judge over would be excessive and rather busy-bodyish. The rules are probably being broken in an innocent way and the player probably won't appreciate you 'telling' on them. Given a choice between a friendly reminder of card text by you or possible sanctions from the judge, I'm sure they'd rather have the former. Maybe without specifying the error made saying something like "Sorry to interrupt guys, but I've noticed that you've inadvertently broken the game rules. Would you rather that I pointed it out or should I not get involved?". This doesn't blame any one player and gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves what input they will allow. Having said that, I generally just play these things by ear. I make a lot of mistakes myself though and if I were in their position, I would appreciate a kind reminder. > Furthermore, to sort of "justify" not speaking out, I think it's sort of okay > because it balances all the times when you *know* the correct ruling but > everyone else (including the judge) does things incorrectly. I've had cases > when I was unable to convince people that Thetmes and Regina were titled, that > Tomb of Ramses only gains counters when transfers are made to *that* vampire > (as opposed to any of their other vampires), or you can't Psyche! after > Illusions of the Kindred. If someone forgets to place a Temptation counter on my vampire, it's their own damn fault. If someone forgets that their vampire is actually supposed to be untapped, I don't care. Optional effects are up to the player to remember... it's not my job to inform them and it may be to my disadvantage to remind them. No rules are being broken by remaining silent in that case. I may even remind someone that they should grab a pool if I don't want them ousted. Cheers, WES

Halcyan 2 wrote: > (Tangent question: Meat Hook grants an optional > press you strike at close and it isn't dodged right? So if you attack with a > Meat Hook and hit, and then take two additionals and hit again, you have 3 > optional presses to continue? Hmmm...). Right. > #2. I'm in a game where my grandpredator is in combat with my predator. My > grandpredator has a vamp with 6 blood, my predator has a vamp with 5 blood. > Each strikes with hands (so 5 and 4 now). And my predator then plays a > Lightning Reflexes for 5 additional strikes (which was good since it torporized > my predator's vamp). Should I felt an obligation to remind everything that > Lightning Reflexes could only have provided 4 additionals (1 + X)? Or is okay > to feign ignorance and since no one else remembered to read the text? Yes. You should always correct illegal play. > #3. I'm watching a game (I've been ousted) where one of one player's key vamps > is down to 2 blood. During his untap phase, he burns Jake Washington to bring > that vamp up to 6 blood. Should I have made an offhand remark to remind him > that Jake only works on an empty vampire? You should always correct illegal play. As an observer, you should do so through a judge. > #1. In a previous tournament report (the EC I believe), the judge mentioned > that in the final, someone forgot to pay for contesting and was forced to yield > the vampire (instead of allowing him to pay the pool). Can you do this? No. You are forced to choose, not forced to yield. Depending on what has transpired in the interim, the judge may decide to let the omission stand (free contesting), or enact some other penalty, but the penalty should certainly not rise to the level of "burn the vampire". > So you can't end your untap phase without paying to contest or yielding? Or...? Right. But retro'ing can also be problematic (if choices have been made on improper information). > #2. I know that you aren't allowed to hide or misrepresent any public > information, but are you allowed to hide any cards that aren't supposed to be > there in the first place? For example, Archon and Praxis Seizures go into ash > heap when played but people may keep them on the vamp as reminders. Or if If you put a note on the card to remind you of a title, you cannot later hide the note. That is public information. > someone plays a Rider Clause, he/she may keep the card "in play" as a reminder > even though it should go to the ash heap. So...if I play one of those cards and > someone insists that I "keep it in play as a reminder," am I allowed to hide > the card? Is there anything wrong with hiding the Praxis Seizure: Seattle card No. > under Gideon? If anyone asks about his Princedom, of course I'll answer. But Yes. > since the card shouldn't actually be in play in the first place, this really > isn't hiding/misrepresenting public info, is it? Yes, Since the marker (whatever you use) is public. -- 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/

>Yes. You should always correct illegal play. But what are you supposed to do when you're watching a game, there's no judge around, and an illegal play (however minor) occurs. In order to prevent the retroactive problem, are you supposed to yell for everyone to stop, call over the judge, and then explain the mishap? And are you supposed to be doing this each time it happens then? (Seems rather time-consuming). Halcyan 2

>If I understand this correctly, the problem here is not that a rules >violation >occurred, just that the other player didn't use his optional press that you >would >normally have expected him to use for a reason you didn't >understand..._probably_, >but not necessarily, because he didn't understand the card correctly. In >this >situation, I would likely speak up in an informal game and may or may not >choose >to in a tournament game. I often do unless it's a high-caliber player who I >don't >perceive would ever dream of doing the same for me. And I wouldn't twitch >the >first eyebrow at anyone else who chose not to speak up. > Well, the funny thing is that before this actually happened, we were discussing the Meat Hook. He pretty much stated that it only gives one press after glancing at it, some other player wanted to see the card and looked at it (maybe he just glanced at it?). I was caught a little off-guard and I asked to see the card too (and I noticed that it gave presses each time it was used) and then I handed the card back to him. Is it my fault no one can read even after they specifically inspected the card? =) >Since I'm part of the game, I'd feel obligated to speak up and insure the >game was >played by the correct rules. I would expect other players to do the same, >though >if they failed to I wouldn't sit around interrogating them as to whether >their feigned >ignorance was a game or not. 1) I can't read mind; and 2) it's just a game >and this >isn't the sort of thing that pisses me off. But for myself, this is not the >type >of tactic I'd prefer to win by. Ah, but then is it any fairer when you tell everyone the correct ruling or errata but no one believes you? =) Halcyan 2

>I would probably ask 'Do you want to press?'. If he answers 'No.' so be it. >If he answers 'I don't have any presses', I think I would clue him in that >he does indeed have a press. This way, I am not taking advantage of his >ignorance so much as assuming that he does not *want* to press. Actually, my vampire was at 1 blood by then and I *thought* he was going to press again. So I was moving my vampire to torpor region and saying "I take it you press again?" and he either responded with a simple "No" a one of those "no, I don't have any presses." Interestingly enough, he realized the unlimited press thing a turn or two later and I just grinned at him sheepishly. =) >Feigning ignorance is the wrong thing to do IMHO but calling a judge over >would be excessive and rather busy-bodyish. The rules are probably being >broken in an innocent way and the player probably won't appreciate you >'telling' on them. Given a choice between a friendly reminder of card text >by you or possible sanctions from the judge, I'm sure they'd rather have the >former. Exactly. But as LSJ has established several times before, when you're not playing in the game, the only way to inform the players of rules violations is via the judge. Thus this "excessive and rather busy-bodyish" method would be the *only* solution. >> Furthermore, to sort of "justify" not speaking out, I think it's sort of >okay >> because it balances all the times when you *know* the correct ruling but >> everyone else (including the judge) does things incorrectly. I've had >cases >> when I was unable to convince people that Thetmes and Regina were titled, >that >> Tomb of Ramses only gains counters when transfers are made to *that* >vampire >> (as opposed to any of their other vampires), or you can't Psyche! after >> Illusions of the Kindred. > >If someone forgets to place a Temptation counter on my vampire, it's their >own damn fault. If someone forgets that their vampire is actually supposed >to be untapped, I don't care. Optional effects are up to the player to >remember... it's not my job to inform them and it may be to my disadvantage >to remind them. No rules are being broken by remaining silent in that case. >I may even remind someone that they should grab a pool if I don't want them >ousted. But still, this doesn't address the fact that there is often no recourse when and if the judge and the other players make bad calls, despite the fact that you're telling them the "official" interpretation. Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote <Wes wrote> > >Feigning ignorance is the wrong thing to do IMHO but calling a judge over > >would be excessive and rather busy-bodyish. The rules are probably being > >broken in an innocent way and the player probably won't appreciate you > >'telling' on them. Given a choice between a friendly reminder of card text > >by you or possible sanctions from the judge, I'm sure they'd rather have the > >former. > > Exactly. But as LSJ has established several times before, when you're not > playing in the game, the only way to inform the players of rules violations is > via the judge. Thus this "excessive and rather busy-bodyish" method would be > the *only* solution. That is unfortunate. I'm not sure that it is impossible to compromise in a way that is inobtrusive and also fair. How about: "Sorry to interupt guys, but I noticed a rule was just broken there. I'm sure it was unintentional but the judge should probably be informed. Would you mind if I called her over?" I apologize if this comes across as silly but it seems to me that such considerations are sadly lacking in tournaments of late. Several players (not from this area) have told me just how disgusted they are by the excessive competitiveness at tournaments lately. Some of the posts here of the past few months would also seem to back this claim. Personally, I haven't noticed this. I had a slight issue with someone at the last Toronto tournament, but it was more of a minor personal dispute and not related to sportsmanship in the game in general. However, I'd like to think that it would be possible to play this game without making enemies... and although it's impossible to legislate courtesy, I'm going to try my damndest to aspire to it. Of course, the three tournaments I have participated in have all been the 'multi-judge' format, which if anything seems to eliminate some of these problems. Consensus was usually sufficient and if it wasn't reached, it wasn't too hard to find someone to judge who wasn't partial. At least in my limited experience. I have been quite satisfied by the way judging occurred at the Toronto tournaments. It was laid back, fair-minded and nobody felt picked on or excluded from the process (I hope). Cheers, WES

On 15 Oct 2001 21:49:16 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >For example, I'm sure lots of you have come upon situations where the game that >you're playing (or watching) has a minor rules violation. When do you think >it's an obligation to remind the other person and when do you think it's a case >of "too bad, so sad"? Let me illustrate with some examples: If it's just something they "forgot", such as putting a Temptation counter on the card... - If you're a player, you can say whatever you want to; inform them or not, it's your choice, since either way it'll affect your game and you can't legislate against bad play. - If you're a WATCHER, keep your mouth SHUT! All it takes is one word in the wrong place to completely ruin something. I'll use an example from DragonCon: I was playing a Tzimisce vote deck, and had just ousted my prey last turn. My predator was debating with HIS predator out-loud as to why Theo Bell was rushing backwards; basically, he was worried about the aggravated hand damage, and couldn't afford to lose Theo. My ex-prey had seen the deck earlier, and knew that it didn't carry ANY combat cards; fortunately, he didn't say anything, because all it would've taken was for one person to put the idea in my predator's head that maybe I was bluffing, and he would've tried Rushing me, robbing me of an extra 2VP. And you can't take back words once they're said, no matter how many times you say "oops, sorry". So if you're watching a game and see a misplay; CORK IT! If it's an outright rules violation... that's another story. =/ No matter whether you're a player or watcher, you should point it out, ... no matter what the effect would be. (If you're a watcher, maybe you should grab the judge to confirm first). - Another D*Con example, from the finals of the first tournament: I was the prey of a Lasombra stealth/bleed deck, played by a person who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty =). He had been bleeding me pretty heavily all game, though I was bloating with a speed almost to match (as well as drawing very close to ousting my own prey). My predator attempted to play Slaughtering the Herd on his predator with Ignacio, who lacked superior Dominate, and before I noticed, they had announced a block attempt and played a stealth card, and a debate about intercept or rush or something was taking place. There's nothing worse than being in this position, by the way. That was one more +2 bleed card and one more stealth card out of my predator's hand, NOT being used against me[0]. Nobody else had actually noticed the screwup (astoundingly). I couldn't bring myself to actually point it out; I had to turn to LSJ (who was conveniently standing behind me) and whisper to him to look at Ignacio and look at the action parameters, and then LSJ stepped in and cleared things up. So yes, even when it's totally in your best interest to simply let things go wrong, you MUST speak up. Otherwise, you've cheated, especially if you win as a result. -- Derek [0] As it turned out, that was the bleed card that ousted me one turn later... by 1 pool. If I had survived, my prey was on 3 pool and I had the KRC to oust him in hand... as well as the Blood Dolls/Slave Auction to gain 4+ pool during my Master phase, along with 4-6 pool during my minion phase via Voter Caps/Con Boon, as WELL as the 6 pool for the oust.

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20011015174916...@mb-md.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] If the player should know better ( i.e. has played plenty of times before ) I tend not to say anything, as you say, "It's not *my* fault he didn't read the card!" But as an aside, ppl learn better through mistakes. Sometimes, I might even, after combat has definately ended say "you could have pressed with your Meat Hook you know". My opponent usually slaps themselves up side the head and doesn't forget next time. > #2. I'm in a game where my grandpredator is in combat with my predator. My > grandpredator has a vamp with 6 blood, my predator has a vamp with 5 blood. > Each strikes with hands (so 5 and 4 now). And my predator then plays a > Lightning Reflexes for 5 additional strikes (which was good since it torporized > my predator's vamp). Should I felt an obligation to remind everything that > Lightning Reflexes could only have provided 4 additionals (1 + X)? Or is okay > to feign ignorance and since no one else remembered to read the text? > > #3. I'm watching a game (I've been ousted) where one of one player's key vamps > is down to 2 blood. During his untap phase, he burns Jake Washington to bring > that vamp up to 6 blood. Should I have made an offhand remark to remind him > that Jake only works on an empty vampire? In any situation, wether I am in the game or not I always feel obliged to point our rules breaches, intentional or not, for the simple reason that it's against the rules. [snip]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >Yes. You should always correct illegal play. > > But what are you supposed to do when you're watching a game, there's no judge > around, and an illegal play (however minor) occurs. In order to prevent the In casual play, you should speak directly to the players. In a tournament, there will be a judge around. > retroactive problem, are you supposed to yell for everyone to stop, call over You shouldn't yell for them to stop. Just inform the judge. > the judge, and then explain the mishap? And are you supposed to be doing this > each time it happens then? (Seems rather time-consuming). If players are "time-consumingly" making illegal plays, then the judge should be watching their game directly. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BCB99FB...@white-wolf.com>... > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > (Tangent question: Meat Hook grants an optional > > press you strike at close and it isn't dodged right? So if you attack with a > > Meat Hook and hit, and then take two additionals and hit again, you have 3 > > optional presses to continue? Hmmm...). > > Right. ...except that Meat Hook is "only usable once each round." ;-) Josh pesky card text rears its head again

In friendly games, I would remind people even if it hurts me, as my playgroup would do the same for me. We take back stuff, and play very loose with the rules. OTH, tournaments, by their very nature have to be different. Whether I pipe up or not, will largely depend on IF I think the 'error' is intentional or not. I'm one of the worst people for forgetting things (last tournie I could have tapped my Power Structure on a Dramatic Upheavel but forgot and nobody said anything) which is fine. At tournaments, I would want the rules to be fully observed, ie card text and so on... but remembering all the little things aren't really rules in my humble opinion. Remembering to take something for the Edge, or Society of Leopold is simply a matter of memory, and in a game as complex as Jyhad that's very difficult... Plus, simply in the case of enforcing all those little burn/gail things, it's bad situation. If I forget anything that's bad for me, ppl will remind me. If I forget anything good for me, ppl won't remind me. If I pass a phase without paying for Smiling Jack for example, It will be retroactively be paid for. If I pass a phase forgetting about my Hunting Ground, tough shit. I'm very very uncomfortable with that situation (especially since i'm often in that last scenario) My issue is that often or at times, there can be so many counters you have to keep track of, it's not *reasonably* fair to expect someone to remember *everything*, while observing all the other rules, strategizing, watching other players, etc. Peter Muto VEKN Prince of Toronto halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011015174916...@mb-md.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

>...except that Meat Hook is "only usable once each round." ;-) Good job! We tricked LSJ again! =) ...Okay, so we'll need *three* Meat Hooks then for the 3 presses... Halcyan 2

On 16 Oct 2001 07:57:59 -0700, pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote: >My issue is that often or at times, there can be so many counters you >have to keep track of, it's not *reasonably* fair to expect someone to >remember *everything*, while observing all the other rules, >strategizing, watching other players, etc. Au contraire, ma grenouille. That's just the difference between an "extremely good" player and a "great" player. Not intended as a slam against you or others, just that there have to be lines drawn somewhere; and the ability to mentally juggle enormous amounts of detailed information should be a benefit in a strategic game. -- Derek PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> a écrit dans le message news: sekostsh1cb1c3tl6...@4ax.com... > On 16 Oct 2001 07:57:59 -0700, pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote: > > >My issue is that often or at times, there can be so many counters you > >have to keep track of, it's not *reasonably* fair to expect someone to > >remember *everything*, while observing all the other rules, > >strategizing, watching other players, etc. > > Au contraire, ma grenouille. > > That's just the difference between an "extremely good" player and a > "great" player. Not intended as a slam against you or others, just that > there have to be lines drawn somewhere; and the ability to mentally > juggle enormous amounts of detailed information should be a benefit in a > strategic game. bien sūr mon cher, but even great players do big mistakes =) we can still see Volker blocking primogens, Miller paying one blood for a Blur, then one for Quickness, or Courriers standing near their bikes and doing nothing even against a prey whose minions have all been disarmed. Sometime maybe it's to much for our little brain cells ? when you make this kind of mistakes, you really want that other people tell you, because as a good, "sportsman" player you will tell them. If no one reminds you, well, c'est la vie. Just continue to play according to you heart. reyda

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:30:29 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >little brain cells ? when you make this kind of mistakes, you really want >that other people tell you, because as a good, "sportsman" player you will >tell them. If no one reminds you, well, c'est la vie. Just continue to play >according to you heart. Mais certainement! And in friendly play I will generally always mention things like this; actually, most of the examples you mentioned are rules violations, so I'll tell someone no matter what. =) But in a tournament, don't expect me to remind you to put counters on my Tempted Prince, or to bleed me with Couriers when I've no minions. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On 16 Oct 2001 07:57:59 -0700, pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote: > > >My issue is that often or at times, there can be so many counters you > >have to keep track of, it's not *reasonably* fair to expect someone to > >remember *everything*, while observing all the other rules, > >strategizing, watching other players, etc. > > Au contraire, ma grenouille. > > That's just the difference between an "extremely good" player and a > "great" player. Not intended as a slam against you or others, just that > there have to be lines drawn somewhere; and the ability to mentally > juggle enormous amounts of detailed information should be a benefit in a > strategic game. Actually, I strongly disagree with that. Games can be about completely different skills or whatever combination of skills the designers believe has merit. One thing I think is very bad, however, is to allow some peripheral skill to creep in around the margins and make a difference. This is because if I don't happen to like parlour games about making up rhymes on the spot, I can choose a game that doesn't involve such skills. But if the designers insist on adding a single card which injects that skill into the flow of certain games, all of sudden I have to decide whether to tolerate a small amount of it or abandon an otherwise excellent (IMO) game altogether. It just isn't worth people having to make that decision just so you can print ONE SINGLE cutesy parlour-game card. By the same token, juggling large amounts of detailed information is precisely a skill I find boring and better left to computers - or at least papers and pens, which are very good tools we have readily at hand to deal with such problems. Simulating what human beings can do without a paper and pencil at hand is not a good subject for a game, IMO. If it spins your buttons, there's always chess. But if we're going to make it a necessary skill for Jyhad, we might as well go whole hog and then the people who enjoy it can take it up with a vengeance and I can move on to games I'll like better. If you see the parallel here to a certain card here, take note. By making this argument about the game including the skill of juggling detailed information in your head, I claim it's also completely fair to include rhyming in that game. If so, you're also making Andrew's argument for him! Fred

>By the same token, juggling large amounts of detailed information is >precisely >a skill I find boring and better left to computers - or at least papers and >pens, which are very good tools we have readily at hand to deal with such >problems. Simulating what human beings can do without a paper and pencil at >hand is not a good subject for a game, IMO. If it spins your buttons, >there's >always chess. But if we're going to make it a necessary skill for Jyhad, we >might as well go whole hog and then the people who enjoy it can take it up >with >a vengeance and I can move on to games I'll like better. I tend to agree with this. Winning or losing because players are good or bad accountants isn't interesting. It's one thing to overlook an "obvious" strategy, but I see no reason for taking pool for the edge, putting counters on Temptation, or using a hunting ground to be optional. The number of times it wouldn't be advantageous to take the freebies is so low as to be insignificant. The disadvantage of penalizing players for forgetting such things is that they may develop a tendency to play really slowly to make sure they don't make mistakes. Gee, that's also fun. PeterM said: "In friendly games, I would remind people even if it hurts me, as my playgroup would do the same for me. We take back stuff, and play very loose with the rules. OTH, tournaments, by their very nature have to be different." I think this is a very bad way to look at it. If you don't enforce rigidity in casual play, how can you expect to do it right in tournament play? I understand loose play, having always played with groups that tended to allow it, but it does lead to more mistakes.

Curevei wrote: > I tend to agree with this. Winning or losing because players are good or bad > accountants isn't interesting. It's one thing to overlook an "obvious" > strategy, but I see no reason for taking pool for the edge, putting counters on > Temptation, or using a hunting ground to be optional. The number of times it > wouldn't be advantageous to take the freebies is so low as to be insignificant. Making it mandatory won't change the level of "accounting" needed. It just makes it harder to "fix" mistakes in accounting (retro'ing can be difficult in many situations). [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I tend to agree with this. Winning or losing because players are good or >bad >> accountants isn't interesting. It's one thing to overlook an "obvious" >> strategy, but I see no reason for taking pool for the edge, putting >counters on >> Temptation, or using a hunting ground to be optional. The number of times >it >> wouldn't be advantageous to take the freebies is so low as to be >insignificant. > >Making it mandatory won't change the level of "accounting" needed. >It just makes it harder to "fix" mistakes in accounting (retro'ing can be >difficult in many situations). What I find to be extremely common is that someone at the table sees what the player whose turn it is misses but only comments when it's to the observer's benefit. Assuming the entire table is into the game, it should be possible to catch nearly every accounting effect. And, often, players catch what they missed sometime during their turn. I could see letting effects go if, by the end of the turn, no one caught it.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:56:52 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> there have to be lines drawn somewhere; and the ability to mentally >> juggle enormous amounts of detailed information should be a benefit in a >> strategic game. > >Actually, I strongly disagree with that. Games can be about completely >different skills or whatever combination of skills the designers believe >has merit. One thing I think is very bad, however, is to allow some peripheral >skill to creep in around the margins and make a difference. This is because This particular portion of your statement I agree with. Games should, in general, be somewhat focussed as opposed to a pentathlon of mental gymnastics. >always chess. But if we're going to make it a necessary skill for Jyhad, we >might as well go whole hog and then the people who enjoy it can take it up with >a vengeance and I can move on to games I'll like better. I am puzzled as to how you can even have this viewpoint; V:TES is all about juggling detailed mental information. Most strategy games (i note you include chess, something I consider V:TES similar to) are about juggling detailed mental information and making decisions based on analysis of that information. Assume at the start of my minion phase that I have Hugo out with 2 blood on him; that my prey has a tapped, full Aabbt Kindred and an untapped, full Khalil Anvari; and that my predator has an untapped, freshly influenced Black Cat, and a torporized Uma Hatch. My hand consists of: Potence skill card Bum's Rush Legal Manipulations Torn Signpost Immortal Grapple Undead Strength Pushing the Limit A -WIDE- variety of actions are open to me, and which action I take is totally dependent on my analysis of a LARGE amount of detailed information. If I bleed with the Legal Manip, I'll be blocked by Khalil for sure, and could even be blocked by the Dear Abby if he Wakes. I can kill either vampire easily with 3 cards; but I'll need to use my IG, because they both have Presence. If I kill the Dear Abby (or if I kill Khalil with only 2 cards), I'll be on zero blood and have to hunt next turn; but the Dear Abby is probably more critical than Khalil. If I draw into a Taste of Vitae, it doesn't matter, since I'll get all the blood back and fill Hugo up anyway, but that's a risk. If I only bleed for one, Khalil could just play Ecstasy and reduce the bleed; that would be a wasted action, but the Legal Manip is going to be a wasted card if I use it - save the card, or force him to get in a fight? At least I don't have to worry about Deflection. I could just Bum's Rush, but I can't guarantee getting into combat with the Dear Abby; he might sacrifice Khalil. It might be more worth it to kill Khalil, but I haven't seen much of his deck yet. I could always Rush my predator. Both vampires have pre/cel, so odds seem good that it's some sort of bleed-and-whatever deck. But I don't have any maneuvers, and if Black Cat has a maneuver, then I've wasted the Rush card. And Celerity is very likely to have maneuvers. I could just ignore Black Cat since she'll probably rescue Uma next turn, but do I want that to happen? I could hunt. That seems like a waste of time, though it does get some blood back on Hugo. I could also stay untapped to block Black Cat if she decides to bleed, although that also seems like a waste of time. ...As you can see, the amount of detailed information required just to take ONE MINION ACTION is a whole hell of a lot more than you realize. [0] Forgetting that Khalil can play Ecstasy, for example, could make you try bleeding for 1, wanting to save the card for later. Forgetting that the Dear Abby can prevent 1 point of damage might lead you to play the Undead Strength instead of Pushing the Limit, or if you notice in time, you still might not have wanted Hugo to be hunting next turn. V:TES already requires the skill of juggling detailed information in your head. It's part and parcel of the game. So it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to remember to put Temptation counters on their card by themselves. >If you see the parallel here to a certain card here, take note. By making >this argument about the game including the skill of juggling detailed information >in your head, I claim it's also completely fair to include rhyming in that game. Silliness. Why would including one automatically imply the other? Of course, It wouldn't. Moving on. -- Derek [0] I'd bleed with the Legal here. Both of his vampires are remarkably similar, so it doesn't really matter which I get rid of. And he might be intimidated enough into letting the bleed through, knowing that Khalil is small and crunchy and I probably have combat in hand if I'm openly playing "provocative" bleed cards. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

>What I find to be extremely common is that someone at the table sees what the >player whose turn it is misses but only comments when it's to the observer's >benefit. Assuming the entire table is into the game, it should be possible >to >catch nearly every accounting effect. And, often, players catch what they >missed sometime during their turn. But what's wrong with that? If your cross-table ally consistently forgets to get Edge pool, what's wrong with reminding him? And what's wrong with keeping your mouth shut when your prey forgets to get his Edge pool? I mean, are we going to get to the point where we have to remind everyone about each possible decision they can make? What will the next step be? Even though my Parity Shift is passing 6 to 5, should I feel obligated to remind my prey that he has the Edge? When I bleed my prey for 3 pool (enough to oust him), should I feel obligated to remind him he has a Major Boon on his prey? When my predator is muttering about not drawing a Bum's Rush or Ambush, should I remind him that Theo Bell has a built-in rush? Or when my prey is comtemplating diablerie but is worried about a blood hunt, why is it my responsibility to remind him that Rake with an Archon card is immune to blood hunts? Anyway, don't forget that HG's and most other location effects have been ruled optional. And optional means just that. =) Halcyan 2

>But what's wrong with that? If your cross-table ally consistently forgets to >get Edge pool, what's wrong with reminding him? And what's wrong with keeping >your mouth shut when your prey forgets to get his Edge pool? > >I mean, are we going to get to the point where we have to remind everyone >about >each possible decision they can make? What will the next step be? Even though >my Parity Shift is passing 6 to 5, should I feel obligated to remind my prey >that he has the Edge? When I bleed my prey for 3 pool (enough to oust him), >should I feel obligated to remind him he has a Major Boon on his prey? When >my >predator is muttering about not drawing a Bum's Rush or Ambush, should I >remind >him that Theo Bell has a built-in rush? Or when my prey is comtemplating >diablerie but is worried about a blood hunt, why is it my responsibility to >remind him that Rake with an Archon card is immune to blood hunts? Which is more important: winning or playing well played games? I only care about the latter.

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:56:52 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> > >> there have to be lines drawn somewhere; and the ability to mentally > >> juggle enormous amounts of detailed information should be a benefit in a > >> strategic game. ... > >always chess. But if we're going to make it a necessary skill for Jyhad, we > >might as well go whole hog and then the people who enjoy it can take it up with > >a vengeance and I can move on to games I'll like better. > > I am puzzled as to how you can even have this viewpoint; V:TES is all > about juggling detailed mental information. Most strategy games (i note > you include chess, something I consider V:TES similar to) are about > juggling detailed mental information and making decisions based on > analysis of that information. It's possible I may have misunderstood your point but I don't think so. There's a difference between understanding complex rules and how they interact and cause various forms of game dynamics vs. rote memorization of large amounts of pretty much arbitrary bits of information. The former is very interesting and when such game dynamics get very complicated, I find the game to be more fun. Certain types of other things, however, turn out to be arbitrary matters of memorization and recollection/regurgitation at a later time. IMO, it's not very interesting to determine who can win with a voting strategy when his opponents forgot one of his weeny vampires was prince at a critical moment. It's a lot more interesting to see if he can find a way to win when his opponent has a lot of intercept and untap and neither player can quite be confident of knowing what might be left in his opponent's library. No, I think chess and V:tES are quite different types of games. The fact that there's no luck (technically) in chess is why chess involves a much different skill set than Jyhad or even Magic. The fact that it's a two-player move/counter- move game means it involves a much different skill set than Diplomacy, even though Diplomacy involves no luck. Frankly, I think it's kind of a boring game myself though I don't disrespect people who like games like chess. > Assume at the start of my minion phase that I have Hugo out with 2 blood > on him; that my prey has a tapped, full Aabbt Kindred and an untapped, > full Khalil Anvari; and that my predator has an untapped, freshly > influenced Black Cat, and a torporized Uma Hatch. My hand consists of: > > Potence skill card > Bum's Rush > Legal Manipulations > Torn Signpost > Immortal Grapple > Undead Strength > Pushing the Limit > > A -WIDE- variety of actions are open to me, and which action I take is > totally dependent on my analysis of a LARGE amount of detailed > information. ... (snip long discussion of various possibilities and opposing strategies) Perhaps. But remembering that Khalil has been altered in some way which is not marked is a different skill than understanding what kinds of responses an unaltered Khalil is capable of. This is the kind of thing I would prefer to see *NOT* become a significant part of Jyhad. Fred

>No, I think chess and V:tES are quite different types of games. The fact >that >there's no luck (technically) in chess is why chess involves a much different >skill set than Jyhad or even Magic. The fact that it's a two-player >move/counter- >move game means it involves a much different skill set than Diplomacy, even >though >Diplomacy involves no luck. Frankly, I think it's kind of a boring game >myself >though I don't disrespect people who like games like chess. So in chess, are you the type who lets people take their moves back or not? In chess, people may overlook things such as not noticing they're a move away from being forked (the classic king & rook one or whatever). Or my opponent may not notice that by advancing my pawn, his queen is now vulnerable to my bishop. So if he misses this (just as someone may not notice an HG or the Edge), should he be able to take things back? Come to think of it, I'm seeing an interesting parallel between the two. And in particular, in both games, there will always be those who let their opponents take all their moves back and those who don't. If you're in the former group, what do you want Jyhad/VTES to look like? Should it resemble Go? Where there really is no "winning" or "losing," and oftentimes players may take a move back that happened a dozen turns ago... Not saying anything's right or wrong. Just...different... Halcyan 2

cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20011016152900...@mb-bh.aol.com>... > > Which is more important: winning or playing well played games? I only care > about the latter. Which is more or less my point; to give an example with chess. A buddy of mine and I are pretty equal chess players. Whenever we play though, essentially what happens is after a little while, one of us makes a retarted mistake; not out-witting the opponent, simply not noticing that bishop could attack your queen in that square. And that mistake tips the game in one of our favour's and essentially ends the game basically. But it has nothing to do with my 'superior or inferior mental/strategic moves/ability' just a dumb mistake. While *I guess* if i played a LOT of chess, i eventually would cease making those mistakes but few of us do; hence, unless it's a competitve tournament in which you can't, we take back those moves. I mean if the alternative is that nobody will remind me if i forget something good for me, and always remind me about something bad, then i'll HAVE to take my sweet ass long time on my turns and not miss anything (which isn't any good)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:23:01 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> I am puzzled as to how you can even have this viewpoint; V:TES is all >> about juggling detailed mental information. Most strategy games (i note >> you include chess, something I consider V:TES similar to) are about >> juggling detailed mental information and making decisions based on >> analysis of that information. > >It's possible I may have misunderstood your point but I don't think so. There's Nah, I don't think you misunderstood. >a difference between understanding complex rules and how they interact and cause >various forms of game dynamics vs. rote memorization of large amounts of pretty >much arbitrary bits of information. The former is very interesting and when such Note: rote memorization of disciplines and which cards are available to each discipline is absolutely mandatory to being a top player in this game -- see my "can Khalil play Ecstasy?" example. While I wouldn't go so far as to suggest anyone sit down and learn the cards off by heart, I'd bet most players can name you at least 80% of every discipline at the drop of a hat. >game dynamics get very complicated, I find the game to be more fun. Certain types >of other things, however, turn out to be arbitrary matters of memorization and >recollection/regurgitation at a later time. IMO, it's not very interesting to >determine who can win with a voting strategy when his opponents forgot one of >his weeny vampires was prince at a critical moment. It's a lot more interesting Just as an idle note, I'm not saying people shouldn't be permitted to leave the Praxis card on the Prince as a reminder. But that given, if someone manages to forget that he has 7 table votes, or someone cross-table forgets that Smudge made himself a Prince last turn and mis-counts the votes when he calls his Dramatic Upheaval... that's a misplay. Yes, it's totally based on juggling of details. But I'm sorry, that's the game. That's the WHOLE game. Lots of details. I can see no other way to interpret the game, given the mechanics. No, it's not interesting, and it's kind of a shame. But of such misplays are wins and losses made. Nobody should ever attempt to HIDE public information (such as Smudge's princehood), but neither should they be required to volunteer it before the vote ("Hey, that'll fail, you know"), or permit a "take-back" just because someone calls a vote, blocks are declined, and then he says "OK, I have 2 in favor with the Edge... hey, wait, when did Smudge become a Prince?" >to see if he can find a way to win when his opponent has a lot of intercept and >untap and neither player can quite be confident of knowing what might be left >in his opponent's library. Yes, this is far more interesting. But it also relies on juggling of details, specifically "what has been played so far?", "what could these vampires play?", "is this sort of deck likely to have that much untap?", etc. >No, I think chess and V:tES are quite different types of games. The fact that >there's no luck (technically) in chess is why chess involves a much different Minor nitpick: there IS no luck in chess. Not even in random selection of White or Black; while White has an early advantage in the first move, it has been shown over time to amount to nothing more than the initiative. White does not win more games than Black; there is no "guaranteed game-winning" opening for White. Black can always defend and hold at least a draw. >skill set than Jyhad or even Magic. The fact that it's a two-player move/counter- >move game means it involves a much different skill set than Diplomacy, even though >Diplomacy involves no luck. Frankly, I think it's kind of a boring game myself >though I don't disrespect people who like games like chess. Played against a computer, it is generally boring; a computer doesn't "think" the same way a human does, and this shows up most glaringly in its weakest levels of play, where most players are likely to remain. Most high-ranked players, even over the Internet, can quickly identify a human who is utilizing a computer to move for them. Played against a live person of similar caliber, it remains quite interesting, though. And if you REALLY want it to get fun, find someone who can kick your ass at it. All kinds of crazy stuff usually happens then, as he gets more aggressive. =) >Perhaps. But remembering that Khalil has been altered in some way which is >not marked is a different skill than understanding what kinds of responses >an unaltered Khalil is capable of. This is the kind of thing I would prefer >to see *NOT* become a significant part of Jyhad. Again, I don't have any objection to someone dropping a Prince card on Khalil to remind everyone that he's a Prince (assuming he got Invitation Accepted passed previously, etc.) But I am also not going to feel sorry for someone cross-table who forgets that Khalil has two votes if the Praxis card is sitting there right on him, or under him. You've got to pay attention. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >No, I think chess and V:tES are quite different types of games. The fact > >that there's no luck (technically) in chess is why chess involves a much > >different skill set than Jyhad or even Magic. The fact that it's a two- > >player move/counter-move game means it involves a much different skill > >set than Diplomacy, even though Diplomacy involves no luck. Frankly, I > >think it's kind of a boring game myself though I don't disrespect people > >who like games like chess. > > So in chess, are you the type who lets people take their moves back or not? In > chess, people may overlook things such as not noticing they're a move away from > being forked (the classic king & rook one or whatever). Or my opponent may not > notice that by advancing my pawn, his queen is now vulnerable to my bishop. So > if he misses this (just as someone may not notice an HG or the Edge), should he > be able to take things back? I'm not really sure why it matters. How many moves will you let someone take back? You can easily make a mistake that won't become clear for several more moves or a dozen more moves or whatever? That's the whole point of chess. It's a all a matter of how much you can anticipate in advance for how many moves. Sooner or later the wisdom - or lack thereof - of your prior moves comes out in the wash. There's no luck or unknown information so it's purely a matter of grinding out futures positions until your brain is no longer capable of doing anything but guesstimating how good a position is - though you're never forced to. Some day a computer will be programmed which cannot mathematically be defeated either if it starts with white or black. Whether that color will be capable of forcing a win or only a draw at best is yet to be determined. Perhaps both colors will be found to be capable of forcing a draw. It's not very interesting to me. > Come to think of it, I'm seeing an interesting parallel between the two. And in > particular, in both games, there will always be those who let their opponents > take all their moves back and those who don't. I suppose. (And FYI, I usually do because like Ian, I don't care for the game being one or lost on brain farts. Though at some point in Jyhad, it becomes impossible to reconstruct a game properly if too much play has passed since the move in question.) I just don't think it's germane to the point I was making. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > Just as an idle note, I'm not saying people shouldn't be permitted to > leave the Praxis card on the Prince as a reminder. But that given, if > someone manages to forget that he has 7 table votes, or someone > cross-table forgets that Smudge made himself a Prince last turn and > mis-counts the votes when he calls his Dramatic Upheaval... that's a > misplay. Yes, it's totally based on juggling of details. But I'm > sorry, that's the game. That's the WHOLE game. Lots of details. I can > see no other way to interpret the game, given the mechanics. Well, OK, I agree there's reasons why this kind of thing has to be allowed to stand in the tournament game. And if you prefer to play that way, in your informal games as well. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was that you said, "the ability to mentally juggle enormous amounts of detailed information should be a benefit in a strategic game." That's fine when you're referring to memorizing what cards do what and with what requirements and costs and so forth. I disagree with it in terms of remembering whether Smudge is a prince or not. You will learn the cards over time and get better at remembering what disciplines and clans and so forth will allow what minions to do what. Brain farts are just random events; and those more prone to them are unlikely to ever get any better at avoiding them. I suppose if they have trouble in certain specific situations, they may train themselves over time to be more aware when those situations come up. But the "brain fart" factor will always have it's effects and I just disagree with anyone who says that's a good thing - which I believe is what you said. > >to see if he can find a way to win when his opponent has a lot of intercept and > >untap and neither player can quite be confident of knowing what might be left > >in his opponent's library. > > Yes, this is far more interesting. But it also relies on juggling of > details, specifically "what has been played so far?", "what could these > vampires play?", "is this sort of deck likely to have that much untap?", > etc. Correct. And this is a different form of "juggling details" as noted above. And I think the confusion of the two concepts may be what's really in dispute, here. Fred

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:07:49 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Halcyan 2 wrote: >> >> So in chess, are you the type who lets people take their moves back or not? In > >I'm not really sure why it matters. How many moves will you let someone take >back? You can easily make a mistake that won't become clear for several more moves >or a dozen more moves or whatever? That's the whole point of chess. It's a all >a matter of how much you can anticipate in advance for how many moves. Sooner or This is the common perception of chess, but it's not really a good way to play if you want to win. Chess computers are forced to think this way. This is why all but the absolute most-powerful, oh-my-god-fast machines will consistently LOSE to a human player. >later the wisdom - or lack thereof - of your prior moves comes out in the wash. >There's no luck or unknown information so it's purely a matter of grinding out >futures positions until your brain is no longer capable of doing anything but >guesstimating how good a position is - though you're never forced to. Some day Heh. A number of people on this newsgroup have seen me play chess, drunk out of my mind, moving in only a few seconds, while playing Fairy Meat at the same time... and consistently win. I know at least two Atlanta players have seen this sort of thing on several occasions (oddly, usually while I'm drunk, but with several conversations with onlookers taking the place of Fairy Meat). A number of GMs give exhibitions where they play 20-25 boards at the same time, walking from one to the next rapidly. The intent here isn't to brag about my m4d sk1l!z; it's simply to point out that grinding out future positions isn't physically possible when you've downed eight pints on an evening. The only way I'm POSSIBLY winning is by positional play and rapid-fire pattern-analysis; I know what TYPES of moves are good, and I make those moves. Eventually I'm in a sufficiently good position that combos to win material become blindingly obvious. This is the same way that those GMs play their exhibitions (although they're much, much better than I), as opposed to trying to keep it all in their head. Brute-force move-by-move analysis simply is inferior. Alexander Alekhine demonstrated that some time ago (1910s?) with a sharp, new-to-the-era style of play. Anyway, the whole upshot of all that (pardon my ramble) was that chess really ISN'T about juggling a whole lot of details; you analyze a position, determine a course of action, and then look a few moves ahead on that course of action to see if you're going to shoot yourself in the foot. Being burned ten moves down the road isn't the result of not being able to think that far ahead, it's the result of not understanding what KIND of move the first move should've been. Hopefully all that made sense. >a computer will be programmed which cannot mathematically be defeated either if >it starts with white or black. Whether that color will be capable of forcing a >win or only a draw at best is yet to be determined. Perhaps both colors will be >found to be capable of forcing a draw. It's not very interesting to me. Nobody knows. The computer hasn't been built yet that's fast enough, and while chess is theoretically "solvable" in the same fashion as checkers and Connect Four, I don't believe anyone is actually interested in doing such a thing. Solving the game is boring. Playing the game is much more fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:22:06 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Well, OK, I agree there's reasons why this kind of thing has to be allowed >to stand in the tournament game. And if you prefer to play that way, in >your informal games as well. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was that >you said, "the ability to mentally juggle enormous amounts of detailed >information should be a benefit in a strategic game." That's fine when >you're referring to memorizing what cards do what and with what requirements >and costs and so forth. I disagree with it in terms of remembering whether >Smudge is a prince or not. You will learn the cards over time and get If the only difference is in which details are being juggled, exactly what is the point? I agree with you; there's no need to force people to memorize that Smudge is a prince, putting the card on him serves as an excellent reminder. But once the card's there, it's public, easily-accessible information; how can you distinguish between the details of Smudge's disciplines (ok, bad vampire example) and Smudge's Princehood? They're both the same at that point; something that's on Smudge (or not, as far as disciplines). If you aren't paying attention to the table and forget that Smudge princified himself, then worse luck for you. This is no different from forgetting that Aabbt Kindred have Fortitude and can play Skin of Steel when you Rush one. >better at remembering what disciplines and clans and so forth will allow >what minions to do what. Brain farts are just random events; and those more >prone to them are unlikely to ever get any better at avoiding them. I Correct. And there just isn't any difference between brain farting on "dammit, he's been playing untap all game, I should've known he'd have one", and "dammit, I forgot Anton had Obfuscate and could whip out an Assault Rifle with Disguised Weapon", and "dammit, I forgot Smudge was a Prince now." >suppose if they have trouble in certain specific situations, they may train >themselves over time to be more aware when those situations come up. But >the "brain fart" factor will always have it's effects and I just disagree >with anyone who says that's a good thing - which I believe is what you >said. I say that there has to be SOME means of determining who wins, and allowing unlimited takebacks ain't gonna do it. I don't say that it's a GOOD thing to win on a brain fart, but I say that it is a win, and it's a valid win. It's not a win you should run around bragging about, but training yourself not to brain fart is part of the game... is, in fact, part and parcel of almost all games. Good players don't brain fart (much). >> Yes, this is far more interesting. But it also relies on juggling of >> details, specifically "what has been played so far?", "what could these >> vampires play?", "is this sort of deck likely to have that much untap?", >> etc. > >Correct. And this is a different form of "juggling details" as noted above. >And I think the confusion of the two concepts may be what's really in dispute, >here. What's different, other than the details of the details? One bit of information is one bit of information. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:22:06 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > > >Well, OK, I agree there's reasons why this kind of thing has to be allowed > >to stand in the tournament game. And if you prefer to play that way, in > >your informal games as well. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was that > >you said, "the ability to mentally juggle enormous amounts of detailed > >information should be a benefit in a strategic game." That's fine when > >you're referring to memorizing what cards do what and with what requirements > >and costs and so forth. I disagree with it in terms of remembering whether > >Smudge is a prince or not. You will learn the cards over time and get > > If the only difference is in which details are being juggled, exactly > what is the point? I agree with you; there's no need to force people to > memorize that Smudge is a prince, putting the card on him serves as an > excellent reminder. But once the card's there, it's public, > easily-accessible information; how can you distinguish between the > details of Smudge's disciplines (ok, bad vampire example) and Smudge's > Princehood? They're both the same at that point; something that's on > Smudge (or not, as far as disciplines). I'm not sure where we're passing each other. I agree, if the Smudge's princehood is easily-accessible information, it is exactly on the level of his (lack of) disciplines. > If you aren't paying attention to the table and forget that Smudge > princified himself, then worse luck for you. This is no different from > forgetting that Aabbt Kindred have Fortitude and can play Skin of Steel > when you Rush one. It depends. If the information is in front of you and you simply don't _look_ at it, that's one thing. If you weren't aware that Skin of Steel existed or were hazy about what it did or that it were a Fortitude card then you might come be the same effect but for a different reason. In either event, it is not because you were failed to memorize that Aabbt Kindred was _given_ Fortitude by a card which did not remain in play earlier in the game. > >better at remembering what disciplines and clans and so forth will allow > >what minions to do what. Brain farts are just random events; and those more > >prone to them are unlikely to ever get any better at avoiding them. I > > Correct. And there just isn't any difference between brain farting on > "dammit, he's been playing untap all game, I should've known he'd have > one", and "dammit, I forgot Anton had Obfuscate and could whip out an > Assault Rifle with Disguised Weapon", and "dammit, I forgot Smudge was a > Prince now." Again, it depends on whether the information is there in front of you - if you care to look - or not. Also, I note that a repeated event ("playing untap all game") is a far different situation than remembering a single event which may have happened at the beginning of the game and never have even affected play again until the end. Or the fact that estimating what a player might play from what he's capable of playing at this moment is always dicey. He may produce his first Second Tradition or WwEF in the last 20 cards; he may draw all 6 of his bleed-bounce in the first 20. Different thing from forgetting a positive change of status. > >suppose if they have trouble in certain specific situations, they may train > >themselves over time to be more aware when those situations come up. But > >the "brain fart" factor will always have it's effects and I just disagree > >with anyone who says that's a good thing - which I believe is what you > >said. > > I say that there has to be SOME means of determining who wins, and > allowing unlimited takebacks ain't gonna do it. How about who chooses better strategy and makes better choices keeping in mind all the known information he's _supposed_ to have at hand as he chooses? That makes a fine game, IMO. Unlimited takebacks are problematic in tournaments as they can be cynically used for advantage by the unscrupulous. Nor do they inevitably solve the "brain fart" problem as the game becomes impossible to reconstruct if the mistake is not discovered instantly - which cannot be guaranteed. But if they did solve the problem and integrity weren't a question, unlimited takebacks would be an excellent way of determining who wins, IMO. > I don't say that it's a > GOOD thing to win on a brain fart, but I say that it is a win, and it's > a valid win. It's not a win you should run around bragging about, but > training yourself not to brain fart is part of the game... is, in fact, > part and parcel of almost all games. It is. I just don't understand your confusion about what would determine who wins the game without brain farts. What would determine who won the game would be things that _should_ determine who won the game. > >> Yes, this is far more interesting. But it also relies on juggling of > >> details, specifically "what has been played so far?", "what could these > >> vampires play?", "is this sort of deck likely to have that much untap?", > >> etc. > > > >Correct. And this is a different form of "juggling details" as noted above. > >And I think the confusion of the two concepts may be what's really in dispute, > >here. > > What's different, other than the details of the details? > > One bit of information is one bit of information. I've explained this to you. I will explain it again. How you learn the information is what's different. What cards do what is something I can and want to learn over time. How they work, what situations they're effective in or not effective in. What options are available for playing against what strategies and tactics my opponents use and so forth. It's all cool stuff and I can and will learn these particulars of this game and thereby get better at it. As opposed...Smudge the Ignored was made a Prince on turn 2. It has implications for only a single game. I do not want my head filled with and refuse to permanently memorize EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of every change of status to every minion which is not marked by a card that has ever happened in any game I have ever played in. It is NOT "cool stuff". It's minutia. It will make no difference tomorrow. Nor do I have the same opportunity to memorize it. I've only known it since 37 minutes ago and it hadn't made a difference even once until this moment. It's not the same memory problem as playing the game multiple times and learning over time to be aware of potential cards that will affect what you're trying to do because you've had people play them against you many times. This is why I say the one skill can be gained over time but the other is much more unlikely (or at least a hell of a lot harder) to find. Memorizing that Smudge was made a prince in turn 2 today will not help me remember that Sir Walter Nash yielded his contested title in tomorrow's game. Does that clarify why there are details and there are details? One bit of information is not the same as another. Fred

cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And if you can remember it, why can't he? >Which is more important: winning or playing well played games? I only care >about the latter. I like well-played games. That's why I keep track of the "accounting". How difficult is it to remember to collect for the Edge? Compared with some of the card interactions that can occur, that's trivial. In VTES, timing can make a big difference. If you miss something, I don't see why others should be penalized (and v.v.). Having to pay for ones mistakes helps the lesson stick. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: [snip] >If the only difference is in which details are being juggled, exactly >what is the point? I agree with you; there's no need to force people to >memorize that Smudge is a prince, putting the card on him serves as an >excellent reminder. But once the card's there, it's public, >easily-accessible information; how can you distinguish between the >details of Smudge's disciplines (ok, bad vampire example) and Smudge's >Princehood? They're both the same at that point; something that's on >Smudge (or not, as far as disciplines). > >If you aren't paying attention to the table and forget that Smudge >princified himself, then worse luck for you. This is no different from >forgetting that Aabbt Kindred have Fortitude and can play Skin of Steel >when you Rush one. It is different because Aabbt, etc. is always true. It's part of VTES. Whether Smudge is a prince is only part of a game of VTES. I wish there were markers, or that the rules allowed the modifying cards to remain. [snip] [ quoted text not captured ]

Gene Wirchenko wrote: > It is different because Aabbt, etc. is always true. It's part of > VTES. Whether Smudge is a prince is only part of a game of VTES. I > wish there were markers, or that the rules allowed the modifying cards > to remain. The rules allow "taking notes" of such things. [4.2], [VEKN 1.4] If you wish to place your note on a Post-It(tm) and stick it on Smudge, that's allowed. If you wish to use a "Prince counter" on Smudge as your note, that's allowed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 06:10:06 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> If the only difference is in which details are being juggled, exactly >> what is the point? I agree with you; there's no need to force people to >> memorize that Smudge is a prince, putting the card on him serves as an Do remember I said this. >I'm not sure where we're passing each other. I agree, if the Smudge's >princehood is easily-accessible information, it is exactly on the level >of his (lack of) disciplines. Right. That's my point. Nobody is trying to make Smudge's princehood NON-easily accessible information, that I know of. I am aware that technically, Praxis cards must go in the ash heap when played. I am also aware that I have stuck Praxis cards under vampires who successfully royalize themselves from day one, did it in the last tournament at DragonCon (in the finals, too), and will continue to do it until someone attempts to tell me I can't, at which point I will look incredulously at them and say "You're kidding, right?" >It depends. If the information is in front of you and you simply don't _look_ >at it, that's one thing. If you weren't aware that Skin of Steel existed or If you don't check all information, that's a careless play. If you aren't aware that Skin of Steel exists, that's inexperience. Either way is an acceptable factor to determine skill differential. In the case of knowledge that Skin of Steel exists, it's going to be a very BRIEF factor (til the first one hits the table), but it DOES work. >were hazy about what it did or that it were a Fortitude card then you might >come be the same effect but for a different reason. In either event, it is >not because you were failed to memorize that Aabbt Kindred was _given_ >Fortitude by a card which did not remain in play earlier in the game. Right. Again, nobody's disputing that point. The whole original point of this thread was about whether reminding someone to take pool for the Edge, putting counters on Temptation, etc. is a good thing. I clarified it to "juggling lots of details in your head", and then we got a bit confused from there. >Again, it depends on whether the information is there in front of you - if >you care to look - or not. Also, I note that a repeated event ("playing untap >all game") is a far different situation than remembering a single event which Sure, it's tougher to remember the single event. But again, if the information is available and all you had to do was look... careless play. >may have happened at the beginning of the game and never have even affected play >again until the end. Or the fact that estimating what a player might play from >what he's capable of playing at this moment is always dicey. He may produce >his first Second Tradition or WwEF in the last 20 cards; he may draw all 6 of >his bleed-bounce in the first 20. Different thing from forgetting a positive >change of status. Yeah, it's a whole lot more of a WAG[0]. But even WAGs are information. >> I say that there has to be SOME means of determining who wins, and >> allowing unlimited takebacks ain't gonna do it. > >How about who chooses better strategy and makes better choices keeping in mind >all the known information he's _supposed_ to have at hand as he chooses? That There's plenty of that involved in this game as well. But there is no way I'm going to go around reminding people of all the known information they're supposed to have at hand when they choose... not to mention that there's just no way to do it, because I don't know what someone does or doesn't know. And frankly, if you forget to put a Temptation counter on your card, it's just sloppy play; you're the one with the freaking Temptation deck, for godsake. Can't you even remember what your deck does? I've seen people recruit the Tempted player's prey/predator, as appropriate, to help remind them to put the Temptation counters on if necessary, which is a perfectly good play IMO. For newbies, it's one thing; in local games, I don't mind someone saying "look, don't just bleed, he's got an untapped vampire and will just block. do you have something else you can do?" But in a tournament, well, they're called newbies for a REASON. The only way to get better is to get kicked out of the nest and see the pointy end of the stick; that way they will actually learn, instead of waiting for someone to save them. >makes a fine game, IMO. Unlimited takebacks are problematic in tournaments as >they can be cynically used for advantage by the unscrupulous. Nor do they >inevitably solve the "brain fart" problem as the game becomes impossible to >reconstruct if the mistake is not discovered instantly - which cannot be >guaranteed. But if they did solve the problem and integrity weren't a question, >unlimited takebacks would be an excellent way of determining who wins, IMO. And games would take 6+ hours. The situation you describe is called "post-mortem" in chess, where one goes back after a match and enlists a computer's help to map out 15+ moves down from every given move you were considering at a key point. It is a great informational tool, and can help you identify things like weak squares you left open, etc. It sucks ass as a game, and is staggeringly boring to do. I like to see everyone make GOOD plays. But if everyone made the best play possible every time? That's not a game, that's a mathematical exercise poorly disguised as a game. >> I don't say that it's a >> GOOD thing to win on a brain fart, but I say that it is a win, and it's >> a valid win. It's not a win you should run around bragging about, but >> training yourself not to brain fart is part of the game... is, in fact, >> part and parcel of almost all games. > >It is. I just don't understand your confusion about what would determine >who wins the game without brain farts. What would determine who won the >game would be things that _should_ determine who won the game. If everyone made the best play every time, every game should end in a draw, or more accurately, the games would totally come down to several things: [1] Deck Choice and Quality [2] Seating Position [3] Luck of the Draw Look at how much luck is SOLELY involved in the game now? Pass. >> One bit of information is one bit of information. > >I've explained this to you. I will explain it again. Remember I said that. It may be difficult to comprehend, but one bit of information is one bit of information, no matter what it's disguised as. It is one of my strong points to be able to reduce things down to chunks of information; and one of the reasons I value cards like Tortured Confession, Cull the Herd, the "I look at your deck/hand" bleed modifiers, etc. so much. The more information you can simultaneously keep on hand, the better your chances are of selecting the correct strategy. >As opposed...Smudge the Ignored was made a Prince on turn 2. It has implications >for only a single game. I do not want my head filled with and refuse to permanently >memorize EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of every change of status to every minion which is >not marked by a card that has ever happened in any game I have ever played in. It >is NOT "cool stuff". It's minutia. It will make no difference tomorrow. See way above, where I agreed with you on this a long time ago. >Nor do I have the same opportunity to memorize it. I've only known it since 37 minutes >ago and it hadn't made a difference even once until this moment. It's not the same >memory problem as playing the game multiple times and learning over time to be aware >of potential cards that will affect what you're trying to do because you've had people >play them against you many times. This is why I say the one skill can be gained over >time but the other is much more unlikely (or at least a hell of a lot harder) to find. The ability to retain transient information in a matrix along with permanent information is a valuable skill, however. Not everything can be represented with a permanent reminder; some transient information MUST be maintained. It is to everyone's advantage to use permanent reminders whenever possible, since if everyone happens to forget, then the game is changed inappropriately, but really, it's still just another chunk o' info. >Does that clarify why there are details and there are details? One bit of information >is not the same as another. Yes, it is. You're just not looking at it that way. For example, transient information: last time Alice got into combat with one of Bob's vampires, Bob played Trap, Inner Essence, Horrid Form, and Kraken's Kiss, with the resulting rude surprise for Alice's vampire. Alice can remember one bit of information, "last time I picked a fight with Bob, my vampire bit the dust", two bits of information "he used some crazy-ass Trap combat", or multiple bits of information (each card as it was played and what happened as a result). The more transient information Alice can successfully remember, the better she's going to do next time she gets in a fight with Bob; for example, she might realize that Caliban may LOOK empty, but Inner Essence will let him still play the above combo. Transient details, permanent details. Sure, some are a bit harder to remember. But you have to remember as many as possible, and it really IS possible to reduce things to chunks in this fashion. It also works very well for strategy games like this one. [0] Wild-Ass Guess [ quoted text not captured ]

> It is different because Aabbt, etc. is always true. It's part of >VTES. Whether Smudge is a prince is only part of a game of VTES. I >wish there were markers, or that the rules allowed the modifying cards >to remain. One thing that occurred to me was what would happen if the game were computerized a la Magic. I'd expect the computer version to have reminders for the various accounting effects. Temptation would change color wanting to know if you wanted to add a counter or not. Little box would pop up asking if you wanted to take a pool for the edge. And, so forth. Part of the problem with some of these effects that need to be kept track of is that they aren't visibly obvious. I don't mean a Praxis Seizure that went, properly, to the ash heap. There are numerous times that the edge is: too small, too big, too similar to other stuff on the table, pushed too far back, too close to the middle of the table, etc. There's an issue of consistency that causes such things to be overlooked. Temptation is annoying to keep track of in part because it's not in front of you much of the time. As for penalizing people when they overlook these so that they stop, I have yet to come across someone who didn't forget at one point or another to take for the edge or for a hunting ground at the appropriate time. Suggests to me a greater problem than people used to playing sloppily. One bit of info isn't the same as another. The mind categorizes the importance of various bits. For instance, I don't think I ever forget a hunting ground when I have an empty vampire. But, if they are all healthy, I'm much more likely to forget.

Derek Ray wrote: > Transient details, permanent details. Sure, some are a bit harder to > remember. But you have to remember as many as possible, and it really IS > possible to reduce things to chunks in this fashion. It also works very > well for strategy games like this one. All right, I agree with that. As long as the it's kept in mind that the two things have a different quality and are at least somewhat different skills. But both are certainly useful and they both have a hand in determining who wins more games than others. > For example, transient information: last time Alice got into combat > with one of Bob's vampires, Bob played Trap, Inner Essence, Horrid Form, > and Kraken's Kiss, with the resulting rude surprise for Alice's vampire. > > Alice can remember one bit of information, "last time I picked a fight > with Bob, my vampire bit the dust", two bits of information "he used > some crazy-ass Trap combat", or multiple bits of information (each card > as it was played and what happened as a result). The more transient > information Alice can successfully remember, the better she's going to > do next time she gets in a fight with Bob; for example, she might > realize that Caliban may LOOK empty, but Inner Essence will let him > still play the above combo. Actually, Alice can go look at Bob's graveyard if she really wants to know. That's one of things I like about open graveyards like that. There's a different quality yet to the unmarked status change (that I really do _understand_ you're not in favor of, mind you! :) ) because you have to be aware that it's a factor to even think about it. If Alice is wondering what kind of trouble she get into rushing Bob or allowing herself to be intercepted by Bob, it shouldn't be too hard to think back. If she forgot the exact cards or what they did or what skills the required or their costs, she can go look. The problem with ol' unmarked Smudge and vote counting is that usually what happens is that one doesn't even recall there was even an issue with Smudge maybe having votes. If you think about it, you'll likely recollect the event of Smudge's Praxis Seizure vote. But nothing kicks you to think about it so you don't even engage your memory. It's been proposed that if you get burned enough, you'll learn to think about these things. Unfortunately, what I keep finding is that I don't get burned on such things often enough or they're of too diverse a nature to develop any relevant habits that fix the problem. I perceive that the people who don't get burned are usually people who seem to a natural talent for committing and recalling pertinent facts at the correct times. I've heard a lot of theories as to why some folks are better than others but I've never found much information out there which is very helpful at creating improvement in this. Fred

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > > This is the common perception of chess, but it's not really a good way > to play if you want to win. I agree. People always ask me how many moves ahead I play in Chess. It has always seemed like a strange question. I play based on the scenario on the board in front of me. I may be able to anticipate areas of attack or recognize traps I have stepped in during past games, but there is very little forethought involved. Each move made by my opponent changes the board and therefore my analysis of it changes. > Heh. A number of people on this newsgroup have seen me play chess, > drunk out of my mind, moving in only a few seconds, while playing Fairy > Meat at the same time... and consistently win. You the man. Funny that... my friend and I used to play games after his bar closed. He would be half-in-the-bag and still drinking while we played... I would drink a lot of coffee instead. Although we are more or less equal in skill, he would consistently win more than me. He would knock a lot of pieces over and drool on the board but meanwhile I would be so high-strung on caffeine that I couldn't concentrate on the board. I understand why I got worse, but I never understood why he got better... > I know at least two > Atlanta players have seen this sort of thing on several occasions > (oddly, usually while I'm drunk, but with several conversations with > onlookers taking the place of Fairy Meat). A number of GMs give > exhibitions where they play 20-25 boards at the same time, walking from > one to the next rapidly. They do this for Fairy Meat? It's long been done with Chess also of course. Make your move, hit the clock, move on to the next mark. > The intent here isn't to brag about my m4d sk1l!z; it's simply to point > out that grinding out future positions isn't physically possible when > you've downed eight pints on an evening. The only way I'm POSSIBLY > winning is by positional play and rapid-fire pattern-analysis; I know > what TYPES of moves are good, and I make those moves. I can't see this helping *that* much... but maybe you hold your drink better than me. I will say though that if you ever want to completely throw off a really good player in a serious game, whenever you move your knight make a 'Neeeiigh!' sound. Serious players can't stand it. And anyone who is *that* serious about Chess is someone I don't want to play with. > Eventually I'm in > a sufficiently good position that combos to win material become > blindingly obvious. This is the same way that those GMs play their > exhibitions (although they're much, much better than I), as opposed to > trying to keep it all in their head. I think you're onto something here, but I can't play well in this way... and I'm a fairly good player. You can find Chess puzzles which show you a position of the board and ask you to accomplish a defined goal. Checkmate in three moves, etc. When I was more into Chess than I am now, I enjoyed them. Really, any game can be seen as a series of 'snap-shots' after each player moves. If you look at any one of those snap-shots, you can determine what good moves would be. Just to make this Jyhad-related... maybe once we all agree on a reasonable transcription system, we'll be able to do this as well. I think not though... too many factors. I moderate on JOL and can tell you that there is so much detail required just to give an accurate 'snap-shot' that I can't conceive of a way to rush this process. > Brute-force move-by-move analysis simply is inferior. Alexander > Alekhine demonstrated that some time ago (1910s?) with a sharp, > new-to-the-era style of play. Yep. Bobby Fischer had a similar approach. That might explain why he was able to put down the game for many years and come back out of nowhere to win a tournament in Yugoslavia (and then have his US citizenship revoked for his efforts :) > Anyway, the whole upshot of all that (pardon my ramble) was that chess > really ISN'T about juggling a whole lot of details; you analyze a > position, determine a course of action, and then look a few moves ahead > on that course of action to see if you're going to shoot yourself in the > foot. Being burned ten moves down the road isn't the result of not > being able to think that far ahead, it's the result of not understanding > what KIND of move the first move should've been. Hopefully all that > made sense. Perfectly. I just don't understand how you can play well when you're shit-faced. Hmmm... Who do you think would be more 'in tune' with the game of Jyhad: An avid Chess player or a World Of Darkness RPG fanboy? I'll put my name down for the former... (even though I became the latter :) Cheers, WES

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:09:52 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> >> This is the common perception of chess, but it's not really a good way >> to play if you want to win. > >I agree. People always ask me how many moves ahead I play in Chess. It has >always seemed like a strange question. It is a strange question, but it's not a STRANGE question. I think they just see the many chess programs that have a setting for how many "ply" the computer thinks ahead, and assume that people must do it too. >I play based on the scenario on the board in front of me. I may be able to >anticipate areas of attack or recognize traps I have stepped in during past >games, but there is very little forethought involved. Each move made by my >opponent changes the board and therefore my analysis of it changes. Yeah. I *am*, in fact, looking at a frozen snapshot; it doesn't matter how we got there or what I planned to do last turn, what's on the board is what I've got to deal with. >I understand why I got worse, but I never understood why he got better... Motor skills and logical thinking degenerate with alcohol. Pattern recognition may well go up, since you slide into more of a "freely associative" mental state. Don't quote me, I'm not a doctor. >I can't see this helping *that* much... but maybe you hold your drink better >than me. Actually, I play worse when I'm drunk -- too aggressive and I go for very flashy "cool!" ideas. But I play pretty well to begin with, and it did surprise me the first time I played sloshed how -little- brute-force analysis mattered (because I couldn't do it anymore =). >I will say though that if you ever want to completely throw off a really >good player in a serious game, whenever you move your knight make a >'Neeeiigh!' sound. Serious players can't stand it. And anyone who is *that* >serious about Chess is someone I don't want to play with. *snicker* I agree. (Although I might pick on you for 'playing with your horsey again', I won't actually get ANGRY about it. =) >> Eventually I'm in >> a sufficiently good position that combos to win material become >> blindingly obvious. This is the same way that those GMs play their >> exhibitions (although they're much, much better than I), as opposed to >> trying to keep it all in their head. > >I think you're onto something here, but I can't play well in this way... and >I'm a fairly good player. You can find Chess puzzles which show you a >position of the board and ask you to accomplish a defined goal. Checkmate in >three moves, etc. When I was more into Chess than I am now, I enjoyed them. >Really, any game can be seen as a series of 'snap-shots' after each player >moves. If you look at any one of those snap-shots, you can determine what >good moves would be. Instantaneous pattern recognition is why humans have beaten computers for so long at the highest levels. It simply isn't possible to brute-force analyze a board fast enough to get past where a human can go simply on pattern analysis. More importantly, it's VERY difficult to teach a computer how to look at a board and say "This square, which is currently empty and unthreatened by either side, will be key to the game later." >> Anyway, the whole upshot of all that (pardon my ramble) was that chess >> really ISN'T about juggling a whole lot of details; you analyze a >> position, determine a course of action, and then look a few moves ahead >> on that course of action to see if you're going to shoot yourself in the >> foot. Being burned ten moves down the road isn't the result of not >> being able to think that far ahead, it's the result of not understanding >> what KIND of move the first move should've been. Hopefully all that >> made sense. > >Perfectly. I just don't understand how you can play well when you're >shit-faced. Powered by Guinness(tm)! =) Don't ask me, I just move the pieces. By saying all this, I've also now set myself up to lose MISERABLY next time I play drunk, so it should be quite amusing. First person to buy me four pints gets to beat up on me! Line forms here -------V------- >Hmmm... Who do you think would be more 'in tune' with the game of Jyhad: > >An avid Chess player or a World Of Darkness RPG fanboy? > >I'll put my name down for the former... (even though I became the latter :) Heh. With the gameplay, a chess player. With the "thematics", a WoD fanboy. :) -- Derek

Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: >On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:09:52 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > >>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >>> >>> This is the common perception of chess, but it's not really a good way >>> to play if you want to win. >> >>I agree. People always ask me how many moves ahead I play in Chess. It has >>always seemed like a strange question. > >It is a strange question, but it's not a STRANGE question. I think they >just see the many chess programs that have a setting for how many "ply" >the computer thinks ahead, and assume that people must do it too. Well, no. It is also commonly said that expert chess players can see <n> moves ahead. I don't know how it got started though. It's not impossible that it did start in the days of the early chess-playing programs. I've never read of computers being mentioned in conjunction with the <n> statistic. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote <Derek Ray wrote:> > >It is a strange question, but it's not a STRANGE question. I think they > >just see the many chess programs that have a setting for how many "ply" > >the computer thinks ahead, and assume that people must do it too. > > Well, no. It is also commonly said that expert chess players can > see <n> moves ahead. I don't know how it got started though. It's > not impossible that it did start in the days of the early > chess-playing programs. I've never read of computers being mentioned > in conjunction with the <n> statistic. There are of course situations that come up where one is *forced* into certain moves, usually involving mandatory moves to protect the King until one is mated. In such a situation, one would be able to safely say "Mate in three". Aside from that though, there would be no way of logically determining how many moves ahead you can calculate. Since each new move changes the paramaters of the board, you couldn't accurately plan unless you could also accurately determine your (human) opponent's each and every move. This would not require logic... it would require Telepathy (or superior Auspex--there, made it Jyhad related :) Determining a computer's each and every move would of course be much easier since it would be following the logic it was programmed with... I guess. I don't claim to be an expert programmer. I imagine that 'randomness' (as random as you *can* be with a computer...) could be used to change the 'difficulty' of the computer you are playing against. Give it a 20% chance of making a stupid move for example... Another factor which I assume would be problematic for a Chess program is determining value of pieces. The standard values associated with each piece do not take into account their position on the board. So, while a Pawn is worth only 1 point, a Pawn which is one move away from becoming a Queen should be worth much more. A Pawn which is about to be promoted, but which is threatened by another piece would detract from its value. It gets more complicaed from there. Creating a true value system for this would be problematic to say the least. Kind of like saying Gratiano is worth 8 points but a Gratiano who is in torpor, with a Disarm on him, with a Derangement on him and empty of blood is worth a hell of a lot less... ok, I'm stretching this with inane Jyhad examples but fuck it, I'm interested in this discussion. Cheers, WES

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > #1. In a previous tournament report (the EC I believe), the judge mentioned > > that in the final, someone forgot to pay for contesting and was forced to yield > > the vampire (instead of allowing him to pay the pool). Can you do this? > > No. You are forced to choose, not forced to yield. > Depending on what has transpired in the interim, the judge may decide to > let the omission stand (free contesting), or enact some other penalty, > but the penalty should certainly not rise to the level of "burn the vampire". Hmm, I didn't read that rule as "forced to choose." My take was that if you neglected to choose to yield, the worst that could happen is that you would be forced to pay (except in the case where you have 1 pool and the player you are contesting with has Democritus ready). The wording on the contesting rules seems to make clear that in the absence of a choice to yield, the cost is forced: "4.1. ... Instead of paying the cost to contest the card, you MAY choose to yield the card. A yielded card is burned. ..." (emphasis mine) If there is reason to allow the omission to stand, allowing a free contesting, would this also be possible if a player forgot to take the blood he transferred to a vampire out of his pool? I would argue that in neither case should a player be allowed free pool for his own mistake. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > > > #1. In a previous tournament report (the EC I believe), the judge > mentioned > > > that in the final, someone forgot to pay for contesting and was forced > to yield > > > the vampire (instead of allowing him to pay the pool). Can you do this? > > > > No. You are forced to choose, not forced to yield. > > Depending on what has transpired in the interim, the judge may decide to > > let the omission stand (free contesting), or enact some other penalty, > > but the penalty should certainly not rise to the level of "burn the > vampire". > > Hmm, I didn't read that rule as "forced to choose." "For each card ... you are contesting you must choose to yield it or pay to continue contesting it" [4] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:50:09 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote > ><Derek Ray wrote:> >> >It is a strange question, but it's not a STRANGE question. I think they >> >just see the many chess programs that have a setting for how many "ply" >> >the computer thinks ahead, and assume that people must do it too. >> >> Well, no. It is also commonly said that expert chess players can >> see <n> moves ahead. I don't know how it got started though. It's >> not impossible that it did start in the days of the early >> chess-playing programs. I've never read of computers being mentioned >> in conjunction with the <n> statistic. > >There are of course situations that come up where one is *forced* into >certain moves, usually involving mandatory moves to protect the King until >one is mated. In such a situation, one would be able to safely say "Mate in >three". Yep. Also, I -do- look ahead after I've decided on what move I want; usually I quickly flip through 3-5 moves in my mind along the line starting with my own move, just to make sure there isn't anything lurking in wait for me (some of the best-looking plans can be demolished by a coincidental circumstance or interrupt). That's probably where it came from, really. >Aside from that though, there would be no way of logically determining how >many moves ahead you can calculate. Since each new move changes the >paramaters of the board, you couldn't accurately plan unless you could also >accurately determine your (human) opponent's each and every move. This would >not require logic... it would require Telepathy (or superior Auspex--there, >made it Jyhad related :) Hmmm. You CAN accurately determine your opponent's every move, though. You assume he'll make the best move possible in any given situation, and then you go on from there, not wasting time analyzing any other threads very far. If he DOESN'T make the best move, it can throw you for a huge loop... which is why I look at the board as a brand-new snapshot every time it's my move. Sometimes the dumbest things are both unexpected and effective, even though they're technically the wrong move, just because it blows your opponent's mind and he mistakenly tries to stick to his old plan and ignore you. >Determining a computer's each and every move would of course be much easier >since it would be following the logic it was programmed with... I guess. I >don't claim to be an expert programmer. I imagine that 'randomness' (as >random as you *can* be with a computer...) could be used to change the >'difficulty' of the computer you are playing against. Give it a 20% chance >of making a stupid move for example... Reduce the amount squares are valued in the overall decision. Reduce the amount PIECES are valued in the overall decision. There are a LOT of ways to vary a computer's skill. =) None of them are very good at making it play like a human, though. >Another factor which I assume would be problematic for a Chess program is >determining value of pieces. The standard values associated with each piece Most Chess programs I know determine a "value" for each piece and each square on the board, based on attacks and defences to each, along with a whole snotload of other figures and calculations that I do not comprehend entirely. They then use those values to determine the "value" of move lines by computing future values of pieces/squares, and select the liness that increase their own pieces' future values by the most. How they do this, I have no idea. My own brain substitutes a ridiculous amount of pattern-recognition skillz for it. >do not take into account their position on the board. So, while a Pawn is >worth only 1 point, a Pawn which is one move away from becoming a Queen >should be worth much more. A Pawn which is about to be promoted, but which >is threatened by another piece would detract from its value. It gets more >complicaed from there. Creating a true value system for this would be >problematic to say the least. This goes back to the bit earlier; it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to teach a computer what the value of a certain square is. But in a great number of games, c4/c5/f4/f5 end up being extremely important to control, even though no pieces are actually present on the square during the battle over it. The "hole" in a Stonewall position is extremely important, for example; deny your opponent the opportunity to station a Knight on the hole and you severely cripple his hopes of offense. >Kind of like saying Gratiano is worth 8 points but a Gratiano who is in >torpor, with a Disarm on him, with a Derangement on him and empty of blood >is worth a hell of a lot less... ok, I'm stretching this with inane Jyhad >examples but fuck it, I'm interested in this discussion. Heh. Gratiano is worth 8 points, until you Minion Tap him. Then he's worth 5 extra, because he only cost 3. =) I think it might be very difficult to assign "points" values to minions in Jyhad in the same fashion as Chess. But it would seem to be possible; a minion who's untapped is +1, etc. =) The true goal: get a computer to play Jyhad. HAH! =) -- Derek

Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:30avst0g1hus7v6ri...@4ax.com... > I think it might be very difficult to assign "points" values to minions > in Jyhad in the same fashion as Chess. But it would seem to be > possible; a minion who's untapped is +1, etc. =) > > The true goal: get a computer to play Jyhad. HAH! =) I don't think that would be too hard to do, though a computer would never be as effective as a good player (specially when talking smack: 'If you try to block I compute a 48.5% chance that your minion will go to torpor with 0 blood') I recall reading that, while computers could be made to play chess at GM level, they could only achieve novice levels in Go because brute force method in Go are much more complex (they'd probably beat me up anyway ;-). Anyway, 'brute force' methods could easily be applied to Jyhad: a computer would know the exact probabilities of drawing a certain card at any time and could use that to it's advantage, it woulnd't be that hard to assign point values to each action and minion, but a lot of tweaking would be necessary. A computer's performance would certainly vary with the deck it was given (a focussed deck would probably work better). Now there's a challenge: a computer building his own decks! :-) Flux

Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:<30avst0g1hus7v6ri...@4ax.com>... > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:50:09 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > (snip) Just an info: what [OT] stands exactly for? out of thread? > > The true goal: get a computer to play Jyhad. HAH! =) Probably is easier; in Jyhad in a fixed moment the number of possible actions is limited. (play a card, hunt, bleed). Andrea

In message <8b06c4c.01101...@posting.google.com>, andrea <andrea....@infinito.it> writes >Just an info: what [OT] stands exactly for? out of thread? Usually, [Off Topic], where a thread has drifted significantly. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:05:09 +0100, "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: > >Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message >news:30avst0g1hus7v6ri...@4ax.com... >> I think it might be very difficult to assign "points" values to minions >> in Jyhad in the same fashion as Chess. But it would seem to be >> possible; a minion who's untapped is +1, etc. =) >> >> The true goal: get a computer to play Jyhad. HAH! =) > >I don't think that would be too hard to do, though a computer would never be >as effective as a good player (specially when talking smack: 'If you try to >block I compute a 48.5% chance that your minion will go to torpor with 0 >blood') Hm, I dunno. Obviously, the primary problem (deck construction) is handled by a live player, so it's not an immediate flaw. It would be interesting to see, though; but I don't ever get the impression while playing Jyhad that I am EVER making a series of "forced-moves". Teaching a computer to vote would be the most problematical, I think; it would have to be that "stubborn voter" at a table, who never lets anything pass. Teaching a computer to figure out what a given deck does would ALSO be problematical; some decks require knowledge of the "trick", and teaching it to recognize the trick and wait for it all to get in hand, (Mind Rape/Fortitude/Daring the Dawn) as opposed to just playing the Mind Rape and trying to figure out what to do next.... that would be rough. >I recall reading that, while computers could be made to play chess at GM >level, they could only achieve novice levels in Go because brute force >method in Go are much more complex (they'd probably beat me up anyway ;-). This is true. From what I understand, there isn't a dan-level computer out there in Go right now, and it's not surprising at all; the abstract-ness of the game puts it well out of reach of the average machine, and will for some time. (While I do play Go as well, I tend to suck at it. =) It was QUITE interesting in the coffee shop I used to hang out in on snowy, cold-ass Sundays when I lived in MI; there were the chessplayers, and the Go players, and they would actually sneer at each other over whose game was better. And they'd both sneer at me because I would play both. =) >Anyway, 'brute force' methods could easily be applied to Jyhad: a computer >would know the exact probabilities of drawing a certain card at any time and >could use that to it's advantage, it woulnd't be that hard to assign point Certainly. That would be the EASY part. =) >values to each action and minion, but a lot of tweaking would be necessary. >A computer's performance would certainly vary with the deck it was given (a >focussed deck would probably work better). > >Now there's a challenge: a computer building his own decks! :-) I pour wine on it and set it on fire :P -- Derek

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote <I wrote> > >Aside from that though, there would be no way of logically determining how > >many moves ahead you can calculate. Since each new move changes the > >paramaters of the board, you couldn't accurately plan unless you could also > >accurately determine your (human) opponent's each and every move. This would > >not require logic... it would require Telepathy (or superior Auspex--there, > >made it Jyhad related :) > > Hmmm. You CAN accurately determine your opponent's every move, though. > You assume he'll make the best move possible in any given situation, and > then you go on from there, not wasting time analyzing any other threads > very far. Yeah, but you're still just guessing though. Whether you can guess well or not depends on who your opponent is, what their level of ability is and maybe your ability to analyze the board from *their* perspective. You're right though, bad moves can really throw me off... especially when I suspect I'm being set up for some nasty fork. I always assume my opponent knows exactly what she is doing. > Reduce the amount squares are valued in the overall decision. Reduce > the amount PIECES are valued in the overall decision. There are a LOT > of ways to vary a computer's skill. =) None of them are very good at > making it play like a human, though. Please select the level of opponent you would like to play: 1) Bobby Fischer 2) Alexander Alekhine 3) Jose Raul Capablanca 4) Derek Ray after 4 pitchers 5) Andrew 'Wes' Weston after 7 espressos > The true goal: get a computer to play Jyhad. HAH! =) Well, they did it with Magic. And not *too* badly, I thought. The AI, though it made some very weird moves, usually played fairly well. Of course, I only play Magic against the computer. I don't like playing against humans, no idea why. So, I'm not exactly an expert at the game. What ever happened to Jack Crow? Jack, if you are listening, did you give up on that V:tES client? Cheers, WES

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Usually, [Off Topic], where a thread has drifted significantly. I always read it as 'Overtime'... makes sense in my head.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote <snip response to Flux> I didn't see a response from Flux. That's odd... anyone else have that problem? Must be the new spam-filters set up on my ISP. > (While I do play Go as well, I tend to suck at it. =) It was QUITE > interesting in the coffee shop I used to hang out in on snowy, cold-ass > Sundays when I lived in MI; there were the chessplayers, and the Go > players, and they would actually sneer at each other over whose game was > better. And they'd both sneer at me because I would play both. =) That's not why they were sneering :) Cheers, WES