why french people don't do deals ??

Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament you'll find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals at all ! In france, you'll almost never see deals , not in friendly games, nor in tournaments. Is there a particular reason ? I think that, first, we try to play our deck the best way. Even if our prey, or predator , or both, has "the screw me if i sit next" deck. I remember, myself, in Watford, playing a political deck with max +2 stealth, didn't made a deal with my Tzimisce prey. I tried, and i waited until my prey took too much confidence and run low on pool. I let him intercept my previous votes, playing no stealth to keep him confident. When he used a "Thelepatic counter" to intercept one of my votes, i knew it was the time to strike =) that's part of our metagame ! every good players does that here. There is a french word "contre mauvaise fortune bon coeur", wich means approx. "be light hearted against bad odds". Sometime we prefer trying and diying rather than gaining one or two VP from another player's hands. The second reason is, we there think making complete deals involving VP split (I gain 3 then i roll over and you gain 2) is an "inferior" version of King making, with one or two VP as a "tip" for loyal service. And above all King Making sounds bad for us : y'all remember we guillotin'ed our royal court, don't you =) so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) comments welcome ;) reyda

Reyda wrote: > > Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament you'll > find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals at all ! ... > so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us > think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) Actually, you were in Los Angeles when all that Succubus Club/Split VP deals were going on. Frankly, Reyda, I found that as surprising as you did. No one in the Bay Area ever did that. No one in Phoenix seems to do it. Maybe they should but they don't. As far as I know, it's LA thing. But from the discussion in the newsgroup, I take it must happen elsewhere as well. Fred

>Reyda wrote: >> >> Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament >you'll >> find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals at all ! >... >> so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us >> think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) > >Actually, you were in Los Angeles when all that Succubus Club/Split VP deals >were going on. Frankly, Reyda, I found that as surprising as you did. No >one >in the Bay Area ever did that. No one in Phoenix seems to do it. Maybe they >should but they don't. I saw some play of Succubus Club at Origins. I'd expect to see SC get a lot of play at GenCon, which will be interesting to discuss the results of post-Con. I'm wondering if Succubus Club may be banned after the Nationals, considering the new interest in deal making with SC often borders on collusion. We'll see.. Bernie [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3B661254...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Actually, you were in Los Angeles when all that Succubus Club/Split VP deals >were going on. Frankly, Reyda, I found that as surprising as you did. No one >in the Bay Area ever did that. No one in Phoenix seems to do it. Maybe they >should but they don't. Well, I wouldn't go by the Bay Area; my impression is that our caliber of play is pretty low by Ithaca/LA/Watford standards. How good can we be? I mean, I routinely make the finals in local tournaments. gomi -- There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with morons. -- M. Lorton

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k4crc$nj1$1...@hadron.noos.net>... > Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament you'll > find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals at all ! > I gained 4 vps in the final to win and didn't make a single deal. Admittedly my deck was somewhat single minded in the way it focussed on it's prey, but I am firmly of the opinion that you do not have to deal to win an English tourney. It may help, and some of the best players may well be defined by their abilities to deal (no hard feelings Rob:-), but games are generally played at the level of the decks on the table not of the people playing those decks. before everyone jumps on this comment, let me explain what I mean: Someone playing a weenie dominate bleed deck is going to have real problems dealing, but still can win. Whereas someone playing a deck containing votes should at least to open to deals to supliment the cards at their disposal. A bleed deck has to focus forward and defend backward, a rush deck, to some extent, has to balance both concerns and be open to the possibility that it may not have the bleed potential to sweep, and therefore a deal could be the best option in getting vps. A vote deck, realistically, can never guarentee a vote lock, so dealing becomes the main strategy. It's another way to maximise, not only vps, but deck performance as well. But it is not the only way and it is certainly not the best way. Tony

In message <19048d48.01073...@posting.google.com>, Tony <ztr...@yahoo.com> writes [table dealing] >It may help, and some of the best >players may well be defined by their abilities to deal (no hard >feelings Rob:-), but games are generally played at the level of the >decks on the table not of the people playing those decks. I'd disagree here, to a certain extent. All games, of course, to some extent rely on: - seating position - deck composition - starting position (number of transfers etc.) - luck - deck composition - deck composition with respect to metagame - uncontrolled draw and so on, I'd argue that social play/diplomacy/agitation/whatever you want to call it can be a potent weapon in the right hands. Some decks are, by definition, slow. e.g. Matt Green's deck[0] at Watford would take a few turns to get going, whereas yours would be able to get going much more quickly. Since he had a lot riding on two 8 point vampires, he couldn't ever really motor until both came out. (Not entirely true, since he could do some stuff with just one of course, but the deck needs two vampires out to function.) Agitation is a perfectly valid speed defence, if you can pull it off. It works especially well in non-bleed decks, simply because you have the ability to tempt the Methuselah. "Well, Mr Grand Predator, if you tap out now, I'll be able to call this Kine Resources Contested (*waves green back of card in hand enticingly*) with 2 points against your predator. Oh, and I'll be able to play this Bribes on it too. What, you have a vote from Caitlin? Oh my." In the same way, of course, that not all elements of defence/attack are necessary to function and function well (indeed, all elements may be counter-productive), agitation is one that many decks may throw to the wind. But it's not without its merit. And agitation can *only* rely on the skill of the player. Agitation needs a deck that can work on it, sure, but a player who's good at agitation can play Skin of Steel for combat defence just as easily as the poor agitation player. I'd also disagree with the idea that the deck is more important than the player. The player plays the deck, the player drives the game. If it was *only* the deck, many of those copying the tournament winning decks and playing them would surely do better than they. [0] *drool* *spurt* That deck is lush. I want one. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k4crc$nj1$1...@hadron.noos.net>... > Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament you'll > find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals at all ! > > so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us > think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) > You must realize that Perfidious Albion always looks for others to do their fighting for them. Tom

In message <9k4crc$nj1$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us >think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) <troll> But surely the idea of putting up token resistance and then rolling over for someone to walk over you after you've done your bit is very French indeed? </troll> [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9k4crc$nj1$1...@hadron.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] All of which is fair enough and admirably honourable. But it's a personal or group statement of ethics, similar to my own eccentricity of always honouring any deal i make. Neither of us is entitled to impose our own ethics upon anybody else: all we can expect is that they obey the rules. The rules DO NOT say you MUST honour deals. The rules DO NOT say you may not make and honour table-splitting deals, and in fact the only constraint upon such deals is that they must be aimed at maximising your VP for the current game.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes > >so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us > >think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) > > <troll> > > But surely the idea of putting up token resistance and then rolling over > for someone to walk over you after you've done your bit is very French > indeed? > > </troll> Yes maybe =) reminds me that the guys who cut the king's head were decapitated few years later. Or maybe you're refering to WWII ? ;)

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com (snip) > > comments welcome ;) > > reyda > > All of which is fair enough and admirably honourable. But it's a > personal or group statement of ethics, similar to my own eccentricity > of always honouring any deal i make. Neither of us is entitled to > impose our own ethics upon anybody else: all we can expect is that > they obey the rules. of course ! > The rules DO NOT say you MUST honour deals. The > rules DO NOT say you may not make and honour table-splitting deals, > and in fact the only constraint upon such deals is that they must be > aimed at maximising your VP for the current game. yes, again, you are right. the little tect above is just for comprehension or our state of mind when we play jyhad. We don't suite players who break their deals =] i tried to put some humor inside, but i think my english is not good enough... I hope you enjoyed reading it though ;] reyda just my 2 croissants

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B661254...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Here, in Quebec province, we do many deals during tournament, but rarely we will ask or see a deal of spliting VP. It's most of the time deals for short periode of time or for a particuliar action. Exemple : Meth A asking to C: You rescue my vampire from torpor and I sent the vampire X from Meth B to torpor region. Bye, Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis VEKN Canada : http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/index_ang.htm

I truly dislike the Succubus Club style of dealing. Whats the point of playing a game when two people can coordinate to split all the points? If offered such a deal I'd decline. I come to tournaments to play the friggin game. Yes, politics are a part of the game, but the whole "I keep everyone off your back and give you whatever resourses you need via the Club to kill three people, then you roll for me" is not politics, its borderline collusion. My opinions are my own, but I must agree with the stance of my esteemed French collegues. Matt Thrall of many Princes, Loyal Servant to the Prince of My House (my Wife Jenny)

Matt Latham wrote: > I come to tournaments to play the friggin game. Yes, politics are a part of > the game, but the whole "I keep everyone off your back and give you whatever > resourses you need via the Club to kill three people, then you roll for me" > is not politics, its borderline collusion. It is also illegal if making the deal causes one of the players to finish worse than she would have otherwise. If making the deal improves her finishing position, then there's no collusion on her part. If this is true for both players involved in the deal (which it doesn't seem to be in the abbreviated example you give above), then there's no problem. -- 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/

Quoth LSJ > It is also illegal if making the deal causes one of the players to finish > worse than she would have otherwise. > How can you possibly know that when the deal is made on turn 1? As I understand it, all the rules require is for the participants in the deal to "think" that the deal maximizes VP's. How do you prove what they "think"? Also Mr. Johnson, my objection is not with the rules in specific (although it bothers me that we have to have collusion rules from a strictly moral standpoint) but with that style of play. What happened to playing your deck as best you can and dealing with the table dynamic presented to you? There will be other tables and other dynamics. Matt

Matt Latham wrote: > > Quoth LSJ > > > It is also illegal if making the deal causes one of the players to finish > > worse than she would have otherwise. > > > > How can you possibly know that when the deal is made on turn 1? As I It's nearly impossible at that point. And, therefore, it's nearly impossible to justify a "rollover" deal at that point. > understand it, all the rules require is for the participants in the deal to > "think" that the deal maximizes VP's. How do you prove what they "think"? That's not how it works. If everyone agrees that the deal is OK, then there's no problem. If there's a question about whether a deal is a "winning" deal for a player involved in the deal, then the judge should be called in to make a judgment. > [...] my objection is not with the rules in specific (although > it bothers me that we have to have collusion rules from a strictly moral > standpoint) but with that style of play. What happened to playing your deck > as best you can and dealing with the table dynamic presented to you? There > will be other tables and other dynamics. Part of playing your deck involves interacting with the table. That's inherent in the game's design, and it's still there. [ quoted text not captured ]

I said... > > [...] my objection is not with the rules in specific (although > > it bothers me that we have to have collusion rules from a strictly moral > > standpoint) but with that style of play. What happened to playing your deck > > as best you can and dealing with the table dynamic presented to you? There > > will be other tables and other dynamics. LSJ replied: > Part of playing your deck involves interacting with the table. > That's inherent in the game's design, and it's still there. > I now reply...: Ok then Mr. Johnson. Tell me this, in your opinion as a long time player of this game rather than in your role as the VTES WW Netrep. Do you believe that this succubus club style of dealmaking is what was expected as a table dynamic? Matt

Matt Latham wrote: > Ok then Mr. Johnson. Tell me this, in your opinion as a long time player of > this game rather than in your role as the VTES WW Netrep. Do you believe > that this succubus club style of dealmaking is what was expected as a table > dynamic? What succubus-club-style in particular? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B66D3B7...@white-wolf.com... > Matt Latham wrote: > > Ok then Mr. Johnson. Tell me this, in your opinion as a long time player of > > this game rather than in your role as the VTES WW Netrep. Do you believe > > that this succubus club style of dealmaking is what was expected as a table > > dynamic? > > What succubus-club-style in particular? What I saw at Origins which I heard later is not "uncommon". Player A has Sucubus club. Player B is Player A's prey. Player A tells player B to go full bore at his prey, and that player A will act as a wall behind B. Player A and B will use the Succubus club to shunt resources back and forth to maximize dead prey in front and to render Player A's predator powerless. Once the A-B Combine has killed each prey in turn, Player B uses the Succubus club to transfer all pool to Player A, giving B 3 VP's and A 2 VP's. Matt (Yes I am aware that Players C,D,and E could gang together to deal with the A-B combine, but that is borderline collusion to beat borderline collusion.)

Frederick Scott wrote in message <3B661254...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] It's definitely not just a "LA thing". I've played in dozens of tournaments, including at Gen-con before, and have seen players from many other areas (San Diego, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Austin, etc..) and they have all made similar deals. As you can see from this discussion it's also common in areas of Europe. The deal making depends completely on the evolution of your playgroups style of play. It's different in every group. I'm from LA I tend not to make deals unless I'm very desperate. However I've grown very accustomed to seeing deals made, especially in tournaments. In fact in the LA qualifier I was the victim of a deal between David Tatu (Atlanta) and Szilan Fordor (LA) in one round. The accursed Tatu brought up the deal... Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

Matt Latham wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Matt Latham wrote: > > > Ok then Mr. Johnson. Tell me this, in your opinion as a long time player > of > > > this game rather than in your role as the VTES WW Netrep. Do you believe > > > that this succubus club style of dealmaking is what was expected as a > table > > > dynamic? > > > > What succubus-club-style in particular? > > What I saw at Origins which I heard later is not "uncommon". > > Player A has Sucubus club. Player B is Player A's prey. Player A tells > player B to go full bore at his prey, and that player A will act as a wall > behind B. Player A and B will use the Succubus club to shunt resources back > and forth to maximize dead prey in front and to render Player A's predator > powerless. Once the A-B Combine has killed each prey in turn, Player B uses > the Succubus club to transfer all pool to Player A, giving B 3 VP's and A 2 > VP's. Do I think that the designers expected that? No. Note, again, that this is illegal if A would've been able to gain 3 VPs otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Bucy wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote in message <3B661254...@netcom.com>... > >Reyda wrote: > >> > >> Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament > >> you'll find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals > >> at all !... > >> so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which > >> make us think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) > > > >Actually, you were in Los Angeles when all that Succubus Club/Split VP > >deals were going on. Frankly, Reyda, I found that as surprising as you > >did. No one in the Bay Area ever did that. No one in Phoenix seems to > >do it. Maybe they should but they don't. > > > >As far as I know, it's LA thing. But from the discussion in the newsgroup, > >I take it must happen elsewhere as well. > > It's definitely not just a "LA thing". ... >In fact in the LA qualifier I was the victim of a deal between David >Tatu (Atlanta) and Szilan Fordor (LA) in one round. The accursed Tatu brought >up the deal... I know Steve. I was likely the very first victim of such a deal at the LA Qualifier - between Paul Johnson and Mike Courtois (hope I got those names right), after the whole big eruption over Brad's (mis?)played WwEF. Paul "honorably" stuck to the deal he believed he'd made with Brad, "nobly" handing him the prey I'd pretty much whittled down to near-ousting. Then, concluding that Brad was going to hate him for the rest of the game (and possibly eternity), he joined with Mike to split the last 4 VPs 2-2. And I was Mike's first oust. Hurrayyyyyy!!!! (...having drawn what some of us later toungue-in-cheek termed, the "radioactive table" thanks to some unknown player who caused a reseating of the first round.... :-) ) Fred

"Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I gained 4 vps in the final to win and didn't make a single deal. > Admittedly my deck was somewhat single minded in the way it focussed > on it's prey, but I am firmly of the opinion that you do not have to > deal to win an English tourney. It may help, and some of the best > players may well be defined by their abilities to deal (no hard > feelings Rob:-), but games are generally played at the level of the > decks on the table not of the people playing those decks. >But it is not the only way and it is certainly > not the best way. > > Tony Have to disagree with you there on a massive scale Tony (did you expect any less ?). I am totally of the belief that a consistently successful player uses all means to win at his / her disposal. This includes (where appropriate to deck type and situation) the full range of agitation and deal making skills. As I have said in many of my newsletters and general commentary, the player who actively decides 'not to deal' is IMO robbing themselves of one of the sharpest swords in the game. I put it to you that you won by taking advantage of a good opportunity, having little or no pressure on you, playing your focussed deck well and NOT AT ALL by declining to make deals. As we discussed at length at the tourney, your deck did not lend itself at all to deal making (I guess counterproductive cross table Deflections would be about all it could offer) and as such no player on the table sought to make deals with you. All being experienced 'identification players' we had seen what your deck did and knew exactly what you intended to do with it :o) Which is exactly why you felt 'left out' of the deal making on the table. The sort of deck that you played tends to be seen by others as a huge threat to the balance of the table. In any other situation I would have had no qualms what so ever in enlisting the help of any / all other players on the table to stamp on a Weenie deck. Part of my (and many, many other players) game centres around balancing the table and talking to achieve such an end. A deck such as yours is bound to unsettle as it can oust very quickly and comes out of the blocks bleeding for 6-10 per turn. In hindsight, had I known that you were packing 10 Deflections (you filthy man :o) there is no way I would have chosen to bleed you, but then again Francois would have very possibly sat down somewhere different after me. Ideally I should have sat behind Francios with you bleeding me, but as I said - hindsight... bloody table order :o( I would also add as an aside that had you chosen to make deals, it would IMO have only served to strengthen your table position and make your job easier. Even a player playing a weenie dom or pre deck can establish others as the bad guys on the table and enlist aid in taking them down. Again, extremely well done for winning man, but don't lose sight of the final that we played. Rob

Frederick Scott wrote in message <3B66ED08...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] DOH! Thanks for bring back some really foul memories. I don't think there is anyone who didn't know who was responsible for the reseating... Just another small part of my weekend of hell. It wasn't bad enough to get my butt royally kicked in the first two tournaments and the qualifier. I also had to make myself look like a jackass and screw up everyone else too... Still feel bad for Robyn (the judge). The best part is I can only improve from my last con. I couldn't possibly do worse... That is unless pass out or die. :-P [ quoted text not captured ]

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote in message news:<9k5gs4$87i$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>... > In article <3B661254...@netcom.com>, > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > > >Actually, you were in Los Angeles when all that Succubus Club/Split VP deals > >were going on. Frankly, Reyda, I found that as surprising as you did. No one > >in the Bay Area ever did that. No one in Phoenix seems to do it. Maybe they > >should but they don't. > > Well, I wouldn't go by the Bay Area; my impression is that our caliber > of play is pretty low by Ithaca/LA/Watford standards. [off-topically...] Ithaca? Are they still playing serious VTES there? I mean, I'm sure Peter is. But I thought the hardcore competition kinda dwindled away after James Hamblin and I graduated and moved away. (Not to imply that I think we were the Best Players Ever, but I think we were the last ones still around, besides Peter, who were very interested in competitive Jyhad.) And then, even when we were there, we didn't exactly have a big tournament scene - we played a lot of fierce games every week (or more often) but we didn't have tournaments more than a couple times a year. Honestly I don't think it really compared to LA or the London-area scene or anything like that. Although we did certainly have a hotly-evolving metagame and some innovation. Ah, the good old days of blowing off class and playing Jyhad all day in the dorm basement... > How good can we be? I mean, I routinely make the finals in local > tournaments. Hard to argue with that. ;-) On-topically, I've found dealmaking very prevalent everywhere I've played, which is almost everywhere on the east coast of the US. And my playgroup dealmakes a lot in our regular (non-tourney) games as well. But we don't usually use the Succubus Club to do it... at least not yet. (I have seen one a couple times recently, but I haven't seen it have any huge effects yet.) As a dealmaker myself, I don't see anything wrong with making deals, particularly in situations where you'd otherwise be totally screwed by the decks you're next to. Everyone's trying to win the game, right? And if you're sitting next to your deck's nemesis, you're a lot more likely to do well if you make some kind of deal, yeah? If you take the "try and (probably) die" approach, aren't you just kingmaking in favor of your predator (and, to some extent, your prey) rather than somebody else? Why is this more acceptable than explicitly helping someone in return for a better chance at getting some VPs of your own? Sure, playing your deck to do what it was designed to do is nice, and it's part of the game. But in any multiplayer game, playing the other players is at least as important as playing the deck. I know VTES was designed to reduce the importance of diplomacy, but it's still important - just not as crucial as it could have been. Josh if i ever were let down the walls that protect me from you i would say respect is due but not in this lifetime

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9k6rlj$2u8pb$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... > "Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > I gained 4 vps in the final to win and didn't make a single deal. > > Admittedly my deck was somewhat single minded in the way it focussed > > on it's prey, but I am firmly of the opinion that you do not have to > > deal to win an English tourney. It may help, and some of the best > > players may well be defined by their abilities to deal (no hard > > feelings Rob:-), but games are generally played at the level of the > > decks on the table not of the people playing those decks. > > >But it is not the only way and it is certainly > > not the best way. > > > > Tony > > Have to disagree with you there on a massive scale Tony (did you expect any > less ?). I am totally of the belief that a consistently successful player > uses all means to win at his / her disposal. This includes (where > appropriate to deck type and situation) the full range of agitation and deal > making skills. > The point I was trying to make, was that a deck has a set deal and agitation potential attached to it. It will obviously vary, but Some decks lend themselves to agitation to the level of not being able to perform without it. Whereas others have little or no amunition to deal (mine for example). Once the deck is made and playtested the deck becomes the template for the deals made, not the player (again I'm talking in degrees, not absolutes), the tables, players and luck of draw all plays a part but only in relation to how they enter the orbit of your deck. the deck is your army, the table the land you wish to conquer. and agitation is an extra regiment that some decks make use of. but, because all the men in that regiment are drunks, it can be difficult to control, so only a skilled general can marshall them. (sorry about that shameless extended metaphor, it was the only way I could think of to make any sense whatsoever) > As I have said in many of my newsletters and general commentary, the player > who actively decides 'not to deal' is IMO robbing themselves of one of the > sharpest swords in the game. But a player resolutely refusing to deal can have a crippling effect on a deck with agitation as a key strategy. In fact, I'd be interested to see you experiment with a deck designed to remain in a bubble of forward motion and fuck decks that need table balance. 20 kindred spirits maybe? > > I put it to you that you won by taking advantage of a good opportunity, > having little or no pressure on you, playing your focussed deck well and NOT > AT ALL by declining to make deals. As we discussed at length at the tourney, > your deck did not lend itself at all to deal making (I guess > counterproductive cross table Deflections would be about all it could offer) > and as such no player on the table sought to make deals with you. All being > experienced 'identification players' we had seen what your deck did and knew > exactly what you intended to do with it :o) Which is exactly why you felt > 'left out' of the deal making on the table. I didn't say that I won because I didn't make deals. I said I won without making deals. I didn't voice my objection to well at the tourney, due to alcohol and having some rapidly overproductive sweat glands. But my problem was not that I felt "left out" (god that makes me sound like I was the last picked for football at playtime). I have played enough decks to know that if you have no dick it's pointless trying to shag (so to speak). My problem was that I felt I had wandered into a game where everyone was wary and scared of everyone else except me. I won yes, but I still felt out of my league and I hate that feeling. I have only been playing the game for about 7 months, so I don't expect to be a big and feared juggernaut of terror (like your good self), but it would have been nice to get a little recognition. When you burnt Arika, you didn't consider me getting that vp a problem. Fair enough, the deck had to go, or he would have won, so no arguements here. After matt went, you offered a 1st and 2nd deal to Will, who was getting pounded by me. Admittedly I probably wouldn't have taken the deal as i was confident I could kill you both. You discarded a rush when i had 5 minions out, Now this I wasn't too sure about. You must have known that Will had more than enough ammo to burn a few of my minions, one more from you may have made a big difference. You parity shifted Will making it easier for me to kill him. Now all this was a tad baffling to me. Again, I would never claim to be as skilled at the game as any of the other people at that table, but these moves (with the exception of burning Arika) all seem to point to me not really being a threat until it was too late. That was my problem, no the deal thing. Maybe I'm being a little petulant but it did annoy me at the time. > > The sort of deck that you played tends to be seen by others as a huge threat > to the balance of the table. In any other situation I would have had no > qualms what so ever in enlisting the help of any / all other players on the > table to stamp on a Weenie deck. Part of my (and many, many other players) > game centres around balancing the table and talking to achieve such an end. > A deck such as yours is bound to unsettle as it can oust very quickly and > comes out of the blocks bleeding for 6-10 per turn. > > In hindsight, had I known that you were packing 10 Deflections (you filthy > man :o) there is no way I would have chosen to bleed you, but then again > Francois would have very possibly sat down somewhere different after me. > Ideally I should have sat behind Francios with you bleeding me, but as I > said - hindsight... bloody table order :o( I only had 6 or 7, I forget. I was bleeding will knowing full well I couldn't get through just to cycle cards. I did pitch a few masters to stop Chaz just to cycle cards, so I was churning through my deck looking for them. If it looked like it was that sleezy, I apologize. But I did have to work hard to stay alive at the end, knowing that if I blocked I'd most likely get torpored and not have enough minions to bleed out Will. > > I would also add as an aside that had you chosen to make deals, it would IMO > have only served to strengthen your table position and make your job easier. > Even a player playing a weenie dom or pre deck can establish others as the > bad guys on the table and enlist aid in taking them down. I was a bit too nervous to try and deal. > > Again, extremely well done for winning man, but don't lose sight of the > final that we played. I was analysing it long after we stopped. But thanks man. > Tony

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9k4crc$nj1$1...@hadron.noos.net... > Maybe, after reading the reports of the Wonderful Watford tournament you'll > find strange that a guy going to the finals doesn't make deals at all ! > <...> > so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us > think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) > So in your metagame a deck that plays with Anarch Revolt or Smiling jack would not be ganged up against? I think I know now witch deck I'll be bringeing to the EC. Jeroen

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> > > so, to resume : it's a mix of mentality and pride, i think, which make us > > think that making VP split is simply not a french affair =) > > > So in your metagame a deck that plays with Anarch Revolt or Smiling jack > would not be ganged up against? I think I know now witch deck I'll be > bringeing to the EC. Brilliant. I think you missed the whole point of my post, which is : we make no *VP/TABLE SPLIT* deals. (although you quoted the last sentence which shows obviously what the point was) We DO make short term deals, like rescue my vamp and i'll call this consangineous for you. Anarch revolt or Smiling jack are a major threat, we will react effectively. Ganging up against the guy who's annoying everyone has nothing to do with deals. Feel free to try and grab your Anarch/smiling/whatever at the EC, though... *grin* reyda

> > > > In hindsight, had I known that you were packing 10 Deflections (you filthy > > man :o) there is no way I would have chosen to bleed you, but then again > > Francois would have very possibly sat down somewhere different after me. > > Ideally I should have sat behind Francios with you bleeding me, but as I > > said - hindsight... bloody table order :o( > > I only had 6 or 7, I forget. I was bleeding will knowing full well I > couldn't get through just to cycle cards. I did pitch a few masters to > stop Chaz just to cycle cards, so I was churning through my deck > looking for them. If it looked like it was that sleezy, I apologize. > But I did have to work hard to stay alive at the end, knowing that if > I blocked I'd most likely get torpored and not have enough minions to > bleed out Will. > > Actually, in all honesty, it was pretty damn sleazy. So feel free to disregard that comment. I am a filthy man, and I am ashamed. Rush for me next time I think:-) Tony

"Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > "Rob Treasure" > > "Tony" <ztr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > The point I was trying to make, was that a deck has a set deal and > agitation potential attached to it. It will obviously vary, but Some > decks lend themselves to agitation to the level of not being able to > perform without it. Whereas others have little or no amunition to deal > (mine for example). Once the deck is made and playtested the deck > becomes the template for the deals made, not the player (again I'm > talking in degrees, not absolutes), the tables, players and luck of > draw all plays a part but only in relation to how they enter the orbit > of your deck. the deck is your army, the table the land you wish to > conquer. and agitation is an extra regiment that some decks make use > of. but, because all the men in that regiment are drunks, it can be > difficult to control, so only a skilled general can marshall them. > > (sorry about that shameless extended metaphor, it was the only way I > could think of to make any sense whatsoever) Heh, that is a quality metaphor. Totally agree as well by the way. > But a player resolutely refusing to deal can have a crippling effect > on a deck with agitation as a key strategy. In fact, I'd be interested > to see you experiment with a deck designed to remain in a bubble of > forward motion and fuck decks that need table balance. 20 kindred > spirits maybe? Hmm. IIRC doesn't Kindred Spirits allow you to go all over the shop as opposed to remaining focussed on your pred ? I do play pure focussed decks from time to time (am working on an obscenely focussed deck at the mo) but I don't think it hurts to add a spoonful of agitation into the mix :o) God I wish I was going to the EC, I would have sooooooo much fun. > > I put it to you that you won by taking advantage of a good opportunity, > > having little or no pressure on you, playing your focussed deck well and NOT > > AT ALL by declining to make deals. As we discussed at length at the tourney, > > your deck did not lend itself at all to deal making (I guess > > counterproductive cross table Deflections would be about all it could offer) > > and as such no player on the table sought to make deals with you. All being > > experienced 'identification players' we had seen what your deck did and knew > > exactly what you intended to do with it :o) Which is exactly why you felt > > 'left out' of the deal making on the table. > > I didn't say that I won because I didn't make deals. I said I won > without making deals. > > I didn't voice my objection to well at the tourney, due to alcohol and > having some rapidly overproductive sweat glands. But my problem was > not that I felt "left out" (god that makes me sound like I was the > last picked for football at playtime). I have played enough decks to > know that if you have no dick it's pointless trying to shag (so to > speak). The beginning of a beautiful compelation book - "Shotgun blast metaphors and analogies" >My problem was that I felt I had wandered into a game where > everyone was wary and scared of everyone else except me. Not the case i think you'll find. I think in actual fact we were all playing a pretty wary game. I was pissed with Green (not that I blame him for 1 nanosecond) from early on so had to calm my own red haze down and was drawing poor card combos to add to the no prince situation for 2-3 turns. I you want my honest answer, I think that the table never really stabilised (despite my best attempts) after I liquified Arika. I also learnt a shitload if its any consolation. I was cycling like a nutter for more 2nd trads to deal with you after Will had bought it but came up dry. > I won yes, > but I still felt out of my league Don't. You whooped our ass. No-one else did. It was our mistake to underestimate you and yours. and I hate that feeling. I have only > been playing the game for about 7 months, so I don't expect to be a > big and feared juggernaut of terror (like your good self) Hmmm. > but it > would have been nice to get a little recognition. When you burnt > Arika, you didn't consider me getting that vp a problem. Had you considered that I could not do a GODDAMN thing about it ? I was f*****g furious with the situation. I considered hard and came up with that 1st VP possibly being the most important one of that particular game but managed to hide it well :o( > Fair enough, > the deck had to go, or he would have won, so no arguements here. You bet your ass. Turns out that we were all deader than fried chicken on turn 4 !!! if I didn't do the deed. > After > matt went, you offered a 1st and 2nd deal to Will, who was getting > pounded by me. Admittedly I probably wouldn't have taken the deal as i > was confident I could kill you both. That was a pretty desparate measure on my part. Thinking back I knew we were pretty screwed by then and was attempting to phase you (which did'nt work so again, more power to you!) and buy some time. > You discarded a rush when i had 5 > minions out, Now this I wasn't too sure about. No combat. > You must have known > that Will had more than enough ammo to burn a few of my minions, one > more from you may have made a big difference. Would have been really nice but see above. > You parity shifted Will > making it easier for me to kill him. Now all this was a tad baffling > to me. Matt had minior vote lock and as such I knew there was no chance in shitsville that he would go for the PS on you even if I gave him all 4 + No other targets. . Again, I would never claim to be as skilled at the game as any > of the other people at that table, but these moves (with the exception > of burning Arika) all seem to point to me not really being a threat > until it was too late. Don't read too much into it man. You won, enjoy ! > That was my problem, no the deal thing. Maybe > I'm being a little petulant but it did annoy me at the time. Fair enough. > > The sort of deck that you played tends to be seen by others as a huge threat > > to the balance of the table. In any other situation I would have had no > > qualms what so ever in enlisting the help of any / all other players on the > > table to stamp on a Weenie deck. Part of my (and many, many other players) > > game centres around balancing the table and talking to achieve such an end. > > A deck such as yours is bound to unsettle as it can oust very quickly and > > comes out of the blocks bleeding for 6-10 per turn. > > > > In hindsight, had I known that you were packing 10 Deflections (you filthy > > man :o) there is no way I would have chosen to bleed you, but then again > > Francois would have very possibly sat down somewhere different after me. > > Ideally I should have sat behind Francios with you bleeding me, but as I > > said - hindsight... bloody table order :o( > > I only had 6 or 7, I forget. Hmmm. I heard a little rumour after that you had a lot more but there you go. I was bleeding will knowing full well I > couldn't get through just to cycle cards. I did pitch a few masters to > stop Chaz just to cycle cards, so I was churning through my deck > looking for them. If it looked like it was that sleezy, I apologize. Sleaze has a place, ask me !! > But I did have to work hard to stay alive at the end, knowing that if > I blocked I'd most likely get torpored and not have enough minions to > bleed out Will. It did come down to one or two cards at the end. I finished with a hand full of rush pain which you were eating with fries next turn :o) and no wakes, with a 2nd trad as my next card. > > I would also add as an aside that had you chosen to make deals, it would IMO > > have only served to strengthen your table position and make your job easier. > > Even a player playing a weenie dom or pre deck can establish others as the > > bad guys on the table and enlist aid in taking them down. > > I was a bit too nervous to try and deal. > > > Again, extremely well done for winning man, but don't lose sight of the > > final that we played. > > I was analysing it long after we stopped. Me too, still am ............ damn Arika. > But thanks man. No probs. We'll play again :o) Rob.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> How can you possibly know that when the deal is made on turn 1? As I > >It's nearly impossible at that point. And, therefore, it's nearly impossible >to justify a "rollover" deal at that point. What circumstances would be acceptable to justify a roll-over on turn one (given that you said *nearly* impossible)? Bad crypt draw? Knowing what your predator/prey plays and knowing you don't stand a chance in this seating? An all-master initial draw?

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9kc7js$3qho2$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] I doubt I'm gonna be going either. Pity, it would have been good. But I am the brokest person in the world [ quoted text not captured ] When my book gets published I'll let you have a read (no jokes by the way, I am a writer as well as being a fantastic Jyhad player) > > >My problem was that I felt I had wandered into a game where > > everyone was wary and scared of everyone else except me. > > Not the case i think you'll find. I think in actual fact we were all playing > a pretty wary game. I was pissed with Green (not that I blame him for 1 > nanosecond) from early on so had to calm my own red haze down and was > drawing poor card combos to add to the no prince situation for 2-3 turns. I think I went into the final expecting to be outclassed, and so when I got out of the blocks with little hindrance I started looking for other reasons to explain why I would inevitably lose > > I you want my honest answer, I think that the table never really stabilised > (despite my best attempts) after I liquified Arika. I also learnt a shitload > if its any consolation. I was cycling like a nutter for more 2nd trads to > deal with you after Will had bought it but came up dry. When I play that deck, I generally try to kill everyone before the table stabilises. Again, it is a cheap, cheap deck. > > > I won yes, > > but I still felt out of my league > > Don't. You whooped our ass. No-one else did. It was our mistake to > underestimate you and yours. I wouldn't be as nervous next time, I may even play a vote deck. > > and I hate that feeling. I have only > > been playing the game for about 7 months, so I don't expect to be a > > big and feared juggernaut of terror (like your good self) > > Hmmm. > > > but it > > would have been nice to get a little recognition. When you burnt > > Arika, you didn't consider me getting that vp a problem. > > Had you considered that I could not do a GODDAMN thing about it ? I was > f*****g furious with the situation. I considered hard and came up with that > 1st VP possibly being the most important one of that particular game but > managed to hide it well :o( Thats the problem with your reputation I'm afraid. People just don't consider that you've got card screwed, they look to the great and well thought out plan you've had from the first turn. Good to know you're just as prone to bad luck as th rest of us:-) > > > Fair enough, > > the deck had to go, or he would have won, so no arguements here. > > You bet your ass. Turns out that we were all deader than fried chicken on > turn 4 !!! if I didn't do the deed. > > > After > > matt went, you offered a 1st and 2nd deal to Will, who was getting > > pounded by me. Admittedly I probably wouldn't have taken the deal as i > > was confident I could kill you both. > > That was a pretty desparate measure on my part. Thinking back I knew we were > pretty screwed by then and was attempting to phase you (which did'nt work so > again, more power to you!) and buy some time. I thought that might be the case, but again, didn't allow myself to think that maybe I had pretty much won at that point. > > > You discarded a rush when i had 5 > > minions out, Now this I wasn't too sure about. > > No combat. See earlier comment about reputation > > > You must have known > > that Will had more than enough ammo to burn a few of my minions, one > > more from you may have made a big difference. > > Would have been really nice but see above. > > > You parity shifted Will > > making it easier for me to kill him. Now all this was a tad baffling > > to me. > > Matt had minior vote lock and as such I knew there was no chance in > shitsville that he would go for the PS on you even if I gave him all 4 + No > other targets. > > . Again, I would never claim to be as skilled at the game as any > > of the other people at that table, but these moves (with the exception > > of burning Arika) all seem to point to me not really being a threat > > until it was too late. > > Don't read too much into it man. You won, enjoy ! You're a fine one to talk. > > > That was my problem, no the deal thing. Maybe > > I'm being a little petulant but it did annoy me at the time. > > Fair enough. > > > > The sort of deck that you played tends to be seen by others as a huge > threat > > > to the balance of the table. In any other situation I would have had no > > > qualms what so ever in enlisting the help of any / all other players on > the > > > table to stamp on a Weenie deck. Part of my (and many, many other > players) > > > game centres around balancing the table and talking to achieve such an > end. > > > A deck such as yours is bound to unsettle as it can oust very quickly > and > > > comes out of the blocks bleeding for 6-10 per turn. > > > > > > In hindsight, had I known that you were packing 10 Deflections (you > filthy > > > man :o) there is no way I would have chosen to bleed you, but then again > > > Francois would have very possibly sat down somewhere different after me. > > > Ideally I should have sat behind Francios with you bleeding me, but as I > > > said - hindsight... bloody table order :o( > > > > I only had 6 or 7, I forget. > > Hmmm. I heard a little rumour after that you had a lot more but there you > go. Ok, maybe 8. I changed the number so often in the week building up to the tourney that I honestly don't know how many are in there. > > I was bleeding will knowing full well I > > couldn't get through just to cycle cards. I did pitch a few masters to > > stop Chaz just to cycle cards, so I was churning through my deck > > looking for them. If it looked like it was that sleezy, I apologize. > > Sleaze has a place, ask me !! > > > But I did have to work hard to stay alive at the end, knowing that if > > I blocked I'd most likely get torpored and not have enough minions to > > bleed out Will. > > It did come down to one or two cards at the end. I finished with a hand full > of rush pain which you were eating with fries next turn :o) and no wakes, > with a 2nd trad as my next card. I did note the question you asked immediately after the game: "Was that your last minion?" If you had had that 2nd it may have gone a bit differently. > > > > I would also add as an aside that had you chosen to make deals, it would > IMO > > > have only served to strengthen your table position and make your job > easier. > > > Even a player playing a weenie dom or pre deck can establish others as > the > > > bad guys on the table and enlist aid in taking them down. > > > > I was a bit too nervous to try and deal. > > > > > Again, extremely well done for winning man, but don't lose sight of the > > > final that we played. > > > > I was analysing it long after we stopped. > > Me too, still am ............ damn Arika. I'm trying not to, I'm more concerned at the moment with building a better version of my Gangrel rush deck for Gencon > > > But thanks man. > > No probs. We'll play again :o) > Undoubtedly Tony

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b670830....@news.algonet.se... [ quoted text not captured ] A position from which you can't win. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> What circumstances would be acceptable to justify a roll-over on >> turn one (given that you said *nearly* impossible)? Bad crypt draw? Knowing >> what your predator/prey plays and knowing you don't stand a chance in >> this seating? An all-master initial draw? > >A position from which you can't win. Alright, then how should that be interpreted? A position where it's theoretically impossible for you to win? (This situation could never occur.) A situation where you can't win as long as others play well? (There's no reason to assume the others will play well.) A situation where you couldn't possibly win, unless some other player decides to help you along? Or what? Could you, just to illuminate me, provide one example of a turn-1 position that is so bad you can't win from it (and would thus be allowed to make a table-splitting deal)?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message >news:3b670830....@news.algonet.se... >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >> >> How can you possibly know that when the deal is made on turn 1? As I >> > >> >It's nearly impossible at that point. And, therefore, it's nearly >impossible >> >to justify a "rollover" deal at that point. >> >> What circumstances would be acceptable to justify a roll-over on turn >> one (given that you said *nearly* impossible)? Bad crypt draw? Knowing >> what your predator/prey plays and knowing you don't stand a chance in >> this seating? An all-master initial draw? > >A position from which you can't win. There must be a judgement factor there or no one would ever be able give it up. What is the judgement factor? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b6abf64...@news.algonet.se... > Could you, just to illuminate me, provide one example of a turn-1 > position that is so bad you can't win from it (and would thus be > allowed to make a table-splitting deal)? No, since I don't know of any such position. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@shuswap.net> wrote in message news:3b6b247c....@news.shuswap.net... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >A position from which you can't win. > > There must be a judgement factor there or no one would ever be > able give it up. What is the judgement factor? The tournament judge. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@shuswap.net> wrote in message >news:3b6b247c....@news.shuswap.net... >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >A position from which you can't win. >> >> There must be a judgement factor there or no one would ever be >> able give it up. What is the judgement factor? > >The tournament judge. I'm referring to the player's judgement factor. The judge is only relevant if he is called over. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@shuswap.net> wrote in message > >news:3b6b247c....@news.shuswap.net... > >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> >A position from which you can't win. > >> > >> There must be a judgement factor there or no one would ever be > >> able give it up. What is the judgement factor? > > > >The tournament judge. > > I'm referring to the player's judgement factor. The judge is > only relevant if he is called over. OK. Then the answer is as you provide: the player's judgment. If all of the players are happy with the deal, then there's clearly no problem. [ quoted text not captured ]