How to deal with Peoples failure to Pay for things

As i am going to be the Judge of a National Qualifier im going to ask a couple of Questions that bug me: If player A plays Anarch Revolt and Player B forgets to pay before the start of Player C's turn. 1. Do you Punish Player B with warnings for failure to pay? 2. Is it on me to make sure everyone Pays? Also, in regards to Automatic vs Choice: If Player A has Basic Group 1 Leandro, and Player B gets all the way to their Transfer Phase and has not yet paid the pool to be able to Transfer? 1. Because it is a forced thing, does he get to choose then? 2. Has he forfited his rights to transfer? And now a generic one, What about cards that cost you pool during your Untap (i.e. Fame) and every player forgets or only some forget. 1. Do you make them pay? 2. Do you warn etc? I am just after some opinions, I know as the Judge I have the final say but some of our local players have asked so i thought i would ask here. Thankyou :) -- Brian

In message <3c8a815e.04060...@posting.google.com>, br...@luvbite.com (Brian Skelly) mumbled something about: >As i am going to be the Judge of a National Qualifier im going to ask >a couple of Questions that bug me: > >If player A plays Anarch Revolt and Player B forgets to pay before the >start of Player C's turn. > >1. Do you Punish Player B with warnings for failure to pay? >2. Is it on me to make sure everyone Pays? It's on player A, primarily, and everyone else at the table. I'd take it from player B's pool at the time of rememberage. If it would oust him due to some whack conflict of interest, then a rewind might be necessary; but I'd only consider rewinding if it would oust him and that would significantly change his turn (ie, he bled C for 6 during that turn and only had 1 pool in his untap; or he had 2 pool in his untap, Blood Dolled 1 off, and purchased a .44; etc). These should be rare though. >Also, in regards to Automatic vs Choice: > >If Player A has Basic Group 1 Leandro, and Player B gets all the way >to their Transfer Phase and has not yet paid the pool to be able to >Transfer? > >1. Because it is a forced thing, does he get to choose then? >2. Has he forfited his rights to transfer? He must make the choice; failure to remember that there's a choice to be made doesn't make the choice for him. He gets to choose whether or not to pay. If he does it twice, I'd warn him. :) >And now a generic one, > >What about cards that cost you pool during your Untap (i.e. Fame) and >every player forgets or only some forget. > >1. Do you make them pay? Make them pay and optionally warn them as well for repeat infractions. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

> If player A plays Anarch Revolt and Player B forgets to pay before the > start of Player C's turn. > > 1. Do you Punish Player B with warnings for failure to pay? > 2. Is it on me to make sure everyone Pays? 1. If he forgets once, he can just pay as soon as you notice. If it happens all the time, issue a warning. 2. You should keep an eye on that, yes. Usually tables are friendly enough that players remind each other if they forget. > Also, in regards to Automatic vs Choice: > > If Player A has Basic Group 1 Leandro, and Player B gets all the way > to their Transfer Phase and has not yet paid the pool to be able to > Transfer? > > 1. Because it is a forced thing, does he get to choose then? No. Payment must be made during untap. > 2. Has he forfited his rights to transfer? Yes. > And now a generic one, > > What about cards that cost you pool during your Untap (i.e. Fame) and > every player forgets or only some forget. > > 1. Do you make them pay? Just like AR. If they forget (and nobody reminds them) and you notice it shortly after, make them pay later. > 2. Do you warn etc? If one player is forgetting it all the time and constantly has to pay later, then yes issue a warning. On the other hand, don't warn to soon. It's still a game and often enough people remind one another of such events during, or right after the phase it should happen in. Official warnings can really upset people; just an example that bothered me personally was this: I accidentaly replaced a Bum's Rush. I noticed even before I saw the next card (I had my hand on it and drew it like 1 cm before putting it back). The judge's response: don't do that again. The next turn, I played a sideslip at CEL on a 0-damage strike (there was a Disarm hidden somewhere between the 5 cards on that minion) and replaced it, causing the official warning yelling (from the OBSERVERS!) at me and the judge gave me that warning (kinda lead to it by the observers), which really took the fun out of that game for me.

player forgets or only some forget. > > 1. Do you make them pay? > 2. Do you warn etc? I would cut off the hand that they hold the cards with. Nah, just kidding. I would cut the other one off. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> > 2. Has he forfited his rights to transfer? > > Yes. > No. As stated before, failure to make a mandatory decision does not force you into either avenue of the decision. > The next turn, I played a sideslip at CEL on a 0-damage strike (there > was a Disarm hidden somewhere between the 5 cards on that minion) and > replaced it, causing the official warning yelling (from the OBSERVERS!) > at me and the judge gave me that warning (kinda lead to it by the > observers), which really took the fun out of that game for me. > They all should be warned for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message: (His opinion on Judge Rulings) I have Judged M-A-N-Y Tourny's! Re-Read Derek's thoughts and follow them to a tee! That is without doubt the correct way to rule in those situations. ***JediMike*** Anarch of L.A "I've got that Wicked Sensation" -Lynch Mob-

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > br...@luvbite.com (Brian Skelly) mumbled something about: > > >As i am going to be the Judge of a National Qualifier im going to ask > >a couple of Questions that bug me: > > > >If player A plays Anarch Revolt and Player B forgets to pay before the > >start of Player C's turn. > > > >1. Do you Punish Player B with warnings for failure to pay? > >2. Is it on me to make sure everyone Pays? > > It's on player A, primarily, and everyone else at the table. Correct. > I'd take it from player B's pool at the time of rememberage. If it > would oust him due to some whack conflict of interest, then a rewind > might be necessary; but I'd only consider rewinding if it would oust him > and that would significantly change his turn (ie, he bled C for 6 during > that turn and only had 1 pool in his untap; or he had 2 pool in his > untap, Blood Dolled 1 off, and purchased a .44; etc). These should be > rare though. The "significantly" is not required. If it would change his (or anyone else's) actions at all, rewind to the point of the change and allow the altered decision to be made. Assuming rewinding is feasible. If not (if "too much" has transpired since the error), then apply the "appropriate" remedy. Usually this is just "burn the pool and continue". But there may be extenuating circumstances - that's for the judge to decide. > >Also, in regards to Automatic vs Choice: > > > >If Player A has Basic Group 1 Leandro, and Player B gets all the way > >to their Transfer Phase and has not yet paid the pool to be able to > >Transfer? > > > >1. Because it is a forced thing, does he get to choose then? > >2. Has he forfited his rights to transfer? > > He must make the choice; failure to remember that there's a choice to be > made doesn't make the choice for him. He gets to choose whether or not > to pay. Correct. With rewinding/remedying as above as necessary. > >And now a generic one, > > > >What about cards that cost you pool during your Untap (i.e. Fame) and > >every player forgets or only some forget. > > > >1. Do you make them pay? > > Make them pay and optionally warn them as well for repeat infractions. Correct. With rewinding/remedying as above as necessary. This is identical to the Anarch Revolt question (and answer). The onus of remembering is on the table as a whole, and primarily on the controller of the Fame and the player who is untapping. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:2i3j3uF...@uni-berlin.de... > > player forgets or only some forget. > > > > 1. Do you make them pay? > > 2. Do you warn etc? > > I would cut off the hand that they hold the cards with. > > Nah, just kidding. > > I would cut the other one off. wow ! that's what i call expeditive justice =) is it for the purpose of one of your new orleans style voodoo rituals, or just for a regular ruthor's hand ? ;)

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:33:02 -0400, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled: >> The next turn, I played a sideslip at CEL on a 0-damage strike (there >> was a Disarm hidden somewhere between the 5 cards on that minion) and >> replaced it, causing the official warning yelling (from the OBSERVERS!) >> at me and the judge gave me that warning (kinda lead to it by the >> observers), which really took the fun out of that game for me. >> > >They all should be warned for unsportsmanlike conduct. also, the opposing minion's controller really should have declared "strike hands for 0" rather than merely "strike hands", which i am assuming they incorrectly declared the latter in this case. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

OK. Hand size tends to be something that can oscillate alot - what happens if I forget to replace my WWeF during untap and remember later during my minion phase. Do I draw it when I remember and if so and its a Master card and I played no master, can I then retroactively play it? Conversely, if I find that I have one card over my hand size what action should be taken? Does the player discard back to library, to ash heap, is it random or based on the trust that 'that' card was the one they picked up last? What about forced blood *gain* effects (beneficial rather than detrimental) such as The Rack on a vampire that I forget to move blood to before I play that Master? Does the 2 blood go on at the point of rememberance?

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> schreef in bericht news:2004060112...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net... > > > 2. Has he forfited his rights to transfer? > > > > Yes. > > > > No. As stated before, failure to make a mandatory decision does not force > you into either avenue of the decision. This does not really make sense to me. Take for example, the Egde. You are allowed *not* to take pool from the Edge. So, if you forget to decide whether or not you want to take pool (I can imagine Parity Shift situations, for example), you, by default, do not take pool. It is not allowed to gain pool from the edge afterwards, because you forgot. Leandro is, IMO, not much different. You have to make the decision in your untap phase. The point of this is of course to force the decision to be taken ahead instead of seeing what your turn turns out to look like. For example, I "forget" to pay the pool to get transfers. I play govern at superior on my 7 cap with 4 pool on it. It gets blocked; something I had not taken into account. In my influence phase I still want to make the transfers, but "forgot" to burn a pool to be able to do so. According to you I can now still burn a pool anyway and can make my transfers. This is of course preventable by just forcing every Methusalah to specifically announce whether or not he's paying for Leandro, but that's simply not practical, especially once you get past the "influencing out guys" phase. In the same line, in my last tournament my prey was controlling Leandro at the finals table. The judge specifically stated "if you forget to pay, you're fucked". This would be, according to LSJ's ruling, illegal, since if I forget, I can still burn the pool afterwards. Can't his ability just trigger in the influence phase instead? As it is, it's a pointless exception. I forget to burn a pool for Bleeding the Vine (and leave it untapped accidentaly; nobody notices). My prey plays a master. I tap the Vine and then someone notices I didn't pay. I surely can't pay for it at that point, can I? What if I was a t 1 pool during my untap phase and gained some pool during my turn?

>Take for example, the Egde. > >You are allowed *not* to take pool from the Edge. So, if you forget to >decide whether or not you want to take pool (I can imagine Parity Shift >situations, for example), you, by default, do not take pool. It is not >allowed to gain pool from the edge afterwards, because you forgot. > >Leandro is, IMO, not much different. You have to make the decision in >your untap phase. "You have to ..." The decision is mandatory. What I don't get is why it's so hard for people to remember Leandro's ability given what an obvious presence he has. It's the job of everyone at the table to keep track of these things; someone should be able to notice. Similarly, in a notice what's going on in the game way, I almost always notice when someone else keeps the edge (if only that translated to remembering when I have it). But, since there's supposed to be (in theory, in casual play, I play with people who allow taking for the edge way late) a penalty for not remembering, I don't tend to prompt people unless I want them to have more pool. >The point of this is of course to force the decision >to be taken ahead instead of seeing what your turn turns out to look >like. For example, I "forget" to pay the pool to get transfers. I play >govern at superior on my 7 cap with 4 pool on it. It gets blocked; >something I had not taken into account. In my influence phase I still >want to make the transfers, but "forgot" to burn a pool to be able to do >so. According to you I can now still burn a pool anyway and can make my >transfers. Is that designer intent? >This is of course preventable by just forcing every Methusalah to >specifically announce whether or not he's paying for Leandro, but that's >simply not practical, especially once you get past the "influencing out >guys" phase. > >In the same line, in my last tournament my prey was controlling Leandro >at the finals table. The judge specifically stated "if you forget to >pay, you're fucked". This would be, according to LSJ's ruling, illegal, >since if I forget, I can still burn the pool afterwards. > >Can't his ability just trigger in the influence phase instead? As it is, >it's a pointless exception. > >I forget to burn a pool for Bleeding the Vine (and leave it untapped >accidentaly; nobody notices). My prey plays a master. I tap the Vine and >then someone notices I didn't pay. I surely can't pay for it at that >point, can I? What if I was a t 1 pool during my untap phase and gained >some pool during my turn? The table should be paying attention. If no one notices something, than the judge tries to come up with the suitable remedy. When in doubt, see what the judge thinks and try not to repeat mistakes. For one thing, if the same mistakes keep getting made, the players should be penalized. Of course, one of the reasons people repeat mistakes is when they are allowed takebacks. This is why I understand the infamous LA reputation of adhering closely to rules.

> Take for example, the Egde. > Getting pool from the Edge is optional. Playing a Master Card is optional. Acting is optional. Forgetting any of those things does not mean you get to do those things. There are too many optional things for anyone to allow you to go back and take advantage of them. Leandro, unlike the Edge, is not A or nothing. It's A or B. Both of which are rather serious. > Leandro is, IMO, not much different. You have to make the decision in > your untap phase. The point of this is of course to force the decision > to be taken ahead instead of seeing what your turn turns out to look > like. For example, I "forget" to pay the pool to get transfers. I play > govern at superior on my 7 cap with 4 pool on it. It gets blocked; > something I had not taken into account. In my influence phase I still > want to make the transfers, but "forgot" to burn a pool to be able to do > so. According to you I can now still burn a pool anyway and can make my > transfers. > Yes, and a good player will recognize the fact that he would not have "paid the Leandro tax" and act accordingly. Likewise, a good player who desperately needs another minion and topdecks a Govern will recognize the fact that he would have "paid the Leandro tax" and burn the pool even if he doesn't end up using the transfers. > This is of course preventable by just forcing every Methusalah to > specifically announce whether or not he's paying for Leandro, but that's > simply not practical, especially once you get past the "influencing out > guys" phase. > If I have Leandro in play, I ask. That's simply your share of "the Leandro tax," the least of the burdens he incurs. > I forget to burn a pool for Bleeding the Vine (and leave it untapped > accidentaly; nobody notices). My prey plays a master. I tap the Vine and > then someone notices I didn't pay. I surely can't pay for it at that > point, can I? No, you can't pay for it at that point. But you can't tap it at that point. Bleeding the Vine, like Leandro, is A or B, not A or nothing. You have to go back and retroactively have spent or tapped. >What if I was a t 1 pool during my untap phase and gained > some pool during my turn? > Then a good player will be honest and tap it retroactively.

"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote: > This is of course preventable by just forcing every Methusalah to > specifically announce whether or not he's paying for Leandro, but that's > simply not practical If you ask me, you should announce every phase of every turn regardless of if you do something or not. That way if someone else has something to play, or an effect that is supposed to happen during that phase they can tell you. It doesnt really waste any time and it keeps you from missing these things. If you get used to playing according to the phases you dont miss as much stuff as you do if you are used to staring off into space and get too excited about bleeding that you forget to pay your leandro transfer fee. -- The Nosferatu Stuff

Aaron wrote: > OK. Hand size tends to be something that can oscillate alot - what > happens if I forget to replace my WWeF during untap and remember later > during my minion phase. Do I draw it when I remember and if so and its > a Master card and I played no master, can I then retroactively play > it? You can't play it outside of your master phase. You could, judge allowing, rewind to your untap phase to draw the card, and then, master in hand, play the master card during your master phase. Assuming not "too much" has transpired in the interim. > Conversely, if I find that I have one card over my hand size what > action should be taken? Does the player discard back to library, to > ash heap, is it random or based on the trust that 'that' card was the > one they picked up last? Judge's discretion. If the player asserts that she knows which card was overdrawn and the judge believes her to be in earnest, then that card is returned. It should be shuffled into the library, assuming no one has had cause to discover that it was on top of the library via some card effect. > What about forced blood *gain* effects (beneficial rather than > detrimental) such as The Rack on a vampire that I forget to move blood > to before I play that Master? Does the 2 blood go on at the point of > rememberance? Beneficial, detrimental - it's all handled the same way - rewind if able/convenient. Restore/maintain balance if not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey Mike - Regarding Leandro, in Los Angeles (IIRC), if you don't declare a choice and move to your master phase, it is assumed that your choice was "Not Pay". Have you guys changed that behavior up in Glendale? By being punished in game, you will be sure to remember next time. I don't see why it's that hard to play that way, and it's way better and more clear. In other words, if you don't declare, then you are in effect declaring "no" to any given mandatory decision. If you forget, well, don't forget next time. There should never be a benefit for forgetting, and as far as I can tell, letting someone "rewind" and pay the 1 pool tax to get an influence phase is a reward for forgetting. Otherwise, I agree with Derek. best - chris Mike Courtois wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] -- chris shorb prince of torrance, where the 5th tradition rules.

Chris Shorb wrote: > Hey Mike - > > Regarding Leandro, in Los Angeles (IIRC), if you don't declare a choice and move > to your master phase, it is assumed that your choice was "Not Pay". Have you guys > changed that behavior up in Glendale? By being punished in game, you will be sure > to remember next time. I don't see why it's that hard to play that way, and it's > way better and more clear. > > In other words, if you don't declare, then you are in effect declaring "no" to any > given mandatory decision. While it is OK to do this in a friendly game as 'reminder punishment', it is innapropriate for a tournament (see Derek's and LSJ's posts). Still, just once more: The choices are A and B, not Yes and No. In this case you could put the choices as 'Not to forfeit the influence phase' and 'Not to pay 1 pool'. So, which 'No' is it then? > If you forget, well, don't forget next time. There > should never be a benefit for forgetting, and as far as I can tell, letting > someone "rewind" and pay the 1 pool tax to get an influence phase is a reward for > forgetting. If the delay in the choice gives a significant advantage, the judge is allowed to make any adjustments necessary to compensate. Flux

Chris Shorb wrote: > Regarding Leandro, in Los Angeles (IIRC), if you don't declare a choice and move > to your master phase, it is assumed that your choice was "Not Pay". Have you guys > changed that behavior up in Glendale? By being punished in game, you will be sure They probably have, if it was done otherwise, in order to merge with the official rulings. There is no assumed choice for Leandro, contesting, etc. The player is required to choose, but there is no default (since the choice is required - no default is needed). > to remember next time. I don't see why it's that hard to play that way, and it's > way better and more clear. Not more clear - neither choice is given as a default. Not way better, since it muddles the paradigm and can lead to confusion in other no-default choice cases. > In other words, if you don't declare, then you are in effect declaring "no" to any > given mandatory decision. If you forget, well, don't forget next time. There "No (I won't choose)" isn't the same as "I choose A" or "I choose B". > should never be a benefit for forgetting, and as far as I can tell, letting > someone "rewind" and pay the 1 pool tax to get an influence phase is a reward for > forgetting. No. It is a pool loss. If it can be shown that the player is gaining some sort of advantage (over having made the decision herself at the time), then the judge should rectify that with the appropriate penalty. That penalty could be the loss of a pool (effecting one choice), the loss of transfers (effecting another choice), or something else, as appropriate. In practice, it would be hard to argue for an advantage in Leandro's case. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Beneficial, detrimental - it's all handled the same way - rewind if > able/convenient. Restore/maintain balance if not. What would people reccomend for the "Restore/maintain balance" angle of this? Say 2 minions have acted but the Minion with the Rack has not acted? Using the "Restore/maintain balance" would they: 1. Get 1? 2. Get None? 3. Get 2? 4. None of the above, Answer posted below. Thanks Guys :)

"Chris Shorb" <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:410F2736...@vtesinla.org... > Hey Mike - > > Regarding Leandro, in Los Angeles (IIRC), if you don't declare a choice and move > to your master phase, it is assumed that your choice was "Not Pay". Have you guys > changed that behavior up in Glendale? By being punished in game, you will be sure > to remember next time. I don't see why it's that hard to play that way, and it's > way better and more clear. No, that's not correct. A couple of players were under that impression a long time ago but I believe everybody understands that Leandro forces a choice and there is no default choice that is imposed upon you. -Robert

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:<410F2736...@vtesinla.org>... > Hey Mike - > > Regarding Leandro, in Los Angeles (IIRC), if you don't declare a choice and move > to your master phase, it is assumed that your choice was "Not Pay". Have you guys > changed that behavior up in Glendale? This came up quite awhile ago in an LA tourny. I ALWAYS argued with the Judge at the time that the player must be aloud to decide at the time the mistake is discovered. The Judge (Paul) did not agree and forced him to skip his turn. That's the Judges right, and that's how he judged that call. I'm ok with that. Different Judges will see/make decisions differently. In an effort to make things as uniform as possible **I** try to judge as close to LSJ's style as possible. Simply because it is as close to a uniform standard as we will ever come too. Others are free to judge as they like on these affairs and I believe the Judge has the right to judge as he/she sees fit as long as the Tourny rules are follwed. If you watch sports the ref's will make some calls and let some go, the next night can have different refs which will make compleatly different calls. It's no different in VtES. We do talk often on judging calls to see if we can be consistant but there are time when our philosophies will differ. I think I remember LSJ telling me once, "Judge the way you think you should Judge." I took that to mean at the end of the day if you'er the Judge It's ok to make the call whatever it is, just be able to back it up. It's also ok to make a wrong call, just find the correct answer latter so you won't make the same mistake again. Back to the inital question, **I** would let him decide at the time the mistake is found and if it continued I would warn him, and if it continued I would not give him the option of paying. ***JediMike*** Anarch of L.A. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mike Courtois" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message news:c5a0b763.04060...@posting.google.com... > Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:<410F2736...@vtesinla.org>... > > Hey Mike - > > > > Regarding Leandro, in Los Angeles (IIRC), if you don't declare a choice and move > > to your master phase, it is assumed that your choice was "Not Pay". Have you guys > > changed that behavior up in Glendale? > > This came up quite awhile ago in an LA tourny. I ALWAYS argued with > the Judge at the time that the player must be aloud to decide at the > time the mistake is discovered. The Judge (Paul) did not agree and > forced him to skip his turn. That's the Judges right, and that's how > he judged that call. I'm ok with that. Depending on what you mean, of course. The judge doesn't have a right to rule any way he wants. If the judge is aware of how the official rules, rulings, and errata say things should be handled, the judge must handle things in that manner. Applying Leandro correctly is not a judgement call and no judge should judge it differetly. That isn't to say that we shouldn't support a judge who makes a mistake. The judge has the final decision and the players need to respectfully abide by the decision, right or wrong. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<2ia7anF...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, absolutly! After re-reading my own post I see that I did not make that clear. I was refering to the ruling that Paul made **before** the ruling had exsisted. At the time we had no clear cut definition for how to handle that particular situation, and that was how Paul choose to handle it. We ALWAYS have the most current rules and erratta as well as the tourny rules avail to all Judges, and players, during a Con. As long as the ruling is set we will always rule correctly. My main statment adressed the issues that come up where no clear cut definition exsist. At that point the Judge must make a ruling based on the best information he has. These things still come up freqently enough to know that aspect of our game won't change. Koodos to anyone who trys to judge this game, It's very difficult. Best ***JediMike*** "If you decide not to decide, you still have made a choice" -Rush- Freewill

One of the issues that came up at Powerbase: LA last weekend was another interesting point. Someone had put out a copy of Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter. The card was going around the table normally. Then, on the second or third go-'round, my prey moved her to my table space without bothering to notify me. And he didn't really do a good job of placing the card, either. It was up in the corner, sort of halfway between his space and mine where I had no reason to look. It was late, I was tired from the long drive the night before and not getting much sleep, and in general I can be a very spacy person. ("Gee, Fred. I see that once again you have opted NOT to take your optional pool from the edge."... "DOH!") Anyway, to make a long story short, unaware that Millicent was visiting my realms, I acted away, got intercepted not once but twice. My prey and I had combat both times. I ended my turn and during my predator's turn, we discovered the error. No one at the table had noticed Millicent the whole time. At that point, we called the judge over. Her ruling was that the first vampire that got intercepted had to be burned, and that it was my responsibility as much as anyone else's to notice where Millicent was. Of course, at that point, it was absolutely impossible to recontruct what would have happened had my first vampire been burned, so after mulling it over a bit, I just consented to burn it and go on with the game and everyone else at the table seemed OK with that. As such an event had multiple causes, I will concede, the judge had a point. None the less, what bothers me about the scenario is that it gives my prey an incentive to be very coy and quiet about the act of moving Millicent. In this particular situation, I don't think the guy did it on purpose. But I already have a huge pet peeve about people who take actions and play cards and so forth that need to get everyone's attention and they don't bother to be very assertive about such things. ("Hello, is it my turn yet?" "Oh, yes, my turn was over 5 minutes ago - I was wondering why you were waiting." "Well, because you never SAID anything!") It becomes egregious when they play things that clearly affect me (e.g. my prey playing a Rack on his blood doll). Millicent Smith is the mother of all effects that affect your turn, so it seems to me that your prey should shout at you about it as it moves - not be allowed to slip it into your space when you're not looking. The judge said something that I find even more disturbing: that had my prey forgotten to move Millicent at all, her ruling would be the same, based on the same criteria. That would be a situation that places the principal of not letting people escape their situation just because they forgot something (in such a case, I would have forgotten that my prey's Millicent should move, as would he) squarely against another principal that I thought was important: that one should never gain a distinct advantage from one's failure to play the game correctly (my prey would be allowed to wipe out one of his predator's vampires through his own forgetfulness). In such situations, I was always of the opinion that the latter consideration is the important point. I'd like to hear an opinion on all this. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > point. I'd like to hear an opinion on all this. Here's one opinion: That judge should be diablerized! And had I come to judge this situation I would have ruled that you'd have to deal with Millicent on your next turn. (assuming a rewind was indeed impossible or too cumbersome) //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:40C1ED34...@nospam.com... > One of the issues that came up at Powerbase: LA last weekend was > another interesting point. Someone had put out a copy of Millicent > Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter. The card was going around the table > normally. Then, on the second or third go-'round, my prey moved > her to my table space without bothering to notify me. And he > didn't really do a good job of placing the card, either. It was > up in the corner, sort of halfway between his space and mine where > I had no reason to look. I wasn't at that table but it sounds as if the manner in which Millicent was moved into your table space is a matter of opinion. Another version was that Millicent was "clearly in your table area". I believe that was the judge's version of what happened. > The judge said something that I find even more disturbing: that had > my prey forgotten to move Millicent at all, her ruling would be the > same, based on the same criteria. That would be a situation that > places the principal of not letting people escape their situation just > because they forgot something (in such a case, I would have forgotten > that my prey's Millicent should move, as would he) squarely against > another principal that I thought was important: that one should never > gain a distinct advantage from one's failure to play the game > correctly (my prey would be allowed to wipe out one of his predator's > vampires through his own forgetfulness). In such situations, I was > always of the opinion that the latter consideration is the important > point. I'd like to hear an opinion on all this. I personally wouldn't want to see any players stealthily moving or not moving Millicent at all as a ploy to get their predator's vampires burned. If I wasn't convinced as a judge that Millicent wasn't openly and clearly moved I wouldn't burn your vamp. My version of what is sufficiently open and clear is going to be different from another judge's version, of course. -Robert

Fred said: > The judge said something that I find even more disturbing: that had > my prey forgotten to move Millicent at all, her ruling would be the > same, based on the same criteria. I think there is a misunderstanding here, Fred. It's not my memory that I said I would've ruled the same way even if Jeff had forgotten to move Millicent. If I lead you to believe that, I'm sorry. Robyn Tatu

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, OK, that was a pretty distinct misunderstanding, then, yes. The whole point I was trying to make to you was about, "At what point do you consider the behavior of the prey in terms of not calling attention to the movement of Millicent (or very meager attempts to) which works to his own benefit?" I sure thought your answer was, "At _no_ point - you (meaning me, in this situation) also have a duty to know where Millicent is supposed to be at any given moment." And to back up your point, I could have sworn you'd stated that my prey could have completely forgotten to move Millicent at all and your ruling would have been the same. That made sense to me in that it would be the most extreme example of poor behavior on the part of the prey and thus represents a coherent position on the matter. I just found it to be a very disturbing position. Now I'm not sure what you meant. In any event, as I said at the time, it wasn't so much about that game. I has having a pretty rough game before I got ousted so what's losing another vampire? To me, this issue kind of dovetails with some other things I've noticed about the LA tournament scene having to do with (roughly) with the issue of not taking back actions once played. It's the sort of thing I would expect from any of the LA judges. Perhaps I'll post about it under a different thread sometime because I think it's an interesting issue. (Then and again, if I think it's interesting, no doubt it will bore most normal people half to death.) Fred

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:40C1ED34...@nospam.com... > As such an event had multiple causes, I will concede, the judge > had a point. None the less, what bothers me about the scenario > is that it gives my prey an incentive to be very coy and quiet > about the act of moving Millicent. In this particular situation, > I don't think the guy did it on purpose. But I already have a > huge pet peeve about people who take actions and play cards and > so forth that need to get everyone's attention and they don't bother > to be very assertive about such things. ("Hello, is it my turn > yet?" "Oh, yes, my turn was over 5 minutes ago - I was wondering > why you were waiting." "Well, because you never SAID anything!") Your not going to get anything out of that. I've tried several times and there is not rule or ruling that requires a player to state their turn has been completed. There is nothing planned at this time to add this effect to the rules. Its your (player starting a new turn) problem. Just don't wait for the judge to come over and give you a warning. Raille

"Brian Skelly" <br...@luvbite.com> wrote in message news:3c8a815e.04060...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I would probably say "get 2". Most of the time, if a player has inadvertently misplayed some mandatory rule or effect, I would just correct it at the point it's noticed (if rewinding to the point of the error and "doing it over" from there isn't feasible). I would, of course, also advise the player to try harder to remember in the future. If the mistake is repeated, or if some advantage is being gained by the forgetting, then there might be penalties later. But for a first mistake, I would probably not penalize the player anything beyond a verbal caution for forgetting to apply the Rack blood. Josh just one opinion

> > Fred said: > To me, this issue kind of dovetails with some other > things I've noticed about the LA tournament scene having to do with > (roughly) with the issue of not taking back actions once played. It's > the sort of thing I would expect from any of the LA judges. Perhaps > I'll post about it under a different thread sometime because I think > it's an interesting issue. (Then and again, if I think it's interesting, > no doubt it will bore most normal people half to death.) > > Fred I believe this to be an extremly interesting topic Fred, and it should be brought up by a non L.A. player as we may be considered overly bias. Also see Vtes in LA's newsgroup current topic "Robyns Qualifier Rulings" as a lead in. It stresses the point that different playgroups in different areas have very different play styles. http://www.vtesinla.org/forum/display_message.asp?mid=2730 ***JediMike*** "If you *choose* not to decide you still have made a choice" -Rush, Freewill- (corrected:)

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Your not going to get anything out of that. I've tried several times and > there is not rule or ruling that requires a player to state their turn has > been completed. There is nothing planned at this time to add this effect to > the rules. A player must indicate (make the other players aware - particulary her prey, assuming play is still clockwise) that she is done with her turn when she is done with her turn. Otherwise, it is still her turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com... > "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Your not going to get anything out of that. I've tried several times and > > there is not rule or ruling that requires a player to state their turn has > > been completed. There is nothing planned at this time to add this effect to > > the rules. > > A player must indicate (make the other players aware - particulary her > prey, assuming play is still clockwise) that she is done with her turn > when she is done with her turn. Otherwise, it is still her turn. What section of the rules or vekn tournament rules does that come from? Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<febf0dda3457c8d9...@news.teranews.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] ? Common Sense 101, maybe. It's certainly obvious enough not to warrant extra text in the rulebook. [1.6.1.6] if you really need a rulebook reference. A Methuselah's turn is not over until she indicates that she's done with her discard phase (and other Methuselahs indicate so as well - Giotto, etc.) In what section of the rules or vekn tournament rules does it say that the turn can pass before the player finishes with it? These "several times" that you've "tried", what were the official responses? I can't find them on Google. Can you give me a link, please? The closest I can find is your wish to add a new phase after the discard phase in which to handle "end of turn" things (which are currently handled in the discard phase, since that is the last phase of the turn). http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D764331.9A1633A6%40white-wolf.com (In which I affirm that the player announces she is done with her tun.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.0406...@posting.google.com... > "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<febf0dda3457c8d9...@news.teranews.com>... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com... > > > "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Your not going to get anything out of that. I've tried several times > > and > > > > there is not rule or ruling that requires a player to state their turn > > has > > > > been completed. There is nothing planned at this time to add this > > effect to > > > > the rules. > > > > > > A player must indicate (make the other players aware - particulary her > > > prey, assuming play is still clockwise) that she is done with her turn > > > when she is done with her turn. Otherwise, it is still her turn. > > > > What section of the rules or vekn tournament rules does that come from? > > ? > Common Sense 101, maybe. It's certainly obvious enough not to warrant > extra text in the rulebook. [1.6.1.6] if you really need a rulebook > reference. Common sense is apparently sumthing many people are not born with and few people bother to learn. So your extending the meaning of 'effect' to include the turn phase's? > A Methuselah's turn is not over until she indicates that she's done > with her discard phase (and other Methuselahs indicate so as well - > Giotto, etc.) > > In what section of the rules or vekn tournament rules does it say that > the turn can pass before the player finishes with it? > > These "several times" that you've "tried", what were the official > responses? I can't find them on Google. Can you give me a link, > please? Had several private discussion about this with you, then followed up in a privite list, which due to my military distractions died a whimpering death, with out a full consensus. However many people, including your self acknowledge a need for some correction. > The closest I can find is your wish to add a new phase after the > discard phase in which to handle "end of turn" things (which are > currently handled in the discard phase, since that is the last phase > of the turn). Actually thats a hold over from our earlier conversations about this. :) See. You do remember. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D764331.9A1633A6%40white-wolf.com > (In which I affirm that the player announces she is done with her > tun.) After all the changes and corrections, made over the years, a simple additional sentence tacked on to 8, stating that a player must indicate when they have completed their discard phase. However I don't forsee a new rule book being printed anytime soon, but the online rules could be edited simply enough. Raille

> > However I don't forsee a new rule book being printed anytime soon, but the > online rules could be edited simply enough. ps this would also be a good way to get the Event rules published. I have yet to find a single insert in any of the boxes that show who event cards are to be played. According to the pre release information each box was to get a few small inserts listing the new rule for event cards. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e97b03307487bb01...@news.teranews.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Have you looked at the backs of your booster packs? The Event rule is on every Gehenna booster wrapper. :-) Josh not that it shouldn't also go in the online rulebook

[ quoted text not captured ] I wasn't actually trying to get anything out of it. It was just an example of things various people do that don't get my attention when they really need to get my attention. In the case of one person's turn ending and another person beginning their turn, you mainly waste some time. This isn't exactly controversial unless it's a timed tournament game with the possibility that it time out sooner, changing the result. On the other hand, not getting my attention about Millicent moving into my area - THAT'S a serious thing. Fred

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2iolosF...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Raille<no aus, no AUS, just lots of OBF Shit. on the bakc of the backs and I just tossed a whole box of them in the trash! Off to go dumpster diving. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > A player must indicate (make the other players aware - particulary her > > > > prey, assuming play is still clockwise) that she is done with her turn > > > > when she is done with her turn. Otherwise, it is still her turn. > > > > > > What section of the rules or vekn tournament rules does that come from? > > > > [1.6.1.6] if you really need a rulebook > > reference. > > So your extending the meaning of 'effect' to include the turn phase's? No. Simply applying 1.6.1.6. The acting player must "pass" when it comes time for her to play the next effect or pass in order for the phase to end (and that "pass" must be followed by "passes" from all the other players as well, in the order indicated by 1.6.1.6.) When that happens, the phase ends. If that phase that ended was the discard phase, the last phase in the turn, then the turn ends. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:25:47 GMT, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >ps this would also be a good way to get the Event rules published. I have >yet to find a single insert in any of the boxes that show who event cards It's on the wrapper. :) Xian