Need definate answer on Stupid Tournament rules.

I don't want to debate, or hear everyones views on the subject, just an answer: If I am in a Sanctioned tournament and I am playing a game. Without trying to justify myself to some judge or the other players, can I Bums rush the guy across table as my first action of the game, even though I could easily kill my preys minion? Even though last game the guy cross table(that I am attacking) broke an agreement with me, and whines that I am picking on him for "out of game" reasons. Because I, for one, will not go around inventing reasons to defend what I want to do in a game that is based on subjective stragetys. If, in my mind, I want to attack the guy across table it's up to me. I shouldn't have to explain that..."Uhm..my deck always loses to malkavian sneak bleed decks...but...uh...since my prey has a ravnos...and...I think that maybe he's got a sneak bleed deck...even though he did lie and bleed me out last game...uhm..I feal that for victory points in this game I should kill him..yeah thats it." Is it judges or other players that will 'decide' what is collusion and what I can and can't do with my own deck? Or is this just a rule made up to pick on certain players that noone likes, or that admit to using pre-determined tactics to cheat? (cause it seems totally pointless) [no offense is intented at any person or group, I don't read all the posts, I just don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish, and how it will effect me]

On 6 Jun 2001 11:49:13 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >I don't want to debate, or hear everyones views on the subject, just >an answer: Shouldn't have posted this to USENET then. >If I am in a Sanctioned tournament and I am playing a game. >Without trying to justify myself to some judge or the other players, >can I Bums rush the guy across table as my first action of the game, >even though I could easily kill my preys minion? Most people will ask "Why?", and you're going to need to produce a reason for it. If the reason for the action will help you gain the most VPs possible out of the current game, then go for it. Plausible in-game reasons could include "I have an Amaranth, he's the only older vampire, and I want a free skill card", "He's a voter and my bruise-and-vote deck wants vote lock", or the like. You won't make the guy across the table HAPPY, but at least these actions have a direct benefit to your deck and are related to the current game, however flimsily. If the reason for the action isn't going to help you gain VPs, expect to catch some grief over it. If it's not based on in-game considerations ("he broke a deal with me last game" is NOT in-game), expect to be warned or penalized appropriately. >Even though last game the guy cross table(that I am attacking) broke >an agreement with me, and whines that I am picking on him for "out of >game" reasons. Well, are you, or not? >Because I, for one, will not go around inventing reasons to defend >what I want to do in a game that is based on subjective stragetys. >If, in my mind, I want to attack the guy across table it's up to me. And it'll be up to the judge to determine whether or not you're trying to play V:TES, or whether you're trying to play "screw the guy across the table". The first is what you signed up to the tournament for. The second, you can play on your own time, since 4 other people are sitting at the table with you who are (theoretically) trying to play V:TES. >I shouldn't have to explain that..."Uhm..my deck always loses to >malkavian sneak bleed decks...but...uh...since my prey has a >ravnos...and...I think that maybe he's got a sneak bleed deck...even >though he did lie and bleed me out last game...uhm..I feal that for >victory points in this game I should kill him..yeah thats it." You're perfectly welcome to try to make such an explanation. If it's crap, it'll be obviously crap and can be discarded appropriately. >Is it judges or other players that will 'decide' what is collusion and >what I can and can't do with my own deck? Or is this just a rule made >up to pick on certain players that noone likes, or that admit to using >pre-determined tactics to cheat? (cause it seems totally pointless) Judges should be the only ones doing the deciding. Other players will be doing the yelling and bitching, but the JUDGE'S decision is the only one that matters. This rule was created (IMO) because players have been admitting to sacrificing their own VPs in preliminary rounds in a deliberate attempt to keep decks that can stop theirs out of the final round. This isn't playing V:TES, it's just screwing around with the tournament itself. -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

In article <7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I don't want to debate, or hear everyones views on the subject, just >an answer: Your desires are out-of-newsgroup considerations, and are thus disregarded <grin>. >If I am in a Sanctioned tournament and I am playing a game. >Without trying to justify myself to some judge or the other players, >can I Bums rush the guy across table as my first action of the game, >even though I could easily kill my preys minion? Depends on context (see below). If you've never played a game with that player before at this tournament, you're either (a) being a random goofyhead or (b) for some reason that vampire really hoses your deck and you need it gone -- fast. (a) gets you an untracked verbal caution. (b) probably gets you off the hook. >Even though last game the guy cross table(that I am attacking) broke >an agreement with me, and whines that I am picking on him for "out of >game" reasons. If there's really good evidence (such as a broken deal last game) that you're just doing it out of spite, and your justifications are particularly flimsy, you're definitely getting a tracked warning. I knows spite when I sees it. This sort of thing is always up to the judge -- there's no way to hard-and-fast define spite, because spiteful people will always go right up as far as they can to the prohibited line wherever you draw it. >Because I, for one, will not go around inventing reasons to defend >what I want to do in a game that is based on subjective stragetys. (sic) No need to invent reasons; just use valid ones. >If, in my mind, I want to attack the guy across table it's up to me. >I shouldn't have to explain that..."Uhm..my deck always loses to >malkavian sneak bleed decks...but...uh...since my prey has a >ravnos...and...I think that maybe he's got a sneak bleed deck...even >though he did lie and bleed me out last game...uhm..I feal that for >victory points in this game I should kill him..yeah thats it." If there is strong evidence that you're using an out-of-game motivation, yes, you do need to explain it. Strong evidence (that would convince me, anyway) includes: -The victimized player offended you in some way in a previous game (reneging a deal, not taking an offered deal, whatever) AND the action you're taking against him/her does not measurably improve your game position in any way you can convincingly describe. (Spite) -The action you're taking does not measurably improve your game position in any way you can convincingly describe AND you don't have a pattern of random behavior. (Collusion) -You consistently fail to advance your own position, or even damage it, in order to damage or attempt to damage a specific player's position. (Spite) -You've exhibited a pattern of acting detrimental to your best interests in blatant and obvious fashion over several turns/games (Collusion) That last one's pretty squishy, and it'd have to be pretty darn blatant before you graduated from 'just a dumbass' to 'probably throwing the game in a partner's favor'. >Is it judges or other players that will 'decide' what is collusion and >what I can and can't do with my own deck? Judges and other players already decide what you can and can't do with your own deck. You can't, for example, put an Immortal Grapple back into your hand from your ash heap for no reason, because the other players, and if necessary judges, will bar you from doing so. This is just the same. >Or is this just a rule made >up to pick on certain players that noone likes, or that admit to using >pre-determined tactics to cheat? (cause it seems totally pointless) It may seem pointless, but it does address the issue of playing the tournament rules instead of the game, which has been a problem for some time. >[no offense is intented (sic) at any person or group, I don't read all the >posts, I just don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish, >and how it will effect (sic) me] It's supposed to keep you from avenging a betrayal in one round in the next round. It's also supposed to keep you from cross-table (rushing, ousting, whatever) a strong player just because you want to keep him/her from the finals. With good judging, it'll accomplish that. If you play each game in a tournament as a separate game, as you're supposed to, the rule won't affect you at all, because you'll already be in compliance. gomi -- the direction of the eye so misleading the corruption of the soul nauseously quick

In message <7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >Even though last game the guy cross table(that I am attacking) broke >an agreement with me, and whines that I am picking on him for "out of >game" reasons. Provide a number of in-game reasons as to why you're doing it. If you can provide some simple, easily followed reasons to players (such that the dispute ends there and then) or can sit down and explain it to the judge, you can prevent any collusion/out of game questions being brought into play. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

Aaron schrieb: > Or is this just a rule made > up to pick on certain players that noone likes, or that admit to using > pre-determined tactics to cheat? (cause it seems totally pointless) It's certainly not pointless... I don't care to speculate how many people total would have gotten warnings based on it at last years European championship had it already been in place, but I guaran-damn-tee you, I alone would've had ample of reason to sick the judges on at least 3 people. And no, I won't go into details, because I couldn't without saying something like "self-righteous @**holes". But yeah, sure as hell, the rule does make sense, and it does seem exceedingly likely to help new players who actually dare call the judges when they think it applies. Thomas

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>Even though last game the guy cross table(that I am attacking) broke >>an agreement with me, and whines that I am picking on him for "out of >>game" reasons. > >Provide a number of in-game reasons as to why you're doing it. If you >can provide some simple, easily followed reasons to players (such that >the dispute ends there and then) or can sit down and explain it to the >judge, you can prevent any collusion/out of game questions being brought >into play. Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody stupid? ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

In article <3b1ea84f...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>>Even though last game the guy cross table(that I am attacking) broke >>>an agreement with me, and whines that I am picking on him for "out of >>>game" reasons. >> >>Provide a number of in-game reasons as to why you're doing it. If you >>can provide some simple, easily followed reasons to players (such that >>the dispute ends there and then) or can sit down and explain it to the >>judge, you can prevent any collusion/out of game questions being brought >>into play. > >Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to >motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever >someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody >stupid? I, for one, would welcome a tournament system that actively discouraged the spiteful and the bloody stupid from playing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b1ea84f...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to >motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever >someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody >stupid? No, but you should be able to *justify* your actions as non-collusive at any given point. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to > motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever > someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody > stupid? Yeah, think of all the time that will be wasted justifying your actions. Just think people, if you give someone the ability to call the judge every time they are getting an ass beating, then make someone else explain it to a judge. So is the table being penalized for the time of arguing? Are spectators going to jump in? Or are games just going to go beyond the "damn these are long games" mark? Or do I have to remember every game, every action in a tournament? What if a player did something to screw me over last game, and now I am not thinking of it do something to him..now he has a valid argument AGAINST me because of his actions last game. You are actually encouraging people to break their deals. That way if someone picks on them later they can use it as an excuse. Oh, and I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this was a stragety card game, not a debate club. Maybe everyone isn't as good at explaining things then others. Maybe there will be a few people who can't defend themselves against others social/mental bashing (accuse someone of commiting a crime, they will confess just to be left alone) Maybe I just know the definition of collusion, which is not being vengful..its conspiring with someone else to rig the effects of an outcome, which has little to do with attacking people because in the last game they made you mad. And by the way, if you vampire is on the table expect to lose it, it is an in game consideration...PERIOD. (which is all this rule is supposed to be against, out of game considerations)

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0tvshtgtfa5c5hel5...@4ax.com... > On 6 Jun 2001 11:49:13 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: > > >I don't want to debate, or hear everyones views on the subject, just > >an answer: > > Shouldn't have posted this to USENET then. > > >If I am in a Sanctioned tournament and I am playing a game. > >Without trying to justify myself to some judge or the other players, > >can I Bums rush the guy across table as my first action of the game, > >even though I could easily kill my preys minion? > > Most people will ask "Why?", and you're going to need to produce a > reason for it. If the reason for the action will help you gain the > most VPs possible out of the current game, then go for it. Plausible > in-game reasons could include "I have an Amaranth, he's the only older > vampire, and I want a free skill card", "He's a voter and my > bruise-and-vote deck wants vote lock", or the like. You won't make > the guy across the table HAPPY, but at least these actions have a > direct benefit to your deck and are related to the current game, > however flimsily. Why should you have to reveal that you have an amaranth in your hand? Why should you have to explain in advance any suspicious actions by your minions? If your target now knows that you have an amaranth to play that may affect their tactics. oh i now know that he's got an amaranth so i'll block with another minion etc. I guess it depends on what people think tournaments should be. Should they be a day of fun where you play against people you wouldn't normally play against, see different deck styles and basically have a good time or should they be things that we take ever so seriously, where people have to concentrate on winning and nothing else and any action that doesn't seem to advance your position is treated as suspicious and requires an explanation to the entire table?

[ quoted text not captured ] If you don't want the other players to know, tell your story to the judge and let the judge decide with the "priviledged" information. > I guess it depends on what people think tournaments should be. Should they > be a day of fun where you play against people you wouldn't normally play > against, see different deck styles and basically have a good time or should > they be things that we take ever so seriously, where people have to > concentrate on winning and nothing else and any action that doesn't seem to > advance your position is treated as suspicious and requires an explanation > to the entire table? So long as everyone is there for the same reason, there's no problem, sure. If you want to get together for fun, the advertise such (and don't call it a "tournament"). -- 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/

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 22:35:35 GMT, jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Provide a number of in-game reasons as to why you're doing it. If you >>can provide some simple, easily followed reasons to players (such that >>the dispute ends there and then) or can sit down and explain it to the >>judge, you can prevent any collusion/out of game questions being brought >>into play. > >Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to >motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever >someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody >stupid? Yes. As the game becomes more and more popular, it will attract more and more of the "bad" gamer, who cares about nothing and nobody but himself and is perfectly willing to lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever is necessary to get what he wants - including collude with another person to gain the prize and then split it, no matter how insignificant the prize. Certain types of decks lend themselves well to disrupting the table... Rush decks, random-vote decks, and the like. In the hands of a malicious player, they can assuredly trash others' fun. Keep in mind, however, that if a table keeps calling a judge over for no reason, that the rest of the table (or person constantly calling the judge) is likely to get a warning or two themselves on the order of "please quit wasting my time." [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 Jun 2001 18:09:53 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >Oh, and I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this was a stragety >card game, not a debate club. Maybe everyone isn't as good at >explaining things then others. Maybe there will be a few people who If you have a reason, you can explain it. It's not that difficult, trust me. It's only difficult if you're trying to make one up. If you're curious, this rule came into being BECAUSE the game was turning into a debate club - way too many deals being made without anyone even -trying- to win the current game themselves. >can't defend themselves against others social/mental bashing (accuse >someone of commiting a crime, they will confess just to be left alone) Hyperbole, and unrealistic -- won't happen. > Maybe I just know the definition of collusion, which is not being >vengful..its conspiring with someone else to rig the effects of an >outcome, which has little to do with attacking people because in the >last game they made you mad. Correct. Attacking people because in the last game they made you mad is spiteful and dorky. I'm glad we had this little discussion to clear things up. >And by the way, if you vampire is on the table expect to lose it, it >is an in game consideration...PERIOD. (which is all this rule is >supposed to be against, out of game considerations) More sweeping, unrealistic statements. If you have the capacity to kill a vampire, you should either be killing one of your prey's vampires (to help gain yourself VPs) or your predator's (to keep yourself in the game longer, helping you gain VPs). If you are stepping out of the realm of "obvious" in such a way that appears to benefit you not at all, expect to be called on it. If you're doing it for a reason, you'll be able to explain yourself, won't you? It seems perfectly simple to me. Of course, the hardcore gamers don't see it that way, because they like to be able to commit their little out-of-game power-trips without people calling them on it. [ quoted text not captured ]

roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote in message news:<7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com>... > I don't want to debate, or hear everyones views on the subject, just > an answer: > > If I am in a Sanctioned tournament and I am playing a game. > Without trying to justify myself to some judge or the other players, > can I Bums rush the guy across table as my first action of the game, > even though I could easily kill my preys minion? In Praxis Seizure:Turku III tournament Finale my first actions were to Derange and Haunt my Grandprey's Weenies.(and then some random acts across the table). Nobody commented at that, although my prey was Cailean with Dominate,Presence&Dirty little secrets and capable of wasting the Weenies' library in few turns(which it did, after weenies got 2 vp).So, But I got last 2 vp's which were the ones to win the game. So, I didn't have to explain my deeds because of the outcome. Quite a mess it would have been, if i had lost the endgame 'cause then somebody could have whined...why didn'you crush Cailean blaa blaa

I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards"

"Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:87708033.01060...@posting.google.com... > I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: > "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" Actually, that is one of the lamest excuses for cross-tables attacks there is. If you really need to cycle cards, you should do it on your prey/predator, not on one of your 'allies'. Most decks can cycle cards whithout even harming them much (maneuver to long in combat, use bleed modifiers on a 0-stealth bleed, etc). Remember the judge will be able to see your hand, you better come up with a better excuse than that to torporise your gran-prey's only minion if you want to avoid a warning. Flux

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 3b1f3eb0$1...@212.18.160.197... [ quoted text not captured ] first if my prey deflects my bleed and i want to get rid of cards i would drop stealth and bleed him for 3+ ist it unfair? it is only acceptable to explain your deck and strategy to a non playing judge. it is not acceptable to explain it to a playing judge. what if i would play him next round or in the finals. he would have a tremendous advantage. what if i explain my strategy to a non playing judge and he is too stupid to understand and rules it unfair. don´t tell there aren´t a lot of stupid judges out there (no offense). is it unfair to say to your grandpredator if you play that vote i´ll torporize two of your minions knowing if you do so he will be ousted. you don´t maximize your VP put you stick to your word. is this unfair? what if i am simply stupid thinking what i am doing is best for me, maybe i am rob`s gimp. do you want games (in the extreme) run by judges? i say no. what if i know i won´t be able to oust my prey and i stop making actions is it unfair? doing this i won´t maximize my VP? this rule sucks! Stefan > >

[ quoted text not captured ] Here's something then, what if I am likely to be ousted by a rush deck, predator has made a deal with his 2nd predator to ensure a 3/2 split, is it illegal of me to deliberately stop him getting past me to then take out my already weak prey, when I have no chance of killing my prey, just to force him not to be successful with his deal, and get two points in the first game (I knew I didn't want him in the final, if I was there! His deck would crucify mine.) Am I acting illegally? (I have done this once, with my prey's consent so that he stood a chance (although v.slim) of taking out his prey.) However, it stood me no chance of maximising my VP's for the game, I knew I couldn't survive long enough to get 1/2 VP for being in when time was called. Andy setitesuk

> > I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: > > "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" > > Actually, that is one of the lamest excuses for cross-tables attacks there > is. If you really need to cycle cards, you should do it on your > prey/predator, not on one of your 'allies'. Most decks can cycle cards > whithout even harming them much (maneuver to long in combat, use bleed > modifiers on a 0-stealth bleed, etc). > Remember the judge will be able to see your hand, you better come up with a > better excuse than that to torporise your gran-prey's only minion if you > want to avoid a warning. Maybe he actually had a real bad hand. You just told another person to justify his actions in a card game. He did, it could be a valid reason, now couldn't it? Now you are trying to debate if his reasons are rational to you. If a player says he wants to cycle cards then there isn't anything that says you have to cycle cards on your prey. And if the purpose of an attack is not to kill a key minion then there is no reason it should be compulsory to be directed at your prey. Maybe noone has ever seen a deck like this, but it is possible that your stragety is to attack cross table as a dub, to lul your prey into thinking you aren't going to attack him. Cripple your grand prey, then when your prey goes all out on him, take them both down. Imagine trying to explain this stragety to a judge. You step away, in private so noone can hear, stopping the 2 hour time limit to make sure your table isn't cheated of time. judge: "why do you keep attacking cross table? is it because last game he lied and ousted you??" me: "no, my deck works on the theory that I can oust 2 people at once by making them think that I am only concerned with killing the minions cross table" judge: "I think that you are making that up. There is no such stragety. You are just bitter." me: "but that is my stragety" judge: "sorry, your stragety must be to attack your prey" me: "thanks for dictating my stragety judge, I didn't want to play the deck that I created the way it was intended, then I might follow the other rule that says play to get the most victory point. Too bad that is the only way I do it" Want to justify your stragety to a judge that has never seen a cross table, dramatic upheval deck? Hell maybe that will just become the #1 card for tournaments. Just put one in and you are safe to attack who ever you want. judge: "justify why you are attacking cross table" me: "well I have a dramatic upheval..somewhere in this deck. (that is only combat rush with no other vote cards.) I hope to draw it next turn, then become his predator and gain VP." Judges cannot disallow certain arguments just because they are easy. How fair is that? How about this, as a general rule of thumb I never attack a brujah with rush combat, MY STYLE.(don't tell me it's wrong) What if my prey has out a brujah, and I decide to rush the guy cross table with my nosferatu? What if your prey tells you he has no combat cards and you will be able to walk over him? Or what if he shows you his hand to make sure you know that he has no combat, and then uses the argument "he knows I have no combat cards, why is he still attacking cross table?" Now people have a way to make you attack them.

> >can't defend themselves against others social/mental bashing (accuse > >someone of commiting a crime, they will confess just to be left alone) > > Hyperbole, and unrealistic -- won't happen. If you actually believe that something like this could never happen, you are nuts. Maybe you've never seen a person that is afraid of public humiliation. Calling people liers, cheaters, conspiring to rig the game, will effect some peoles mental state. And the onlything unrealistic here, is the idea that this rule will do anything other then piss normal players off, that are trying to do things 'out of YOUR ordinary' since the whole thing is subjective. It's just pretty cheezy that I have to play one game in Detroit, and a different game in Ohio because there is a different judge. Maybe we should just ban all the cross table cards from tournaments, then we wouldn't have to worry about people doing things like the horrable things you experience in your group. Or special rules that you can only ever attack your prey with anything...since you are already dictating stragety this probably wouldn't matter too much.

In message <7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >Yeah, think of all the time that will be wasted justifying your >actions. Just think people, if you give someone the ability to call >the judge every time they are getting an ass beating, then make >someone else explain it to a judge. You can do this anyway. A judge has the discretion to add extra time onto the end of the round as necessary to deal with such. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <87708033.01060...@posting.google.com>, Bobby_Doc <robert_...@hotmail.com> writes >I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: >"Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" At which point a judge can be called over, who would then have to rule on such. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: > > "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" > > Actually, that is one of the lamest excuses for cross-tables attacks there > is. If you really need to cycle cards, you should do it on your > prey/predator, not on one of your 'allies'. Most decks can cycle cards > whithout even harming them much (maneuver to long in combat, use bleed > modifiers on a 0-stealth bleed, etc). > Remember the judge will be able to see your hand, you better come up with a > better excuse than that to torporise your gran-prey's only minion if you > want to avoid a warning. Actually I think it is a good "excuse". The original post from Aron was about not have to reveal your strategies when doing this kind of action. This excuse is vague and I can say "Where is card/cars in my deck I need" and now the judge must say I am wrong, which of course is difficult. Some situation when it's true: 1. You are right, I don't have to torporize the opposing minion. I can for example play Bums, Torn, manouver, dodge -> everbody happy. And I cycled 4 cards. 2. Or I can beat the crap out of Smudge (instead of my preys Raven who can inflict some serious damage to my minion) with Bums, Torn, IG, Undead Strength -> don't hurt my grandprey SO much. But for me, I cycled 5 cards. And I maybe got that sideslip. Both these methods are good for ME. Sometimes even good for my grandprey who also have opportunity to cycle cards. And of course some underlying reasons for doing it (and I still will have the pleasure to cycle cards to get that Blood Doll or whatever card I wish to get): My prey is a Malkav S&B which my rush deck easy can take care of, but first I want her to soften up my grandprey. So I torporize my grandpreys only minon . The rules says I have to play to get so much VP as possible. Without reveal to much of my strategy, it is good to have some vague excuses like this.

On 7 Jun 2001 06:11:40 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >> >can't defend themselves against others social/mental bashing (accuse >> >someone of commiting a crime, they will confess just to be left alone) >> >> Hyperbole, and unrealistic -- won't happen. > >If you actually believe that something like this could never happen, >you are nuts. Maybe you've never seen a person that is afraid of >public humiliation. Calling people liers, cheaters, conspiring to rig >the game, will effect some peoles mental state. Such as yours? I haven't met anyone yet who plays V:TES who was so mentally unstable as to confess to just be left alone. Some people will get very UPSET, yes, but they will still try to defend themselves and their actions. >And the onlything unrealistic here, is the idea that this rule will do >anything other then piss normal players off, that are trying to do >things 'out of YOUR ordinary' since the whole thing is subjective. >It's just pretty cheezy that I have to play one game in Detroit, and a >different game in Ohio because there is a different judge. Frog sodomy. You know, if you just go about trying to WIN THE GAME, then you won't ever come under fire from this rule, will you? That's something nobody wants to face. "Normal players", as you put it, don't GO randomly Rushing cross-table, because they're... you guessed it... TRYING TO WIN THE GAME. Face it: All you're doing here is trying to justify your OWN desire to go on a munchkin-gamer power-trip. If you go after someone cross-table because he broke a deal with you last game, all you're demonstrating is that: a) You couldn't beat him the game before, and so... b) You're trying to 'punish' his smart play by screwing up his deck in THIS game, even though it won't help you win, showing that... c) You're a DAMNED immature sore loser. >Maybe we should just ban all the cross table cards from tournaments, >then we wouldn't have to worry about people doing things like the >horrable things you experience in your group. Or special rules that Actually, we don't EVER experience this sort of stuff in our group. We all play to win... and we don't have any munchkin-gamers around who are so distraught over being screwed over in one game that they HAVE to throw the next game to the winds just to get revenge. >you can only ever attack your prey with anything...since you are >already dictating stragety this probably wouldn't matter too much. What strategy? I see no strategy in a first-turn crosstable Rush, only power-tripping revenge. If you have a strategy, let's hear it! I named two: a bruise-and-vote deck that wants vote lock, and a gratuitous Amaranth for a skill card before votes hit the table. There are probably others. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Putting a Haunting on Cailean is sort of silly. He just removes it or ignores it. Putting a Derange on Cailean is much less silly, but he will just move it to someone else as his first action, probably to one of those weenies you mentioned who couldn't get rid of it. Not to mention that ANY deck that flips over 4 vampires on its first turn and a couple more after can probably be considered a threat. Everyone has seen weenie decks sweep before. It amazes me how easy it is to determine this sort of thing, and how more people don't realize that it's so easy. =/ [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to > >motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever > >someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody > >stupid? > > I, for one, would welcome a tournament system that actively discouraged > the spiteful and the bloody stupid from playing. Then the VEKN player ratings system should be improved to be able to clearly delineate good players from lucky ones, AND invitation-only tournaments should be held so that only those players that have proven their skill (even if their skill involves lying about using out-of-game considerations to help them win) can participate. Level the playing field - that's the ticket.

> >Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to > >motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever > >someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody > >stupid? > > No, but you should be able to *justify* your actions as non-collusive at > any given point. Even if your justification is bullsh*t? All this does is force judges to make a lot of subjective rulings to determine if a player is being honest, deceitful, spiteful, or just plain stupid. Is that going to work?

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<MGvTMMAB...@obeah.demon.co.uk>... > In message <3b1ea84f...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom > <jo...@algonet.se> writes > >Do we really want a tournament system where you can be forced to > >motivate your actions to the other players (or a judge) whenever > >someone considers them counterproductive, spiteful or just bloody > >stupid? > > No, but you should be able to *justify* your actions as non-collusive at > any given point. i think what Johan is worried about is being forced to give away your Cunning Plan. If i am doing in player x cross-table with my loopy and extremely annoying malky rush-deck i would quite like people to believe it's because i'm a total spam-head who thinks the card-game is the RPG. i certainly DON'T want to tell anyone that later in the game i am going to rearrange the table via an unblockable Kindred Restructure, which is going to pass because of the malkavian rider clause i had to get someone else at the table to explain the workings of for me. BTW i also sympathise with Aaron's need for REVENGE. i ALWAYS revenge myself on people who do the dirty on me in games. i do it by screwing them up two times for every one time they do it to me. i find the best and most productive way to do this is to break deals with them or make deals against them in subsequent games. Since normally i NEVER break deals this strategy works a treat. i commend it to Aaron - just punching someone's lights out is SOOO much less satisfying than making them grovel in dogshit while you steal their money and girlfriend and get them sacked from their job. Twice.

"Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:87708033.01060...@posting.google.com... > Actually I think it is a good "excuse". The original post from Aron It's not because it shouldn't be enough. You might not want to reveal your strategy to your fellow players, but you should justify your actions to the judge if requested. If you're sending your gran-prey's minions to torpor, you should have a better reason than simply 'I want to cycle cards', or risk taking a warning for disruptive behavior. > was about not have to reveal your strategies when doing this kind of > action. This excuse is vague and I can say "Where is card/cars in my > deck I need" and now the judge must say I am wrong, which of course is > difficult. If I were the judge I would have no problems in checking the players deck list to verify his claims. > Some situation when it's true: > 1. You are right, I don't have to torporize the opposing minion. > I can for example play Bums, Torn, manouver, dodge -> everbody happy. > And I cycled 4 cards. This should be OK, it doesn't harm anyone and acomplishes your objective nicely. This is what I meant by 'cycling cards without harming them much'. > 2. Or I can beat the crap out of Smudge (instead of my preys Raven who > can inflict some serious damage to my minion) with Bums, Torn, IG, > Undead Strength > -> don't hurt my grandprey SO much. But for me, I cycled 5 cards. And > I maybe got that sideslip. This one depends. If the gran-prey only has one more vampire and is down to 1 pool, and he warned you that taking this action was likely to oust him (and it's common enough to see such talk in this situations), I don't think it would be justifiable. But yes, generally this would be good enough too. > Both these methods are good for ME. Sometimes even good for my > grandprey who also have opportunity to cycle cards. > > And of course some underlying reasons for doing it (and I still will > have the pleasure to cycle cards to get that Blood Doll or whatever > card I wish to get): > My prey is a Malkav S&B which my rush deck easy can take care of, but > first I want her to soften up my grandprey. So I torporize my > grandpreys only minon . > > The rules says I have to play to get so much VP as possible. Without > reveal to much of my strategy, it is good to have some vague excuses > like this. To the players, sure. But expect the judges to ask for more than that. Flux

On 7 Jun 2001 06:02:11 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >> > I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: >> > "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" >> >> Actually, that is one of the lamest excuses for cross-tables attacks there >> is. If you really need to cycle cards, you should do it on your >> prey/predator, not on one of your 'allies'. Most decks can cycle cards >> whithout even harming them much (maneuver to long in combat, use bleed >> modifiers on a 0-stealth bleed, etc). >> Remember the judge will be able to see your hand, you better come up with a >> better excuse than that to torporise your gran-prey's only minion if you >> want to avoid a warning. > >Maybe he actually had a real bad hand. You just told another person If you have the cards in hand to let you rush cross-table, you have the cards in hand to rush your prey or predator. >to justify his actions in a card game. He did, it could be a valid >reason, now couldn't it? Now you are trying to debate if his reasons The judge can tell that from his hand. >are rational to you. If a player says he wants to cycle cards then >there isn't anything that says you have to cycle cards on your prey. >And if the purpose of an attack is not to kill a key minion then there >is no reason it should be compulsory to be directed at your prey. Now you're back to advocating that gamers should be allowed to act like small spoiled children whenever they want, and play as capriciously as they want. That's fine in your playgroup, but this is a tournament environment we're discussing; the stated goal is "win". If you come in with the intent of simply disrupting others and not winning, you can (and should) be removed from the tournament. Dispute that one? >Maybe noone has ever seen a deck like this, but it is possible that >your stragety is to attack cross table as a dub, to lul your prey into >thinking you aren't going to attack him. Cripple your grand prey, >then when your prey goes all out on him, take them both down. Imagine I've seen decks try this. They typically fail, as experienced players know that a predator who's attacking THEIR prey for them is just as likely to start attacking them at any point. I know if you started killing my prey's minions, I would expect you to be getting ready with a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure/Life Boon, and would be very careful to set up my oust for one HUGE action, so you couldn't jump in while my prey was low. Basically: You fool nobody by doing things like this, so why try? >Want to justify your stragety to a judge that has never seen a cross >table, dramatic upheval deck? Hell maybe that will just become the #1 >card for tournaments. Just put one in and you are safe to attack who >ever you want. >judge: "justify why you are attacking cross table" >me: "well I have a dramatic upheval..somewhere in this deck. (that is >only combat rush with no other vote cards.) >I hope to draw it next turn, then become his predator and gain VP." >Judges cannot disallow certain arguments just because they are easy. >How fair is that? Dude. That is the most pathetic, weak argument I've ever seen, and if I were judging, I'd slap it down out of hand AS pathetic and weak... and as an obvious ruse to attempt to circumvent the rules and justify your capricious, unwarranted play. If you want to try that shit, you'd better make sure you find a stupid judge. And there aren't as many as you'd hope... most experienced players will just laugh in your face if you wave this argument around. Again... YOU ARE FOOLING NOBODY. >How about this, as a general rule of thumb I never attack a brujah >with rush combat, MY STYLE.(don't tell me it's wrong) What if my prey >has out a brujah, and I decide to rush the guy cross table with my >nosferatu? What if your prey tells you he has no combat cards and you If you don't oust your prey, you'll never gain VPs. How is Rushing cross-table ever going to help you win? >will be able to walk over him? Or what if he shows you his hand to >make sure you know that he has no combat, and then uses the argument He can't show you his hand. >"he knows I have no combat cards, why is he still attacking cross >table?" >Now people have a way to make you attack them. Your arguments are getting more and more far-fetched by the second. Please return to the world we live in and base them from that? And you still haven't answered how simply TRYING TO WIN will ever run you afoul of this rule? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >Maybe noone has ever seen a deck like this, but it is possible that > >your stragety is to attack cross table as a dub, to lul your prey into > >thinking you aren't going to attack him. Cripple your grand prey, > >then when your prey goes all out on him, take them both down. Imagine > > I've seen decks try this. They typically fail, as experienced players > know that a predator who's attacking THEIR prey for them is just as > likely to start attacking them at any point. I know if you started > killing my prey's minions, I would expect you to be getting ready with > a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure/Life Boon, and would be very > careful to set up my oust for one HUGE action, so you couldn't jump in > while my prey was low. > > Basically: You fool nobody by doing things like this, so why try? Came to think of a question. If I oust my prey with a bleed + command of the beast (superior) and someone saves him witha Life Boon and gives him pool so my prey has say, 2 pool left. Can I then increase my bleed with a Conditioning and oust hi again with that same vampire?

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:33:42 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >Came to think of a question. If I oust my prey with a bleed + command of the >beast (superior) and someone saves him witha Life Boon and gives him pool >so my prey has say, 2 pool left. Can I then increase my bleed with a >Conditioning and oust hi again with that same vampire? I don't believe so - the action would have to successfully resolve before your prey burns any pool, and if your prey isn't burning pool, Life Boon can't be played. And once the action resolves, it's too late to play action modifiers. So you would have to use an additional bleed action to use the Conditioning. [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tr7vhtk367s5qc1et...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sounds fair enough, thanks.

Derek Ray wrote: > Face it: All you're doing here is trying to justify your OWN desire > to go on a munchkin-gamer power-trip. If you go after someone > cross-table because he broke a deal with you last game, all you're > demonstrating is that: > > a) You couldn't beat him the game before, and so... > b) You're trying to 'punish' his smart play by screwing up his deck in > THIS game, even though it won't help you win, showing that... > c) You're a DAMNED immature sore loser. Alright Derek, that's quite enough from you. Take it down a notch. For the record, I've been playing with Aaron for quite a while and I assure you that the situation he presented was entirely hypothetical. Aaron is not immature in the slightest and has always displayed excellent sportsmanship. He is simply trying to point out some inherent flaws in this new rule. While not doing that great a job of it, he is trying to communicate that just because you have a bizarre strategy that is deliberately confounding to other players, you should not have to justify it to the judge. I agree with Aaron that asking judges to enforce further subjective rules regarding the motivations of players in a multi-player environment with an endless number of strategies available is asking for heaps of trouble. The ones dealing with cheating and collusion are difficult enough to enforce as it is. I understand the reasoning behind the rule. I just don't think it's going to be implemented within the current framework of tournaments very well. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

> >> >can't defend themselves against others social/mental bashing (accuse > >> >someone of commiting a crime, they will confess just to be left alone) > >> > >> Hyperbole, and unrealistic -- won't happen. > > > >If you actually believe that something like this could never happen, > >you are nuts. Maybe you've never seen a person that is afraid of > >public humiliation. Calling people liers, cheaters, conspiring to rig > >the game, will effect some peoles mental state. > > Such as yours? I haven't met anyone yet who plays V:TES who was so > mentally unstable as to confess to just be left alone. Some people > will get very UPSET, yes, but they will still try to defend themselves > and their actions. How many people have you met? How many of them have you talked to the way you do on here? Personally, I can think of one player who doesn't play because people liked to pick on him for his actions. It happens. Everyone isn't like you and I, and don't have strong voices to hold their positions and can take as well as they can receive. I also know some that would just as soon punch your lights out for being accused of cheating. Then again it is Detroit. :) > Frog sodomy. You know, if you just go about trying to WIN THE GAME, > then you won't ever come under fire from this rule, will you? That's > something nobody wants to face. "Normal players", as you put it, > don't GO randomly Rushing cross-table, because they're... you guessed > it... TRYING TO WIN THE GAME. Uhm..last time I checked, I could win the game, and screw the guy on the other side of the table over. Maybe I'm just more talented then you? Why don't cross table attacking seem to be synomis with losing? Just because I ONLY bound bleeds cross table, doesn't mean that the rest of my dominate guys are just dicking around. They have bleed out my prey. > Face it: All you're doing here is trying to justify your OWN desire > to go on a munchkin-gamer power-trip. If you go after someone > cross-table because he broke a deal with you last game, all you're > demonstrating is that: > a) You couldn't beat him the game before, and so... > b) You're trying to 'punish' his smart play by screwing up his deck in > THIS game, even though it won't help you win, showing that... > c) You're a DAMNED immature sore loser. Smart players don't break deals, cause they know that later they will have to pay for it. Come on, why is it okay for you to break a deal this game, and for me to attack you cross table relentlessly. But then next game for everything to be okay? This game attack him, next game don't or you are kicked out? > >Maybe we should just ban all the cross table cards from tournaments, > >then we wouldn't have to worry about people doing things like the > >horrable things you experience in your group. Or special rules that > > Actually, we don't EVER experience this sort of stuff in our group. > We all play to win... and we don't have any munchkin-gamers around who > are so distraught over being screwed over in one game that they HAVE > to throw the next game to the winds just to get revenge. See here, we don't have to worry about it, because if someone were to take revenge on them, we aren't going to cry about it. In fact we never cry about anything here...except lame rules. Maybe if people would stop crying about the 'terrible guy in some game at the place way back when' and how they'd love to stick it to him with new rules to save them from {insert favorite term for someone you don't like} Wha wha wha, bunch of cry babies. If someone blasts you with something people cry. People are crying about the preview cards for Final Nights. The damn set isn't even out yet and people are crying. I want to play, not cry about someone who might not be justified to arson my hunting ground. > >you can only ever attack your prey with anything...since you are > >already dictating stragety this probably wouldn't matter too much. > > What strategy? I see no strategy in a first-turn crosstable Rush, > only power-tripping revenge. If you have a strategy, let's hear it! > I named two: a bruise-and-vote deck that wants vote lock, and a > gratuitous Amaranth for a skill card before votes hit the table. > There are probably others. How about this one: 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players, spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game. Players must not act on concerns outside the current game (attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). Looks like this doesn't cover cross table bums rush anyway, does it. Concerns out side of the game are listed as examples. I don't see any that say that a vampire cross table is somehow not a in game concern. Any single action will not gain you a victory point. So if, on the first turn I rush the guy cross table and torp his only guy...I am not ignoring the rules of gaining the most VP. If I want to attack him so what? It's not losing me any VP now is it? Is it making it easy for my prey to kill him, sure. But then again so does playing anarch revolt, cause that damages him too. And wait, brides could give him a pool. If my stragety is to rush the guy cross table, then life boon him so I can kill my predator, wow...who cares? It's up to you to stop me in game, not call the judge cause I'm beating your ass.

In message <c9adad36.01060...@posting.google.com>, David Anderson-Dávila <dmd...@yahoo.com> writes >> No, but you should be able to *justify* your actions as non-collusive at >> any given point. > >Even if your justification is bullsh*t? Bullshit is not a justification, so my comment stands. (BTW, when swearing, why does writing bullsh*t make it less of a problem? Everyone still knows what word you wrote.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <68f2e9f8.01060...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> writes >> No, but you should be able to *justify* your actions as non-collusive at >> any given point. > >i think what Johan is worried about is being forced to give away your >Cunning Plan. At which point you ask to speak to the judge in private. A judge has sufficient discretion to allow such. This becomes problematic in a 6 judge system, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Actually I think it is a good "excuse". The original post from Aron > was about not have to reveal your strategies when doing this kind of > action. This excuse is vague and I can say "Where is card/cars in my > deck I need" and now the judge must say I am wrong, which of course is > difficult. Thanks for 'reading' my post. Not that I have every gone cross table crazy, ask the Michigan guys. I am just trying to save the world from shitty rulings from whining/better spoken players. Contrary to popular thought, I don't carry grudges either. I play for fun, not to be bugged inventing reasons for my actions. "Noal, why are you Deranging me" "Because I want to burn your guy?" "Oh, okay, how about we pass an artarkus and gain a bunch of pool after he's dead?" "okay"

On 7 Jun 2001 10:13:45 -0700, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >Alright Derek, that's quite enough from you. Take it down a notch. If he's going to go off the deep end like that, I'm going to tell him off. He's been waving all kinds of outrageously corner-case situations around and making statements like "if your vampire is on the table EXPECT TO LOSE IT" (as you've seen). Nobody is trying to dictate strategy to anyone, or tell anyone how they can or can't play their deck -- and I personally don't care for people who go into hysterics at the sight of one simple rule. And some of those statements qualify as hysterics. The rule is there because if it ISN'T, collusion is about to hit the table in a big way. Look at the situations that have arisen in the qualifiers already. Why? Because FINALLY, we have some tournaments for which almost everyone involved has a desire to win. Previously, all you got for any tournament was a small prize, so it was a lot easier to be relaxed about some things and to shrug off stuff (and, in my case, to play silly fun decks). Now, though, it's starting to lean towards something more serious... and the more serious things get, the more people are likely to either cheat, collude, or otherwise attempt to play the tournament, as opposed to the game. This rule seems, to me, to be a pre-emptive strike against that sort of thing... almost a 'warning', if you will. (my references to "collusion" are NOT intended to have anything to do with the LA situation, by the way -- I'm just noting that for the first time, the prize for tournaments is a lot larger, so there's finally an *incentive* to do that sort of thing.) >For the record, I've been playing with Aaron for quite a while and I assure >you that the situation he presented was entirely hypothetical. Aaron is not >immature in the slightest and has always displayed excellent sportsmanship. He needs to calm down, then. Right now, he's coming across as something entirely different than what you're describing. >He is simply trying to point out some inherent flaws in this new rule. While >not doing that great a job of it, he is trying to communicate that just >because you have a bizarre strategy that is deliberately confounding to >other players, you should not have to justify it to the judge. Unfortunately, yes, you SHOULD. It will cost me a good chunk of money and time to get to and play in the Continental Championships. I will NOT have that money and time wasted because some momo couldn't handle losing in the first round and has decided to go on a vendetta, or because some OTHER momo who gets his jollies out of disrupting things brought a Kindred Spirits "crazy Malkavian!!" deck and didn't bother to put a Life Boon or Dramatic Upheaval in. So yes, you SHOULD have to justify it to the judge if you are taking bizarre, no-visible-intent-to-win actions. You shouldn't have to do it more than ONCE, though -- people who keep whining and just don't understand your strategy should be warned -themselves-. I wish it didn't need to be this way. But it does. With the whole CC thing, we've stepped one notch further towards "serious"... and some things need to be absolutely clear to make sure that everyone can keep having FUN, instead of having to constantly deal with typical-gamer actions. And I *know* you know some players like that. =) >I agree with Aaron that asking judges to enforce further subjective rules >regarding the motivations of players in a multi-player environment with >an endless number of strategies available is asking for heaps of trouble. It is, in fact, asking for it. However, I have faith that most players actually DO have motivation for their actions, and very few take actions that are so far out of the bounds of reasonable (ie. Aaron's example) that the entire table goes "huh?" The Dramatic Upheaval deck described in so many posts doesn't get played for a very good reason - even WITHOUT the rule, you have to put up with a lot of grief from the table as to what you're doing, and if you're coy, what always ends up happening is that they think for a second and say "Oh, probably going to try to play a Dramatic Upheaval." There went your surprise factor - now everyone will be looking for it. It's hard enough to get someone ALMOST ousted and then jump in behind them at the right time without losing the surprise factor as well... and you lose the surprise factor without even having to justify it to the judge. >The ones dealing with cheating and collusion are difficult enough to enforce >as it is. I understand the reasoning behind the rule. I just don't think >it's going to be implemented within the current framework of tournaments >very well. I really can't see the problem, myself. There's a visible difference between just playing dumb, and actively using out-of-game considerations such as "keep deck X out of finals" or "give player X, my friend, a chance to get into finals as well, since i'm already in". [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: > >"Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" > > At which point a judge can be called over, who would then have to rule > on such. > no one can be asked to explain his reasons or strategy or show his hand to playing judges. they might be your prey or predator next game. Stefan

In message <7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >I play for >fun, not to be bugged inventing reasons for my actions. > >"Noal, why are you Deranging me" >"Because I want to burn your guy?" >"Oh, okay, how about we pass an artarkus and gain a bunch of pool >after he's dead?" >"okay" Anyone can ask you those questions anyway. If, once you've justified your actions, a player continues bugging you or the judge, there is a case for unsportsmanlike sanctions against them if it gets bad. "Look, you're just *wrong*. Leave it and quit whining." [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >Maybe noone has ever seen a deck like this, but it is possible that > >your stragety is to attack cross table as a dub, to lul your prey into > >thinking you aren't going to attack him. Cripple your grand prey, > >then when your prey goes all out on him, take them both down. Imagine > > I've seen decks try this. They typically fail, as experienced players > know that a predator who's attacking THEIR prey for them is just as > likely to start attacking them at any point. I know if you started > killing my prey's minions, I would expect you to be getting ready with > a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure/Life Boon, and would be very > careful to set up my oust for one HUGE action, so you couldn't jump in > while my prey was low. but just because these decks tend to fail (which is not true by the way, maybe in atlanta it is who knows) does it allow a judge to call this action unfair allthough it is part of the players strategy. Derek if you as a judge consider an action stupid or senseless do you have the right to cancel the action or punish the player although he is doing it for reason? (even if you don´t understand it) it is not about trying to disturb other players, it is about the right to choose your own playing style. i play to win period. still due to my strange ways of playing i have been often accused of not playing for VP or teamplaying or whatever. nevertheless in the end most of the times i have more VP than the other players at my table. and please derek leave room for error maybe a player is just making a mistake. Stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

> The Dramatic Upheaval deck described in so many posts doesn't get > played for a very good reason - even WITHOUT the rule, you have to put > up with a lot of grief from the table as to what you're doing, and if > you're coy, what always ends up happening is that they think for a > second and say "Oh, probably going to try to play a Dramatic > Upheaval." There went your surprise factor - now everyone will be > looking for it. It's hard enough to get someone ALMOST ousted and > then jump in behind them at the right time without losing the surprise > factor as well... and you lose the surprise factor without even > having to justify it to the judge. > i play a kindred restructure deck that works very well in 2 tourney i made 23 out of 28 possible points (one of those tourneys beeing the austrian CC qualifier with 38 players) derek i just hope you don´t base your rulings on your jugdment considering the deck styles and playability of strategys Stefan

On 7 Jun 2001 10:40:12 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >> Such as yours? I haven't met anyone yet who plays V:TES who was so >> mentally unstable as to confess to just be left alone. Some people >> will get very UPSET, yes, but they will still try to defend themselves >> and their actions. > >How many people have you met? How many of them have you talked to the Quite a lot, actually. >way you do on here? Personally, I can think of one player who doesn't >play because people liked to pick on him for his actions. It happens. That's one (1). statistically insignificant. > Everyone isn't like you and I, and don't have strong voices to hold >their positions and can take as well as they can receive. I also know >some that would just as soon punch your lights out for being accused >of cheating. Then again it is Detroit. :) I think that's a Detroit metagame thing, myself. :) And that's what the judge is for, though -- the judge will NOT be a hostile questioner, and so it should be easy enough to explain to the judge, and then just ignore everyone else. (And the judge can tell everyone else to put a cork in it.) >> Frog sodomy. You know, if you just go about trying to WIN THE GAME, >> then you won't ever come under fire from this rule, will you? That's >> something nobody wants to face. "Normal players", as you put it, >> don't GO randomly Rushing cross-table, because they're... you guessed >> it... TRYING TO WIN THE GAME. > >Uhm..last time I checked, I could win the game, and screw the guy on >the other side of the table over. Maybe I'm just more talented then >you? Why don't cross table attacking seem to be synomis with losing? English? But to answer the question I THINK you've asked, if you tried that trick in Atlanta, you would soon discover that the predator of the guy you just hosed was about to oust him, and that you yourself were in pretty bad shape due to a wasted early-game action. Pissing around and destabilizing the table (which is what that action does) without definitely tipping it towards yourself (which it doesn't) is the best way we've EVER seen to lose a game totally, as someone ELSE cross-table winds up and sweeps. Just this past Monday, I swept a 4-player game. The entire sweep can be traced to a single first-turn action on the part of my grandpredator that was probably ill-advised... even though he was intercepting his prey, something which is theoretically good! But after that intercept and combat, the table had been destabilized, tipping in my favor... and while it took me a little time to capitalize on it (Gangrel Rush&Burn doesn't oust too quickly), I eventually was able to. The whole point is that YES, a single action CAN (and frequently DOES) affect the course of the entire game. >Just because I ONLY bound bleeds cross table, doesn't mean that the >rest of my dominate guys are just dicking around. They have bleed out >my prey. And the guy you're bouncing bleeds to is in a world of hurt. If you're trying to do the "i bounce to my grandprey and bleed my prey" scheme, I've seen THAT *consistently* explode gloriously before, as your prey suddenly discovers a bunch of his OWN Deflections, and blows through his prey on his own turn, wasting all your work. Reckless play won't cut it here... it'll just lose games. And deflecting to your grandprey is, in most situations, VERY reckless. Deflecting to your grandpredator can be good in some situations (such as your grandpredator being an intercept/combat deck), but in a number of situations it can actually hurt you, as your predator just adds stealth and removes some pressure from himself. >Smart players don't break deals, cause they know that later they will >have to pay for it. Come on, why is it okay for you to break a deal Rob Treasure keeps *almost* all of his deals. The key word here is "almost". You are, of course, welcome to question whether or not Rob Treasure is a smart player. And I, of course, will be welcome to point and laugh at you. >this game, and for me to attack you cross table relentlessly. But >then next game for everything to be okay? This game attack him, next >game don't or you are kicked out? Actually, it's pretty damn stupid for you to do it in the current game, too, but it doesn't go against the "in-game considerations" bit. It goes against common sense, since you've basically stopped trying to win, but it does pass on the "in-game considerations". Of course, there's the bit in section 5.2 that reads: "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." And THAT might trip you up. >or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. Players must >play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the >most victory points in the current game. Players must not act on >concerns outside the current game (attacking certain players on the >basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). > >Looks like this doesn't cover cross table bums rush anyway, does it. "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." Don't waste your time trying to rules-lawyer me, kid. I've been there, I've dealt with childish gamers plenty of times, and all you have to do is bitch-slap them around a little and say "BEING A DORK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE." They cry, they piss and moan, but they eventually get the picture or they quit playing the game. Either is acceptable, in my opinion. >Concerns out side of the game are listed as examples. I don't see any >that say that a vampire cross table is somehow not a in game concern. "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." >Any single action will not gain you a victory point. So if, on the >first turn I rush the guy cross table and torp his only guy...I am not >ignoring the rules of gaining the most VP. If I want to attack him so It doesn't help you gain any VP, and it gives plenty of chances for you to LOSE VP. >what? It's not losing me any VP now is it? Is it making it easy for >my prey to kill him, sure. But then again so does playing anarch >revolt, cause that damages him too. And wait, brides could give him a Anarch Revolt damages your prey, which helps you gain VP. >pool. If my stragety is to rush the guy cross table, then life boon >him so I can kill my predator, wow...who cares? It's up to you to *snort* It would, in fact, be a valid reason (as long as you had some Life Boons in your deck). It would be a stupid reason, and you should expect to not only lose rapidly, but to be bitched out by the other players at the table for it... but technically, it would be a valid reason. Why would you play such a deck? It's pretty obvious to any experienced player that it can't actually win, and it'll have a hard time doing anything other than totally disrupt the table... Well, that's a good question. The most obvious (actually, the ONLY) answer that occurs to me is "because you're the kind of person who has fun by ruining other people's fun. In other words, a typical powertrippy gamer. The only other reason would be that you're an inexperienced player, and don't KNOW that such a deck hasn't a prayer. >stop me in game, not call the judge cause I'm beating your ass. Noal: I'm sorry, but if you want me to take this kid seriously, you need to put a leash on him... he's been watching the WWF way too much or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:53:39 +0200, "Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: > >> The Dramatic Upheaval deck described in so many posts doesn't get >> played for a very good reason - even WITHOUT the rule, you have to put >> up with a lot of grief from the table as to what you're doing, and if >> you're coy, what always ends up happening is that they think for a >> second and say "Oh, probably going to try to play a Dramatic >> Upheaval." There went your surprise factor - now everyone will be >> looking for it. It's hard enough to get someone ALMOST ousted and >> then jump in behind them at the right time without losing the surprise >> factor as well... and you lose the surprise factor without even >> having to justify it to the judge. >> >i play a kindred restructure deck that works very well in 2 tourney i made >23 out of 28 possible points (one of those tourneys beeing the austrian CC >qualifier with 38 players) Is it an aggressive KR deck? Does it sit and call KRC after KRC on its predator, which it then hops directly behind? How -exactly- does it work? How does it deal with intercept on the critical KR? How does it deal with Delaying Tactics? How does it pass its votes? How does it deal with someone OUSTING the guy it's beating up? How does it deal with someone cross-table realizing that it's a KR deck, and coming over and killing its voters? There are SO many holes in a deck like that, it's not even funny. Most of them revolve around not having the element of surprise. Or is it a more passive version, that sits there and gains pool and looks innocuous until someone gets within range, then KRs the table and blows through two people? Such a version is FAR more viable than the aggressive cross-table attack deck that I was originally speaking of. Malkavians can do this sort of thing EXTREMELY well, in fact - toss out an Anarch Revolt or two to get a Malk Rider Clause on the table, get the Madness Network out, and sit and bloat with 2nd Trad/Obedience and MT/5th until someone is almost dead. At the end of the appropriate minion phase, use the MRC to pass the Kindred Restructure, tack on Forgotten Labyrinth to bypass intercept, and use good old Stealth/Bleed to oust the weakened player and possibly even more in front of him. [ quoted text not captured ]

>If you have the cards in hand to let you rush cross-table, you have >the cards in hand to rush your prey or predator. This isn't necessarily true. Predator/prey may be combat decks. All you might want to do is cycle some maneuvers, presses, weird stuff on someone who won't kick your ass. Course, person cross table probably shouldn't complain if you don't hurt them much. Anyway, this discussion is bogging down in specific scenarios. I believe this particular thread was started with someone wanting a simple answer. I further believe that the point he was trying to make is that there is no such thing because the interpretation of the rule is subjective. I don't see smooth tournaments where someone spends 15 minutes explaining to the judge that it is, in fact, in one's best interest to do something that looks stupid now because the player anticipates the game to progress in some way that would otherwise be at the player's disadvantage. What does the judge do when the judge doesn't agree with the player's interpretation of how the game is likely to progress? What is trying to be solved? Cheating? Only bad cheaters get caught. Bad cheaters tend to also be bad players. Stupid players? Well, who knows how stupid something is when players attempt to look ahead? Should Gomi have gotten a penalty for Kindred Restructuring to become my prey as that ousted him? I think so as that not only hurt him but potentially other players at the table as well. But, what good does it do to penalize him after the fact? Problem is that this rule is unenforceable in an even handed manner. Judges do not know how a game is or will be going as well as a player playing in the game. Competent rules breakers will likely be able to produce cause as to why they are doing something against the spirt of the game. Etc. All of this attempt to try and fix tournament play is nice in theory, but it is superficial. Penalties, themselves, tend to be a less effective means of producing good behavior. Instead, the incentives should be such that good behavior is rewarded or, at least, not penalized. One of the ways to do this is to make the rewards for winning tournaments relatively minor. For instance, spread the prizes out across the tournament. That encourages players to show up in the first place. The primary reward could be the satisfaction of winning rather than gobbling up all the cool stuff.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:46:07 +0200, "Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: >> I've seen decks try this. They typically fail, as experienced players >> know that a predator who's attacking THEIR prey for them is just as >> likely to start attacking them at any point. I know if you started >> killing my prey's minions, I would expect you to be getting ready with >> a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure/Life Boon, and would be very >> careful to set up my oust for one HUGE action, so you couldn't jump in >> while my prey was low. > >but just because these decks tend to fail (which is not true by the way, >maybe in atlanta it is who knows) does it allow a judge to call this action >unfair allthough it is part of the players strategy. Derek if you as a judge Nope. It's not the judge's place to determine whether a course of action is likely to succeed. It's merely his place to determine whether the player is: (a) *trying* to win (which he is) (b) acting on in-game considerations (which he is) At which point no warnings/penalties would be appropriate, IMO. Before anyone leaps out and comments, there's a WORLD of difference between sticking one Dramatic Upheaval in a Rush deck and trying to claim "um, i intend to draw and use it", and having an entire deck designed to hop around the table. The first is pretty easily spottable - if nothing else, by simply observing how you played your FIRST round... if you went cross-table THERE, or if you went after your prey/predator. Past behavior makes a good indicator. <new word?> [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010607151124...@ng-df1.aol.com... [clip] > What is trying to be solved? The examples in the tournament rules give a couple of the problems we are attempting to solve. 1) Players trying to keep someone out of the final who they don't want to face later 2) Players trying to reduce someone's V:EKN rating > Cheating? Only bad cheaters get caught. Bad > cheaters tend to also be bad players. Stupid players? Well, who knows how > stupid something is when players attempt to look ahead? Should Gomi have > gotten a penalty for Kindred Restructuring to become my prey as that ousted > him? I think so as that not only hurt him but potentially other players at the > table as well. But, what good does it do to penalize him after the fact? The rule is not to penalize stupid players. A poorly built Kindred Restructure deck won't be penalized. A stupid play won't get you in trouble. > Problem is that this rule is unenforceable in an even handed manner. Judges do > not know how a game is or will be going as well as a player playing in the > game. Judges will act when it is clear that the rules have been broken. Using a couple of examples from recent posts, judges will be able to act when someone says they are "roleplaying" malks or when they say "I don't like you." as justification for thier actions. > Competent rules breakers will likely be able to produce cause as to why > they are doing something against the spirt of the game. Etc. Yes. Just like competant deck markers will be able to get away with marking their deck. And competant colluders will usually be able to find a rationale for arranging to get their best friend get into the finals. So what? I don't see why we should make the behavior legal just because we won't catch everybody. > Penalties, themselves, tend to be a less effective means of > producing good behavior. Instead, the incentives should be such that good > behavior is rewarded or, at least, not penalized. Agreed. >One of the ways to do this > is to make the rewards for winning tournaments relatively minor. For instance, > spread the prizes out across the tournament. That encourages players to show > up in the first place. The primary reward could be the satisfaction of winning > rather than gobbling up all the cool stuff. The primary reward of winning (bragging rights) is sufficient for some people to cheat. On the other hand, actually having big prizes should motivate players to actually *win* themselves instead of playing just to roleplay Malkavians. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > (Aaron) wrote: > > >> >can't defend themselves against others social/mental bashing (accuse > >> >someone of commiting a crime, they will confess just to be left alone) > >> > >> Hyperbole, and unrealistic -- won't happen. > > > >If you actually believe that something like this could never happen, > >you are nuts. Maybe you've never seen a person that is afraid of > >public humiliation. Calling people liers, cheaters, conspiring to rig > >the game, will effect some peoles mental state. > > Such as yours? I haven't met anyone yet who plays V:TES who was so > mentally unstable as to confess to just be left alone. Some people > will get very UPSET, yes, but they will still try to defend themselves > and their actions. Incorrect. There are at least two people in my play group who would rather quit a game than have an extended argument about it (it's bizarre to me as I am an overly competitive person, but I don't deign to challenge their mental faculties for it). I've also seen many experiences where cross table actions occurred that were very difficult to fathom at the time (refusing to rush a thamaturgy deck because I have to freak, refusing to rush a presence because I want to press or add. strike to move cards). There are these and other reasons that are only clear once I admit the weaknesses of my deck to the entire table, or allow the table to infer them by a judge who would give me the nod after I tell him. Or if they fail to infer the weakness, they infer a master plan, a conspiracy I must have outlined to the judge which brings the rest of the table across at me. Then there are the cross table actions I've taken to be petty that have actually won me the game. I've punished my grand-prey so badly that he could not possibly survive my prey, then swept them both out when my prey over extended and missed the oust (tapping out all of my grand-prey's wakes, intercept, and harmful strikes). And of course the cross table actions I've taken to balance a table that have gotten me killed. I've taken out one of my grand-predator's minions when it was obvious my predator was going down and I'd have to deal with his 5 guys, only to see each subsequent player take down another one, until my grand-predator had one minion, and my predator was free to recover and kill the table, starting with me. When it all comes down, I figure bad players, cross table attackers, and all the rest are just part of the game, much like the chances of what kind of deck your prey and predator will be playing. I shouldn't be allowed to summon a judge to complain that I am surrounded by combat decks, and I shouldn't be allowed to summon a judge because that Methuselah is being mean to me and I don't know why. I understand that high level competitors want a stable predictable environment to help their chances in a tournament, but that's not a feature of Jyhad, and trying to make it be could badly damage the game. It reminds me a little of those idiots at WotC who insist on calling their game a sport. But even they weren't optimistic enough to put forth a rule requiring that their competitors disregard their chances of winning the tournament during the current match (notice the intentional draw rule). - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > (Noal McDonald) wrote: > > >Alright Derek, that's quite enough from you. Take it down a notch. > > If he's going to go off the deep end like that, I'm going to tell him > off. ... > Now, though, it's starting to lean > towards something more serious... and the more serious things get, the > more people are likely to either cheat, collude, or ... ... or insult other posters? - Jason Bell

On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:02:32 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> Now, though, it's starting to lean >> towards something more serious... and the more serious things get, the >> more people are likely to either cheat, collude, or ... > >... or insult other posters? (shrug) I did that before things were serious. Why stop now? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:57:37 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> Such as yours? I haven't met anyone yet who plays V:TES who was so >> mentally unstable as to confess to just be left alone. Some people >> will get very UPSET, yes, but they will still try to defend themselves >> and their actions. > >There are at least two people in my >play group who would rather quit a game than have an >extended argument about it (it's bizarre to me as I am an overly >competitive person, but I don't deign to challenge their mental >faculties for it). (shrug) Simply put, even you admit that it's bizarre. I can't do anything about someone who refuses to defend themselves. >I've also seen many experiences where cross table actions >occurred that were very difficult to fathom at the time >(refusing to rush a thamaturgy deck because I have to freak, >refusing to rush a presence because I want to press or add. >strike to move cards). I'm assuming you mean "prevent" instead of "freak", as THA doesn't have anything unusual that'll stop Freak Drive. Both of your "difficult to fathom" actions would become clear as soon as combat was over. What's the problem here? If you're intending to Rush someone to burn through a bunch of cards, it'll be obvious. If you're intending to Rush someone in order to kill them, THAT'LL be obvious too. And what's stopping you from telling the guy you're Rushing "Relax, i'm just going to move a bunch of cards"? Nobody else can block anyway without Eagle's Sight... >There are these and other reasons that are only clear >once I admit the weaknesses of my deck to the entire table, ...or until you finish combat, by your above examples. If you successfully move a bunch of cards, you've removed your weakness. >or allow the table to infer them by a judge who would give me >the nod after I tell him. Or if they fail to infer the weakness, >they infer a master plan, a conspiracy I must have outlined to >the judge which brings the rest of the table across at me. And without a judge, they would be looking at you strangely, and assume either: (a) you were taking a totally random action, and should be ousted immediately for safety (b) you have a master plan, and should be ousted immediately for safety (c) you are a brand new, inexperienced player, and should be ousted immediately, since you're a free VP Notice how anything you do in this case leads to you becoming a target? If you're going to do something unusual, people are going to notice and change their plans accordingly. What ISN'T going to happen in the above scenario is: (d) everyone assumes you're just weird and ignores you which is what everyone posting on this thread seems to be hoping for. I don't get it. People don't do ANYTHING without a reason. Sometimes it's a dumb reason, but it's always a reason. The trick is to figure out that reason. >Then there are the cross table actions I've taken to be >petty that have actually won me the game. I've punished >my grand-prey so badly that he could not possibly survive >my prey, then swept them both out when my prey over >extended and missed the oust (tapping out all of my >grand-prey's wakes, intercept, and harmful strikes). That would be called "luck, after careless play." >And of course the cross table actions I've taken to >balance a table that have gotten me killed. >I've taken out one of my grand-predator's minions >when it was obvious my predator was going down >and I'd have to deal with his 5 guys, only to see >each subsequent player take down another one, >until my grand-predator had one minion, and >my predator was free to recover and kill >the table, starting with me. (shrug) Bad luck happens. Your poor grandpredator had the bad timing to be a target, and everyone decided "ok, let's make sure he doesn't gain the VP he's obviously about to." Which is an in-game consideration, and is still a "gain the most VPs" consideration, since if someone starts gaining VPs, often they are difficult to stop. It's much different from a random Rush on a player's first minion. >When it all comes down, I figure bad players, cross table >attackers, and all the rest are just part of the game, >much like the chances of what kind of deck your prey >and predator will be playing. I shouldn't be allowed to >summon a judge to complain that I am surrounded by >combat decks, and I shouldn't be allowed to summon >a judge because that Methuselah is being mean to me >and I don't know why. Until the collusion starts to happen, and you realize that you're getting the hell beaten out of you because someone has friends who are willing to help him not see you in the finals. Without the rules about in-game considerations, someone is perfectly free to TELL YOU that's why you're being clocked - because his deck is already in the finals, and he doesn't want yours there. As Robert said in another post.. just because we can't make it perfect doesn't mean we can't stop SOME of it. >I understand that high level competitors want a >stable predictable environment to help their >chances in a tournament, but that's not a feature >of Jyhad, and trying to make it be could badly >damage the game. Hardly. Everyone is making noise and quibbling about something that really doesn't come up that much, and WON'T come up that much if people would just go ahead and play the game, instead of screwing around with the tournament itself. People who try to nit-pick and scream about every little thing can get beaten down by the judge, as they deserve. >It reminds me a little of those idiots >at WotC who insist on calling their game a sport. OK, that -is- a bit pathetic. >But even they weren't optimistic enough to put forth >a rule requiring that their competitors disregard >their chances of winning the tournament during >the current match (notice the intentional draw rule). A two-player game has a totally different dynamic than a multiplayer game. What works for That Game wouldn't work for V:TES, and vice versa. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > He is simply trying to point out some inherent flaws in this new rule. While These same flaws were there before (in the old rule) - you couldn't act on "out-of-tournament" considerations (e.g., you couldn't sack someone's position just because she had a higher rating than you). Whatever problems are present for the judge, they aren't new with this rule. If it was implemented before, it can be implemented now. If not, then there's still no harm done (except that everyone's imaginations have gotten stirred up, of course). -- 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/

Jason Bell wrote: > It reminds me a little of those idiots > at WotC who insist on calling their game a sport. > But even they weren't optimistic enough to put forth > a rule requiring that their competitors disregard > their chances of winning the tournament during > the current match (notice the intentional draw rule). 2-player games do not need sure a rule, nor can they benefit from such a rule. This is inherent. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You'd have to play Conditioning before the bleed resolves (and well-before the player is ousted, which means before the Life Boon is played). Aftre the bleed resolves, Conditioning is no longer playable. Kinda the same reason you have to play Claw of the Dead before the strike resolution phase. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ian Lee wrote: > Anyway, this discussion is bogging down in specific scenarios. I believe this > particular thread was started with someone wanting a simple answer. I further > believe that the point he was trying to make is that there is no such thing > because the interpretation of the rule is subjective. I don't see smooth Or, more likely, because the rule is such that it needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, we woldn't need judges. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes they can. That's why you have judges. If it turns out to be an actual problem, the solution is to remove the option of having playing judges. I don't think we're anywhere near to needing ot do that, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I guess it depends on what people think tournaments should be. Should they > be a day of fun where you play against people you wouldn't normally play > against, see different deck styles and basically have a good time or should > they be things that we take ever so seriously, where people have to > concentrate on winning and nothing else and any action that doesn't seem to > advance your position is treated as suspicious and requires an explanation > to the entire table? Yes!! That's exactly what it should be :) Acually, I think you'll find *most* tourney's find a nice middle ground as a natural progression, however there are ALWAYS going to be those extrems from time to time, so we must come up with a way to handle them. Mike

> Problem is that this rule is unenforceable in an even handed manner. Judges do > not know how a game is or will be going as well as a player playing in the > game. Competent rules breakers will likely be able to produce cause as to why > they are doing something against the spirt of the game. Etc. > > All of this attempt to try and fix tournament play is nice in theory, but it is > superficial. Penalties, themselves, tend to be a less effective means of > producing good behavior. Instead, the incentives should be such that good > behavior is rewarded or, at least, not penalized. One of the ways to do this > is to make the rewards for winning tournaments relatively minor. For instance, > spread the prizes out across the tournament. That encourages players to show > up in the first place. The primary reward could be the satisfaction of winning > rather than gobbling up all the cool stuff. Who needs prizes? Doesn't eveyone spend their life savings on cards? Actually I want to know the answer to your question. How is a judge going to figure out if rushing my grand prey is costing me a VP or not? It seems like at the beginning of the game nearly any action would be acceptable, since there is no immediate threat of gaining/losing any VP. Then as the game goes on your options would become limited because judges would be able to see the direct results of your actions.... If your action is not directly costing you a VP how can you say it isn't the best move? Hmm maybe we could just send Derek a copy of our decks in random order, and he can play tournaments for us. That way we know that we are always making the correct moves.

> >Uhm..last time I checked, I could win the game, and screw the guy on > >the other side of the table over. Maybe I'm just more talented then > >you? Why don't cross table attacking seem to be synomis with losing? > > English? > > But to answer the question I THINK you've asked, if you tried that > trick in Atlanta, you would soon discover that the predator of the guy > you just hosed was about to oust him, and that you yourself were in > pretty bad shape due to a wasted early-game action. Pissing around > and destabilizing the table (which is what that action does) without > definitely tipping it towards yourself (which it doesn't) is the best > way we've EVER seen to lose a game totally, as someone ELSE > cross-table winds up and sweeps. In Atlanta huh? So I guess an Atlanta judge would rule that this was a bad move and kick me out. Maybe a Detroit judge would think it was great, because guess what, I believe that there are several people here that are quite capable of screwing up folks cross table, and still effectivly ousting their preys. > Just this past Monday, I swept a 4-player game. The entire sweep can > be traced to a single first-turn action on the part of my > grandpredator that was probably ill-advised... even though he was > intercepting his prey, something which is theoretically good! But > after that intercept and combat, the table had been destabilized, > tipping in my favor... and while it took me a little time to > capitalize on it (Gangrel Rush&Burn doesn't oust too quickly), I > eventually was able to. Probably? Did you say probably? Does that mean you aren't sure you want to say that a stragety, that you say is normally good, can lose you the game? And if he would have done something a little less towards the stated rules of gaining the most VP? Maybe you wouldn't have swept? Could it be, there is no such thing as a best move since it's up to your own judgement who you want to kill? Well then what will you tell the judge when you continue to call...and call...and call him over for cheating? That once your friend did something kinda like that and it lost him the game? I am not corner casing anything here buddy. I am just remind folks that this rule will waste their time, and have people forced to take majority rules at tournaments. If you can give examples of times this rule would have helped you, feel free. But then again we will be talking statisticlly based on the number of games I have played, which will make everything you say unimportant. Basically, I have never seen anyone cheat outright, the way you guys say you have. Noone has ever said "damn you have a high VEKN rating, and I'd just love to make you lose some points" > Don't waste your time trying to rules-lawyer me, kid. I've been > there, I've dealt with childish gamers plenty of times, and all you > have to do is bitch-slap them around a little and say "BEING A DORK IS > NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE." They cry, they piss and moan, but they > eventually get the picture or they quit playing the game. > > Either is acceptable, in my opinion. Cause thats what we want, I forgot. We are trying to stop playing this game. Good thing we have you! > Why would you play such a deck? It's pretty obvious to any > experienced player that it can't actually win, and it'll have a hard > time doing anything other than totally disrupt the table... Well, > that's a good question. The most obvious (actually, the ONLY) answer > that occurs to me is "because you're the kind of person who has fun by > ruining other people's fun. In other words, a typical powertrippy > gamer. I do admit, I take great pride in ruining other peoples fun. > The only other reason would be that you're an inexperienced player, > and don't KNOW that such a deck hasn't a prayer. > > >stop me in game, not call the judge cause I'm beating your ass. > > Noal: I'm sorry, but if you want me to take this kid seriously, you > need to put a leash on him... he's been watching the WWF way too much > or something. Leash? Afraid someone might bite you? You talk big. But when it's game time can you back it up?

"Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> > I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: > "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" Brilliant. You just suck. If you have a so good combat hand, why not use it on your predator or prey instead of a guy cross table ? I heard an other argument during qualifiers at Gamex/strategicon : "i don't like you". The guy was deflecting all the bleeds he could to me, and i wasn't his prey : sure he didn't like me. I let him do, just to see the outcome of such a strange behavior. But i swear that next time i'll call a judge at the first deflec' and go on retaliation if he accepts the "cross tabler's" argument of that caliber. I'm *really* tired of people doing stupid things cross table hiding behind shitty arguments. Especially when i'm the target of their silly behaviour. To show them how stupid it is, i even give up on the game and do everything i can to oust them, so they can understand the feeling of being overwhelmed by 3 enemies : prey, predator, and cross table nemesis. Absolute retaliation is not a clever move in terms of VP gain, i know that, but it shows other people to not fuss with you again. Play your Fame, Havens and Golcondas on him, 5th tradition his prey's vamps, announce you'll eagle sight block every single action he attempts. Make the job easy for his predator and prey. When he's ousted, i can always try to come back in regular play. If i cannot, then nevermind : the "cross-tabler" still left the table *before* I did, i had my victory over him. It always worked, so i'll continue this way. But my only hope is one day i can stop doing so, cause this day everyone will eventually understand that going cross table without reason is just plain wrong and deserves the game. The prey-predator relationship is here for a purpose, ya know... reyda angry guy from Paris

((sorry if this message apears twice)) "Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote this.... > I have a standard argument in this situation that I always use: > "Have a real bad hand and need to recycle cards" Brilliant. You just suck, and a lot of people will agree with this statement. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > Don't waste your time trying to rules-lawyer me, kid. I've been > there, I've dealt with childish gamers plenty of times And I suppose you puff yourself up when that happens, with dismissive insults and generally bad behavior, much like what you've done here? > , and all you > have to do is b*tch-slap them around a little and say "BEING A DORK IS > NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE." I'm sorry, this is Jyhad, right? I thought being a dork was absolutely a requirement. I've got my membership card, with the Winter 1997 Arena League stamp, and Mana PIN in the very low 6 digits (you think that's bad, my housemate's is low 4 digits). And I put my years in rolling the 20-sided dice. Yeah baby. Live the L, be the L. > Noal: I'm sorry, but if you want me to take this kid seriously, you > need to put a leash on him... he's been watching the WWF way too much > or something. Your entire post was not much more than personal insults towards a poster who wants to criticize a rule he thinks can't be enforced justly. Several other people on this thread agree with that sentiment (I'm one of them). As for too much WWF, you're the one who has come out of his corner wielding the People's Elbow, asserting that a person with an opinion or experience different from your own must either be mentally unstable or a child whose opinions you can dismiss out of hand. That's garbage, dude. - Jason Bell

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Ian Lee wrote: > > Anyway, this discussion is bogging down in specific scenarios. I believe this > > particular thread was started with someone wanting a simple answer. I further > > believe that the point he was trying to make is that there is no such thing > > because the interpretation of the rule is subjective. I don't see smooth > > Or, more likely, because the rule is such that it needs to be applied on > a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, we woldn't need judges. This is the real problem, isn't it. If a rule must be applied on a case-by-case basis, none of us really know what the rule is going to be before the case shows up. But I do appreciate what the rule is trying to do, and I suppose I should withhold judgement until the first tournament is decided by someone sweeping a table where another player received a game warning for trying to prevent it. If that ever happens, hide the good china. Just ask yourself, how many games have you played where you spent half the game warning an incredulous table that a player was going to blow up, only to watch it happen? How many games have you been that player, assuring everyone that you're not so dangerous until you have the game in hand? - Jason Bell

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >The examples in the tournament rules give a couple of the problems we are >attempting to solve. >1) Players trying to keep someone out of the final who they don't want to >face later This is a problem? Sounds like good tactics to me. >2) Players trying to reduce someone's V:EKN rating I would have thought raising one's own would be more interesting. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>i think what Johan is worried about is being forced to give away your >>Cunning Plan. > >At which point you ask to speak to the judge in private. > >A judge has sufficient discretion to allow such. Does he also have time for it? Does the *game* have time for it? I'm under the impression that plenty of games get called on time. This does *not* help matters. Also, a judge should, IMO, judge the rules, not decide whether my deck can likely function in a way I describe. After all, I almost certainly know what my deck can do a *lot* better than the judge does. I can think of few things as annoying as a judge overruling me on a strategy I'm convinced would work. The judgement calls would be hell - say, for instance, that I go cross-table and say I *hope* to draw a Kindred Restructure? >This becomes problematic in a 6 judge system, however. Quite. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > (shrug) Simply put, even you admit that it's bizarre. > > I can't do anything about someone who refuses to defend themselves. I suppose you don't even have to respect them. > >I've also seen many experiences where cross table actions > >occurred that were very difficult to fathom at the time > >(refusing to rush a thamaturgy deck because I have to freak, > >refusing to rush a presence because I want to press or add. > >strike to move cards). > > I'm assuming you mean "prevent" instead of "freak", as THA doesn't > have anything unusual that'll stop Freak Drive. Stealing the blood I need to Freak generally qualifies. To say nothing of the blood I need to do anything afterwards besides hunt. With FOR, I can stop just about anything else an opposing minion does (that doesn't come out of left field) short of just stealing my blood from me. > > Both of your "difficult to fathom" actions would become clear as soon > as combat was over. What's the problem here? If you're intending to > Rush someone to burn through a bunch of cards, it'll be obvious. If > you're intending to Rush someone in order to kill them, THAT'LL be > obvious too. And what's stopping you from telling the guy you're > Rushing "Relax, i'm just going to move a bunch of cards"? Nobody else > can block anyway without Eagle's Sight... This is so not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a judge precluding the action before I start it, or force me to explain my strategy to the table or wander off for a surreptitious conversation with the judge. It very well could be that I don't have a good understanding about how bad collusion has been in tournament Jyhad. If it was as bad as all that, perhaps long talks with judges and a chilled atmosphere for full-table play are acceptable tradeoffs to force the colluders to prepare specious excuses. - Jason Bell

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > > It reminds me a little of those idiots > > at WotC who insist on calling their game a sport. > > But even they weren't optimistic enough to put forth > > a rule requiring that their competitors disregard > > their chances of winning the tournament during > > the current match (notice the intentional draw rule). > > 2-player games do not need sure a rule, nor can they > benefit from such a rule. This is inherent. Well, I agree with that to a point. That point is the point where I am the 9th ranked player, watching players 1-8 intentionally draw into the finals, where any one of them losing would put me in. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your work here on the newsgroup, your company's desire to resurrect a game that WotC basically killed, and your attempts to make a multi-player, non-team game workable in a tournament format. That you've almost done it is amazing enough, considering that I thought it impossible the first time I heard of a Jyhad tournament. One last request, though. Is there anything you could do to make the booster boxes cost $5 again? Grin. - Jason Bell

On 7 Jun 2001 19:37:48 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: (a bunch of WWF-style pointless amateur bullshit snipped) OK, kid, it looks like this. I just deleted my first response to your post because it was degenerating beyond the point this newsgroup needs. My points can be stated very simply: - One action CAN and often DOES affect the entire rest of the game. - Against a table full of strong players, random cross-table shit WILL, in fact, lose you the game, as other players take the brief advantage and run with it. - You are crying like a five-year old who just got spanked... because you aren't going to be able to be a random twit anymore. - If you absolutely MUST be a random twit in-game, the door is that way... don't let it hit you on the way out. We may not be loaded with players, but we don't need the ones who ruin it for everyone else by screwing around. - You need to quit watching pro wrestling. All that yapping you do just makes you look like a fool, especially the STUPID challenge about "can you back it up in-game"? What sort of twit newbie remark is that? Unless you haven't noticed, this game generally consists of four or five players. "duels" are not part of it. - Sit. Stay. Heel. Good dog! sheesh. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:14:04 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> Don't waste your time trying to rules-lawyer me, kid. I've been >> there, I've dealt with childish gamers plenty of times > >And I suppose you puff yourself up when that happens, >with dismissive insults and generally bad behavior, >much like what you've done here? No, I just quote them the appropriate section of the rules and tell them to PIPE DOWN, FOR GODSAKE. Some gamers will argue and nitpick forever. Aaron seems to be one of them - he didn't even remotely attempt to respond to the points I made in my post. If you'll notice, there is quite a bit of GAME discussion next to the dismissive insults. Perhaps you could focus on that instead? Is it possible that you haven't had to deal with the type of gamer in question, who will yammer and yammer and yammer about how he doesn't think some rule or other is fair because it interferes with how HE wants to play the game? That's what rules are for - so everyone plays the game the same way. If it doesn't agree with your world, SO WHAT? >> Noal: I'm sorry, but if you want me to take this kid seriously, you >> need to put a leash on him... he's been watching the WWF way too much >> or something. > >Your entire post was not much more than personal insults towards You didn't read it very well, did you? That's OK. Neither did he. >a poster who wants to criticize a rule he thinks can't be enforced >justly. Several other people on this thread agree with that It can certainly be enforced justly. He's just having hysterics over it, and resorting to ridiculous hyperbole to defend his position. >sentiment (I'm one of them). As for too much WWF, you're the one >who has come out of his corner wielding the People's Elbow, asserting >that a person with an opinion or experience different from your own >must either be mentally unstable or a child whose opinions >you can dismiss out of hand. That's nice. Have you actually bothered to -read- anything that was said? It's like pulling teeth around here sometimes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:00:12 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> (shrug) Simply put, even you admit that it's bizarre. >> >> I can't do anything about someone who refuses to defend themselves. > >I suppose you don't even have to respect them. You're right. I don't have to. And I probably won't. I cannot make excuses for every single person out there, nor will I attempt to. The line has to be drawn somewhere. >> I'm assuming you mean "prevent" instead of "freak", as THA doesn't >> have anything unusual that'll stop Freak Drive. > >Stealing the blood I need to Freak generally qualifies. And slapping you with unpreventable damage, environmental damage a la Carrion Crows, or just running you out of prevent cards doesn't? I don't see being TOO especially afraid of THA, myself. I'd be a lot more afraid of just plain combat in general. Every time you enter combat, you risk someone deciding they want to terminate your vampire. >To say nothing of the blood I need to do anything afterwards >besides hunt. With FOR, I can stop just about anything >else an opposing minion does (that doesn't come out of left >field) short of just stealing my blood from me. Trap/Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity is out of left field? FOR is going to have a hard time with this one. >> Both of your "difficult to fathom" actions would become clear as soon >> as combat was over. What's the problem here? If you're intending to >> Rush someone to burn through a bunch of cards, it'll be obvious. If >> you're intending to Rush someone in order to kill them, THAT'LL be >> obvious too. And what's stopping you from telling the guy you're >> Rushing "Relax, i'm just going to move a bunch of cards"? Nobody else >> can block anyway without Eagle's Sight... > >This is so not what I'm talking about. >I'm talking about a judge precluding the action before >I start it, or force me to explain my strategy to the table >or wander off for a surreptitious conversation with the >judge. Ok. Nowhere have I *ever* said that a judge would preclude the action before you start it, or that a judge would force you to explain your strategy to the table. Nowhere has anyone ELSE ever said it, either. As far as having a private conversation with the judge, that should take about 2 minutes, TOPS. He asks 'why are you doing that', you answer, CONVERSATION DONE. Either you have an answer or you don't. There shouldn't be any debate about it. And if people keep pestering you, then the judge can warn -THEM-, especially after you check out 'clean' the first time. I know I would be quite irritable if I was hauled over to a specific game repeatedly, and would politely (cough) ask that such things NOT keep happening. >It very well could be that I don't have a good understanding >about how bad collusion has been in tournament Jyhad. This is entirely possible. It also could be that you've never seen people deliberately trash someone to prevent their making the finals... because they were scared of that deck and knew it could beat them. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > those extremes from time to time, so we must come up with a way to > handle them. That's right! No extremes permitted: "JUDGE!!! These people are all having too much fun! No one seems to be working very hard at winning the tournament. Quick! Get some rules lawyers in here to show these people how quibble over minutia, fer God's sake!!!" Fred P.S. Sorry, couldn't resist.

<Your entire post was not much more than personal insults towards a poster who wants to criticize a rule he thinks can't be enforced justly. Several other people on this thread agree with that sentiment (I'm one of them). As for too much WWF, you're the one who has come out of his corner wielding the People's Elbow, asserting that a person with an opinion or experience different from your own must either be mentally unstable or a child whose opinions you can dismiss out of hand. That's garbage, dude. > No doubt, I think Derek should cool off and take a nice little canoe trip in the woods down there. REEEEEEEEEEEEE! Don't forget your banjo. Jeff Prince of Cleveland "Wake up sucker! We're thieves and we're bad guys, that's EXACTLY what we are!" Peter, "Dawn of the Dead"

With all the debates on this subject that we have seen here, I'm starting to think that 'Laissez Faire' judging may be the way to go. It is not always obvious what a Methuselah will gain by taking actions that seem illogical, but that does not mean there is not a logical reason. Having that Methuselah justify his/her intentions by explaining to a judge and wasting time when frankly... the proof will be in the pudding. Good players will win. Spiteful/Bad/Whatever players will most likely lose and get a bad reputation for themselves. Most of the time this will be the case... but if not, what can you realistically do about it? As someone who intends to try his hand at being a judge at an upcoming tournament, I'd like to think that I'd allow cross-table nonsense, regardless of its strategic value because I've seen too many games where nonsense in turn five ends up as a win in turn six. Who am I to judge? (Well... in this case, I *am* the judge heh). It is very possible that some players will spitefully attack a player who pissed them off or even collude together. However, I don't see how it is possible to regulate this without delving into territory in which the judge will be forced to make judgement calls based on knowing the intricacies of not just that game, but the games and tourneys that preceded it plus any player-player relationships that they are aware of that might influence the game. I went to Toronto with three other Detroit people and won the tournament. Could it not be alleged that I convinced them to lose so that I would make the finals? Such an accusation would not be unreasonable given the results (though I assure you this was not the case--the other Detroiters simply sucked ass--Hi Aaron!). How can I defend myself? How does a player address this if they feel this is the case? It seems an awfully messy area we are getting into frankly... and I think Aaron is right in questioning it. Is it reasonable to think that maybe it would be better to have *less* regulation along these lines? Instead of the rules as they currently are, instead say 'Do whatever you want or need to win as long as you follow the rules'? Collusion will still be looked down upon, as will spite. In fact, I suspect that having the *respect* of your peers is a *lot* more important in winning a tournament than the winning itself. If I win because I am a lying, cheating, spiteful bastard... well, Yay. Who's gonna play with me? These things regulate themselves somewhat. Also, maybe in the same way that lying and deal-breaking is encouraged within a given game, maybe a certain amount of out-of-game antics should also be encouraged in the tournament as an event? Bear with me... if I convinced the players that Aaron was a serious threat to make it to the finals and they all attacked him incessantly through the first three games... while I somehow made it to the finals because the focus was taken off me, all we really have is the typical dynamic of one game reflected in the tournament as a whole. As long as this is good-natured and everyone agrees that it is 'part of the game' who loses really? (Well... Aaron loses, but as I mentioned, he sucks ass). This might result in a lot *less* deals than you'd think because everyone would be so convinced that everyone else was manipulating them that they'd probably just stick to concentrating on their own situation. Players who win a match will be ever-so-humble in the next one because they *fear* the very backlash/spite that we have just made legal. Essentially, it would just take the 'Diplomacy' model a bit further... I've seen a lot of backstabbing and betrayal that ends up being a big laugh after the game is over and I suspect if this was extended to contain the entire tournament, the amount of handshaking/drinking afterwards would be no less sincere. Maybe I'm speaking out of my ass here... it's obvious the Detroit/Toronto scene is markedly different from the way other groups play and frankly, as things stand I have no problem with the VEKN rules. I predict certain problems will arise, but I respect the intention of those that wrote them. Cheers, WES

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<5W8e4UCN...@obeah.demon.co.uk>... > In message <68f2e9f8.01060...@posting.google.com>, legbiter > <legb...@my-deja.com> writes > >> No, but you should be able to *justify* your actions as non-collusive at > >> any given point. > > > >i think what Johan is worried about is being forced to give away your > >Cunning Plan. > > At which point you ask to speak to the judge in private. > > A judge has sufficient discretion to allow such. > > This becomes problematic in a 6 judge system, however. i'd argue it's a problem even in a one-judge system. There are times when it's part of my cunning plan to WANT people to think i am doing something random and stupid. If, after a brief private confab, the judge rules to the table that i am not being unsportspersonlike, then everybody KNOWS that i have got a cunning plan, and that increases the chances that someone is going to figure out what it is. i agree with the posters who hate random stupid spiteful cross-table shit. i agree with the posters who say you can't stop it. Part of growing up is realising that there are lots of bad things that happen which actually can't be changed without losing some of the good things.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: (a bunch of unnecessary insults snipped) Aaron is not an idiot, nor is he immature, nor is he a bad player... He's just not that great at arguing his points. I've never seen Aaron demonstrate the behaviour you are accusing him of... I think this is just a case of Usenet-virginity and less clarity of language than we're used to. No big deal, right? Shake hands, guys... it's just a fucking game. Cheers, WES

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:wZYT6.10386$ru2.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > This is so not what I'm talking about. > I'm talking about a judge precluding the action before > I start it, or force me to explain my strategy to the table > or wander off for a surreptitious conversation with the > judge. Unless it is a clear case (which will all agree, hardly ever happens), the judge can/should initially give out a caution to the acting player, and if his actions latter prove to be disruptive, then 'upgrade' it to a warning. > It very well could be that I don't have a good understanding > about how bad collusion has been in tournament Jyhad. > If it was as bad as all that, perhaps long talks with judges > and a chilled atmosphere for full-table play are acceptable > tradeoffs to force the colluders to prepare specious > excuses. This case was discussed in the portuguese mailing list a couple of months ago, it happened in a Oporto tournament, where I didn't participate: 4 player table, A pred B etc. A controls Amelia, uses special ability to rush the only <4 vampire on the table, controlled by C. C blocks with Kyle (!Ventrue Cardinal), since A claims he only wants to cycle some cards and won't harm him. A then puts down a Torn Signpost and strikes with Pushing the Limit. C prevents with Skin of Steel. A plays superior Blur, Kyle cannot prevent any further damage, takes 6. A then plays a press, claiming he still needs to cycle cards, and sends Kyle to torpor with another strike for 3. There was no Kindred Restructure to be played, nor any agreements to split the table (AFAIK). If B managed to oust C he'd qualify for the finals, and A and B are friends. How would you call it? Flux

In message <3b1fed43....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes > >Does the *game* have time for it? I'm under the impression that plenty >of games get called on time. You add time to the game. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

Derek Ray wrote: > Now you're back to advocating that gamers should be allowed to act > like small spoiled children whenever they want, and play as > capriciously as they want. That's fine in your playgroup, but this is > a tournament environment we're discussing; the stated goal is "win". > If you come in with the intent of simply disrupting others and not > winning, you can (and should) be removed from the tournament. Well from what I've read of this thread, I suppose that the idea that gamers act like spoiled children whenever they like is inherantly true. All you have to do is go back and re-read your posts. Raille

>> Noal McDonald wrote: >> He is simply trying to point out some inherent flaws in this new rule. > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > These same flaws were there before (in the old rule) - you couldn't act > on "out-of-tournament" considerations (e.g., you couldn't sack someone's > position just because she had a higher rating than you). > > Whatever problems are present for the judge, they aren't new with this rule. > > If it was implemented before, it can be implemented now. If not, then there's > still no harm done (except that everyone's imaginations have gotten stirred > up, of course). People getting stirred up over new rules? Oh...that _never_ happens. *grin* That aside, without meaning to, you've explained the the problem I'm trying to point out. The rule doesn't actually fix anything. It requires the judges to get involved with player motivations without giving them the tools to do it properly. At the very least, examples of inappropriate behavior (i.e., collusion, revenge, wacky malkavian antics) should be given. However, since players often (and should) mislead other players about their intentions when their strategy is non-obvious, judges shouldn't take statements made at the table as an admission of guilt. I understand what the rule is trying to accomplish. I even agree with its intended goal. I just think that it needs to be subtly reinforced with a change in how tournament mechanics are performed. I think that Andrew was right on target in this issue and that table wins determining finalists isn't a bad idea at all. The only way to determine if that method, or some variant, reduces collusion is to implement it in sanctioned tournaments in areas where that behavior has been noticed or suspected in the past. I've gotten reports (none of them from Michigan, thank god) of observations of suspicious behavior in the past and I'd be interested to see how the accused players perform after such a rule is implemented. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:48:28 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: >I've never seen Aaron demonstrate the behaviour you are accusing him of... I >think this is just a case of Usenet-virginity and less clarity of language >than we're used to. No big deal, right? Then he really shouldn't phrase his responses that way? He's coming across as though he routinely takes cross-table actions. =) And to say things like "hey, maybe i'm just good enough to screw up everyone at the table at once" is silly... and since he's from Detroit, he shouldn't be TOO surprised at the responses he gets. =) >Shake hands, guys... it's just a fucking game. *chuckle* You know perfectly well that everything here (USENET) stays here as far as I'm concerned. It's a computer, nothing more. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip wise words> Indeed. We all hate being the victims of stupid or collusive play. The question is whether we can legislate it out of the game or not. As you and David Davila and Aaron in your different ways have said, there's a real question about whether or not this is possible. i think it is not, and that in the attempt to legislate against it we may lose opportunities for good players to pull off cool tricks. Scott's typically laconic and lucid response makes it clear that he and Robert see this as an instrument whereby a judge can nobble obvious colluders. i respect the intention but still think the game is not worth the candle here. Let them collude and do their stupid cross-table shit. Who cares?

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:03:57 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: >With all the debates on this subject that we have seen here, I'm starting to >think that 'Laissez Faire' judging may be the way to go. Actually, I'm thinking that was the way the rule was intended. If there isn't a GOOD reason, just let it be. >It is not always obvious what a Methuselah will gain by taking actions that >seem illogical, but that does not mean there is not a logical reason. Having >that Methuselah justify his/her intentions by explaining to a judge and >wasting time when frankly... the proof will be in the pudding. For the most part, Methuselahs have reasons for their actions. We've ALL seen people do some crazy shit, and while it usually raises a small ruckus at the table itself, most people will let the first one go. It's when it turns into an extended pattern of attacks that it should maybe be looked at -- and by that point, the element of surprise is long gone anyway, so having a judge say "no, he knows what he's doing" is no biggie. >Good players will win. Spiteful/Bad/Whatever players will most likely lose >and get a bad reputation for themselves. ...except a bad reputation doesn't prevent you from entering tournaments anyway. >Most of the time this will be the case... but if not, what can you >realistically do about it? Stop the worst cases, and let the borderline stuff slide? >It is very possible that some players will spitefully attack a player who >pissed them off or even collude together. However, I don't see how it is >possible to regulate this without delving into territory in which the judge >will be forced to make judgement calls based on knowing the intricacies of >not just that game, but the games and tourneys that preceded it plus any >player-player relationships that they are aware of that might influence the >game. It should really be more or less obvious when the "worst case" scenarios are happening. A truly dedicated person can prepare in advance and obfuscate his intentions sufficiently... but those are -extremely- rare situations. >I went to Toronto with three other Detroit people and won the tournament. >Could it not be alleged that I convinced them to lose so that I would make >the finals? Such an accusation would not be unreasonable given the results I don't see why it -would- be reasonable. Unless one of the other Detroit players deliberately rolled over for you in the last round or something, I can't see where anyone would manage to spend more than 2 minutes on such an accusation. >(though I assure you this was not the case--the other Detroiters simply >sucked ass--Hi Aaron!). How can I defend myself? How does a player address >this if they feel this is the case? It seems an awfully messy area we are >getting into frankly... and I think Aaron is right in questioning it. Well, I could say that if you had a pattern of consistently making 3-2 table-split deals with the other Detroit players, then I might be inclined to take a look at just how these splits were arrived at, and why. As far as defending yourself; good old-fashioned "having a reason for everything you did" usually works. I just don't see there being any real problem here, sorry... someone who persists in making fruitless accusations will carry less and less weight with them as time goes on, until finally he's just like a breeze.. you know he's there, but you just don't notice him. Again, it's likely to be obvious. It kind of HAS to be. >Is it reasonable to think that maybe it would be better to have *less* >regulation along these lines? Instead of the rules as they currently are, >instead say 'Do whatever you want or need to win as long as you follow the >rules'? Collusion will still be looked down upon, as will spite. In fact, I Ack, no. That just turns it into a 'good ole boy' network, where who you know is more important than how you play. >suspect that having the *respect* of your peers is a *lot* more important in >winning a tournament than the winning itself. If I win because I am a lying, >cheating, spiteful bastard... well, Yay. Who's gonna play with me? These >things regulate themselves somewhat. I've gotta beg to differ here. For most of the people we're worried about, the respect of their peers is totally irrelevant to them. It's all about the winning, about being "BETTER" than someone else. And sometimes, it's about the prizes too. As far as who'll play with you? Well, you don't get a choice of who to play with in tournaments... all you hafta do is sign up, and presto, opponents appear. Regulating itself by having the DECENT players drop out of tournaments when the momos drove them off isn't what we want to have happen at all. >This might result in a lot *less* deals than you'd think because everyone >would be so convinced that everyone else was manipulating them that they'd >probably just stick to concentrating on their own situation. Players who win >a match will be ever-so-humble in the next one because they *fear* the very >backlash/spite that we have just made legal. Essentially, it would just take >the 'Diplomacy' model a bit further... I've seen a lot of backstabbing and >betrayal that ends up being a big laugh after the game is over and I suspect >if this was extended to contain the entire tournament, the amount of >handshaking/drinking afterwards would be no less sincere. Except that this is V:TES, not Diplomacy. As someone mentioned in a similar thread on rec.games.board recently, if I wanted to play Diplomacy, I would. The further we swing the tournaments away from V:TES, the fewer attendees we'll have. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:53:15 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >All you have to do is go back and re-read your posts. Pot, kettle, black? Hint: I don't care =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:9fq10...@enews3.newsguy.com... > With all the debates on this subject that we have seen here, I'm starting to > think that 'Laissez Faire' judging may be the way to go. > > It is not always obvious what a Methuselah will gain by taking actions that > seem illogical, but that does not mean there is not a logical reason. Having > that Methuselah justify his/her intentions by explaining to a judge and > wasting time when frankly... the proof will be in the pudding. > > Good players will win. Spiteful/Bad/Whatever players will most likely lose > and get a bad reputation for themselves. > > Most of the time this will be the case... but if not, what can you > realistically do about it? > > As someone who intends to try his hand at being a judge at an upcoming > tournament, I'd like to think that I'd allow cross-table nonsense, > regardless of its strategic value because I've seen too many games where > nonsense in turn five ends up as a win in turn six. Who am I to judge? > (Well... in this case, I *am* the judge heh). In some casual conversations with my playgroup I've already said as much. Anyone at the next tournament I judge who intends to call me to their table over a cross-table action will almost certainly be ignored upon my arrival. I probably won't even bother to look at thier cards or ask them what their reason is. I may ask them if their reason for the action is based on their desire to win the current game. If the player answers "yes" then I'm outta there and the other players better just shut their pie holes. That is, unless the player verbalized thier motivation and it was revenge, roleplaying malks, etc. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message [SNIP] > As far as having a private conversation with the judge, that should > take about 2 minutes, TOPS. He asks 'why are you doing that', you > answer, CONVERSATION DONE. Either you have an answer or you don't. > There shouldn't be any debate about it. And if people keep pestering > you, then the judge can warn -THEM-, especially after you check out > 'clean' the first time. [SNIP] > -- Derek > Thug of Atlanta My concern is that what happens when the judge isn't neutral? I mean the part of the argument is that with the tournaments becoming bigger deals, the players are more likely to get dirty. Nothing keeps the judges clean. Not to imply that I know of a bent judge, or that I've seen it happen, but the potential exists. I mean I'm pretty friendly with the Prince of my city, say he's the judge, I have an unfair advantage over say Derek, who's an outsider trying to qualify. (Okay, not that there would be a qualifier in pissant Oklahoma, but still). The other concern that is stuck in my mind is what if the judge doesn't agree that your tactic is valid. Maybe he doesn't understand the concept you're working on, maybe he just doesn't care. Maybe maybe maybe. I mean I may be the best player in the world, have the best deck in the world, but if for some reason I stutter or smell bad and the judge doesn't want to deal with me, the it's penalty city for me. I know these aren't major concerns, I mean heck, the players might play rough, and lord knows we can't have that. Lee Who's Laughing Now?

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:30:48 +0100, "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: >"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message >news:wZYT6.10386$ru2.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... >> It very well could be that I don't have a good understanding >> about how bad collusion has been in tournament Jyhad. >> If it was as bad as all that, perhaps long talks with judges >> and a chilled atmosphere for full-table play are acceptable >> tradeoffs to force the colluders to prepare specious >> excuses. > >This case was discussed in the portuguese mailing list a couple of months >ago, it happened in a Oporto tournament, where I didn't participate: > >4 player table, A pred B etc. >A controls Amelia, uses special ability to rush the only <4 vampire on the >table, controlled by C. this is an important point. A <4 vampire is generally disposable (especially compared to Kyle Strathcona), so using Amelia's ability to cycle cards in this way, even if you kill the poor 3-cap, is basically a fairly safe action - you aren't likely to hand anyone a VP for it. >C blocks with Kyle (!Ventrue Cardinal), since A claims he only wants to >cycle some cards and won't harm him. I assume C blocked with Kyle so as to be able to play his Skin of Steel, letting A cycle even more cards without harming him? Did anyone think to ask at the time? =) >A then puts down a Torn Signpost and strikes with Pushing the Limit. C >prevents with Skin of Steel. This is going according to plan so far. A has moved a couple cards, and C is unharmed. >A plays superior Blur, Kyle cannot prevent any further damage, takes 6. >A then plays a press, claiming he still needs to cycle cards, and sends Kyle >to torpor with another strike for 3. This is where the plan breaks down. I would have asked A on the SPOT why he did it. Knocking down a full-blood, 9-cap Cardinal from *anyone's* deck is going to put a major wrench in the way their deck operates, even if B -doesn't- immediately diablerize Kyle before C gets a chance to rescue. (which would be my first instinct if I were B - sacrifice a weenie if necessary). From the descriptions, the cards played were Torn Signpost, PtL, Blur, and a "press" card, which is almost certainly Flash. They could just have easily gone in the order: Torn Signpost, Flash (to long), PtL, Blur -- and done absolutely no damage to even a 3-cap vampire. So it seems obvious that A seized an opportunity to deliberately kill Kyle, and was lying when he said he didn't intend to harm C. >There was no Kindred Restructure to be played, nor any agreements to split >the table (AFAIK). If B managed to oust C he'd qualify for the finals, and A >and B are friends. > >How would you call it? How I'd call it would have to depend on how the people involved answered the questions/explained the situation... And not just what they said, either, but how they said it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> OK, kid, it looks like this. I just deleted my first response to your > post because it was degenerating beyond the point this newsgroup > needs. Very kind, thanks. :) > My points can be stated very simply: > > - One action CAN and often DOES affect the entire rest of the game. Unless you can, without a doubt, predict the outcome each action will have on the entire game, the other 3-4 players, and your VP rating for this game only, how are you going to make a rule against this? > - Against a table full of strong players, random cross-table shit > WILL, in fact, lose you the game, as other players take the brief > advantage and run with it. Facts are proven, without a doubt, with evidence. There is no proof that doing something cross table will lose, or win me any more VP. There is only the result, that can only be figured out afterwards. And that is still subject to what the person believed at the time. > - You are crying like a five-year old who just got spanked... because > you aren't going to be able to be a random twit anymore. > - If you absolutely MUST be a random twit in-game, the door is that > way... don't let it hit you on the way out. We may not be loaded with > players, but we don't need the ones who ruin it for everyone else by > screwing around. > > - You need to quit watching pro wrestling. All that yapping you do > just makes you look like a fool, especially the STUPID challenge about > "can you back it up in-game"? What sort of twit newbie remark is > that? Unless you haven't noticed, this game generally consists of > four or five players. "duels" are not part of it. I am just stating, that I can back up my arguments in game. I can, and have been able to effectivly cross table, and still out my prey. I have had decks/stragetys that relied on confusing the other plays by cross table actions that, at the time, they could not understand. Your arguments seem to be from your over active imagination. Everything I say has happened, or could happen, you simply pass off as impossible. Can you say you have never seen a cross table action that you didn't understand when it happened, but in retrospect makes perfect sense? >No, I just quote them the appropriate section of the rules and tell >them to PIPE DOWN, FOR GODSAKE. Some gamers will argue and nitpick >forever. Aaron seems to be one of them - he didn't even remotely >attempt to respond to the points I made in my post. If you'll notice, >there is quite a bit of GAME discussion next to the dismissive >insults. Perhaps you could focus on that instead? It is hard to locate the game dissussion within the insults, please mark they so I can skip over them, I am not interested. I do not want to miss any constructive input that may be hiding somewhere in your posts? >Is it possible that you haven't had to deal with the type of gamer in >question, who will yammer and yammer and yammer about how he doesn't >think some rule or other is fair because it interferes with how HE >wants to play the game? That's what rules are for - so everyone plays >the game the same way. If it doesn't agree with your world, SO WHAT? If you understand the entire purpose of my post, it is not to encourage whining. In fact I cannot stand it. I cannot stand to have any more crying in games then there already is. I am trying to prevent games from taking forever, being extended beyond reasonable lengths, excessive arguing with judges, players feeling alienated by playing strageties other then bleed left. When it's game time, I want to play, period.

On 8 Jun 2001 07:46:23 -0700, lf...@ionet.net (No One) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >[SNIP] >> As far as having a private conversation with the judge, that should >> take about 2 minutes, TOPS. He asks 'why are you doing that', you >> answer, CONVERSATION DONE. Either you have an answer or you don't. >> There shouldn't be any debate about it. And if people keep pestering >> you, then the judge can warn -THEM-, especially after you check out >> 'clean' the first time. >[SNIP] >> -- Derek >> Thug of Atlanta > >My concern is that what happens when the judge isn't neutral? I mean >the part of the argument is that with the tournaments becoming bigger >deals, the players are more likely to get dirty. Nothing keeps the >judges clean. Not to imply that I know of a bent judge, or that I've >seen it happen, but the potential exists. I mean I'm pretty friendly Quis ipsos custodes custodiat? Someone has to be trusted. In this case, it's going to have to be the judges. Yes, a biased judge will be a problem, but if someone truly believes that a judge acted in a biased manner, he CAN bounce it up the VEKN chain as necessary. He had better have a LOT of evidence, as opposed to "he ruled against meee!", but there IS recourse if a situation ever exists. I can say that at -every- tournament I've attended, I've never had a reason to believe that a judge was biased. I've been ruled in favor on and ruled against before, and each time I think the judge was making the best call he could... whether I agreed with him or not. >with the Prince of my city, say he's the judge, I have an unfair >advantage over say Derek, who's an outsider trying to qualify. (Okay, You only have an advantage if your Prince is biased. Todd (Atlanta's prince) has made rulings AGAINST me in tournaments before. =) >not that there would be a qualifier in pissant Oklahoma, but still). >The other concern that is stuck in my mind is what if the judge >doesn't agree that your tactic is valid. Maybe he doesn't understand (head shake) You're missing it, I think. It isn't if your tactic is valid... it's if you HAVE a tactic at all. While I would be highly suspicious of a POT Rush deck that included one Dramatic Upheaval in a 90-card library and used the reasoning "i hope to draw it and move behind him!", I would probably let it go at first, and wait and see if any pattern against a specific person, or in favor of a specific person (or a pattern of totally random action) became obvious. Don't get me wrong - I still maintain that one action can disrupt an entire game. But a judge is going to need more than one action to issue anything other than a verbal untracked caution. >the concept you're working on, maybe he just doesn't care. Maybe >maybe maybe. I mean I may be the best player in the world, have the Never give in to the what-ifs. You can drive yourself crazy with the what-ifs. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>Does the *game* have time for it? I'm under the impression that plenty >>of games get called on time. > >You add time to the game. I thought the time limit was there because... well, because the tournament didn't have time for more. This could mean holding up the finals, for instance. [ quoted text not captured ]

<...> > i'd argue it's a problem even in a one-judge system. There are times > when it's part of my cunning plan to WANT people to think i am doing > something random and stupid. If, after a brief private confab, the > judge rules to the table that i am not being unsportspersonlike, then > everybody KNOWS that i have got a cunning plan, and that increases the > chances that someone is going to figure out what it is. > <...> You can use: "wait and see" as a justification. Of course, after the Cunning Plan everything should be obvious and justifieable.

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b20ef58....@news.algonet.se... > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > >>Does the *game* have time for it? I'm under the impression that plenty > >>of games get called on time. > > > >You add time to the game. > > I thought the time limit was there because... well, because the > tournament didn't have time for more. This could mean holding up the > finals, for instance. The tournament rules make allowance for the judge adding time if the ruling takes excessively long. Yes, it could mean holding up the finals or the start of the next round. The judge is encouraged to use this sparingly. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > >With all the debates on this subject that we have seen here, I'm starting to > >think that 'Laissez Faire' judging may be the way to go. > > Actually, I'm thinking that was the way the rule was intended. If > there isn't a GOOD reason, just let it be. Possibly, but the mechanism being set up can be abused either way... > For the most part, Methuselahs have reasons for their actions. We've > ALL seen people do some crazy shit, and while it usually raises a > small ruckus at the table itself, most people will let the first one > go. It's when it turns into an extended pattern of attacks that it > should maybe be looked at -- and by that point, the element of > surprise is long gone anyway, so having a judge say "no, he knows what > he's doing" is no biggie. Yes... I've experienced 'crazy shit' too but ultimately the guilty parties were just newbies that were learning the game. This kind of thing seems to me to be endemic of many games. Chess, Risk, Diplomacy (I guess... never played it). Some players like to say screw it and go after somebody who pissed them off. And yeah it sucks if you're that guy but my suggestion is to *not* be that guy if at all possible. That takes diplomatic skills. Use 'em. The reason the newbies were focusing on me in local games was because I was a challenge to them. If you beat the guy who taught you how to play, that must say something. It does adversely affect the table dynamic but isn't that just something you have to deal with? A player who brings out a particularly strong deck is also going to affect the table dynamic. Most good players would see no problem trying to knock down that strong deck a bit to make things more balanced right? It seems that these things should level out most of the time... it did for us anyway. > >Good players will win. Spiteful/Bad/Whatever players will most likely lose > >and get a bad reputation for themselves. > > ...except a bad reputation doesn't prevent you from entering > tournaments anyway. Do we have players like this? I've never met any. Maybe my experience is too limited. > >Most of the time this will be the case... but if not, what can you > >realistically do about it? > > Stop the worst cases, and let the borderline stuff slide? Yeah naturally... but once you open up that Pandora's Box of judges making arbitrary calls based on what they think is reasonable... I dunno, it seems kind of like that old boy's network you mentioned. I know Noal has some funky decks that make no sense until you're suddenly ousted (well... other people than me are ousted :). If I was judging Noal in a tournament, couldn't I just presume that he has some funky plan cooked up? My knowledge of Noal's playing style would influence this decision whether consciously or not. Also, I think it is important that a new player learn for him or herself why they shouldn't attack cross-table. Eventually, a lack of VPs is a pretty good teacher I think. Again, maybe this is just my experience. Frankly, if a newbie starts rushing across the table, and obviously has no idea why he is doing so, I'd think most players would explain the dynamic but hardly want to see the guy penalized for it. Of course, I'm not sure it's that wise to let newbies play in tourneys anyway. I mean, stopping play to explain how things work is not fair to the other players. Is this discouraged? The two tournaments I've attended didn't have any novices. > It should really be more or less obvious when the "worst case" > scenarios are happening. A truly dedicated person can prepare in > advance and obfuscate his intentions sufficiently... but those are > -extremely- rare situations. Honestly, does this shit happen often enough to warrant a rule like this though? I'm surprised. I like to think that most if not all the players I've played with are honest. When mistakes happen they are generally unintentional, ignorant of new card changes or based on (understandable) misunderstandings. Have you witnessed many intentional cheats or dishonourable plays? > >I went to Toronto with three other Detroit people and won the tournament. > >Could it not be alleged that I convinced them to lose so that I would make > >the finals? Such an accusation would not be unreasonable given the results > > I don't see why it -would- be reasonable. Unless one of the other > Detroit players deliberately rolled over for you in the last round or > something, I can't see where anyone would manage to spend more than 2 > minutes on such an accusation. No... just an example. I doubt anyone would think that. And that rumour about me taking steroids to prepare for a Jyhad game was a total exaggeration by my opponents to discredit me. > Well, I could say that if you had a pattern of consistently making 3-2 > table-split deals with the other Detroit players, then I might be > inclined to take a look at just how these splits were arrived at, and > why. Well... if the same players using the same decks found themselves in similar situations, why not? It might make sense in a smaller tournament. the one in Toronto only had ten players, in two games of five. The Detroit guys (two of them anyway) had seen my deck in action before we even played. It wouldn't have been inconceivable for them to use that information to their advantage... hard to say. Nothing like that *did* happen though... just trying to illustrate a point. Badly it seems. > As far as defending yourself; good old-fashioned "having a reason for > everything you did" usually works. I just don't see there being any > real problem here, sorry... someone who persists in making fruitless > accusations will carry less and less weight with them as time goes on, > until finally he's just like a breeze.. you know he's there, but you > just don't notice him. This will depend more on the judge (and the player requesting the judge). I can see annoying players who call the judge over every time somebody bleeds them will start looking like the Boy Who Cried Wolf and earn little sympathy. Players who do this will be less popular than players who cheat. > >Is it reasonable to think that maybe it would be better to have *less* > >regulation along these lines? Instead of the rules as they currently are, > >instead say 'Do whatever you want or need to win as long as you follow the > >rules'? Collusion will still be looked down upon, as will spite. In fact, I > > Ack, no. That just turns it into a 'good ole boy' network, where who > you know is more important than how you play. That could happen either way though can't it? Having a BIASED judge (of this type of behaviour) vs NO judge seems to be much more of the network you mean. I'm sure it won't be too long before 'favouritism' becomes an issue. > >suspect that having the *respect* of your peers is a *lot* more important in > >winning a tournament than the winning itself. If I win because I am a lying, > >cheating, spiteful bastard... well, Yay. Who's gonna play with me? These > >things regulate themselves somewhat. > > I've gotta beg to differ here. For most of the people we're worried > about, the respect of their peers is totally irrelevant to them. It's > all about the winning, about being "BETTER" than someone else. And > sometimes, it's about the prizes too. I'll plead lack of experience on this one. I like to win, but I'd rather not win if it meant the other players resented me or thought I had cheated. > >This might result in a lot *less* deals than you'd think because everyone > >would be so convinced that everyone else was manipulating them that they'd > >probably just stick to concentrating on their own situation. Players who win > >a match will be ever-so-humble in the next one because they *fear* the very > >backlash/spite that we have just made legal. Essentially, it would just take > >the 'Diplomacy' model a bit further... I've seen a lot of backstabbing and > >betrayal that ends up being a big laugh after the game is over and I suspect > >if this was extended to contain the entire tournament, the amount of > >handshaking/drinking afterwards would be no less sincere. > > Except that this is V:TES, not Diplomacy. As someone mentioned in a > similar thread on rec.games.board recently, if I wanted to play > Diplomacy, I would. The further we swing the tournaments away from > V:TES, the fewer attendees we'll have. Of course, but I'm just using Diplomacy as a metaphor--I've never even played it. Jyhad is Jyhad, sure... the Machiavellian aspect is something that people *love* about Jyhad, correct? So why not extend that for tournaments so that it encompasses the entire match... *not* just each individual game? I'm not so much talking about 'role-playing' here... though that may be something that attracts people as well. I think that Jyhad tournaments and their format should be whatever we define them to be. Whatever works. I *do* agree with the rule per se, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's enforcable in its current form and I hope it's not *necessary* to enforce. Frankly, I pity the poor judges who'll have to make snap judgement calls on such cases... not an easy task I'd imagine, especially given the amount of discussion one action takes up on a newsgroup. Maybe VEKN should set up an appeals court. Maybe Derek and I can play Prosecution and Defense. We could even make LSJ or Robert wear one of those ridiculous judge's wigs. The newsgroup could be the jury of peers. Sorry... getting a bit goofy, but my point is that this may be a bigger can of worms than you all realize. I hope it's not... meanwhile, I'll be happy to give it a try. Cheers, WES

On 8 Jun 2001 08:03:59 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >> My points can be stated very simply: >> >> - One action CAN and often DOES affect the entire rest of the game. > >Unless you can, without a doubt, predict the outcome each action will >have on the entire game, the other 3-4 players, and your VP rating for >this game only, how are you going to make a rule against this? You don't make a rule against cross-table actions. You make a rule against people colluding, or using out-of-game considerations for their actions, or trying to not win. Then when people decide to be crazy Malkavians, you smack them for it, and hopefully their actions haven't tipped the table over too badly in the meantime. >> - Against a table full of strong players, random cross-table shit >> WILL, in fact, lose you the game, as other players take the brief >> advantage and run with it. > >Facts are proven, without a doubt, with evidence. There is no proof >that doing something cross table will lose, or win me any more VP. >There is only the result, that can only be figured out afterwards. >And that is still subject to what the person believed at the time. *sigh* OK, you just missed the point AGAIN. You can't "prove" the future, and asking for proof is approaching things the wrong way. Let me try this one more time. I believe that I play in a group that consists of very good players. Empirical evidence backs this up somewhat, as when these same players travel to other cities, they seem to end up in the finals a lot. (Except for David Tatu and the LA crowd. Hi Tatu! =) In our experience playing locally, we have found that it is difficult enough to break down your prey's defenses WHILE defending against your predator, without wasting actions going cross-table randomly. We've seen very small advantages turn into table sweeps. We've seen that people with no pressure from their predator tend to do very well. We've seen that people's decks generally run on a very fine balance, and if you tip that balance over with cross-table actions, the entire table tends to swing that way and collapse in someone's favor. It is no accident that our games tend to last only 12 turns or so - we are a vicious bunch here. We make no "table split" deals -- we're all damned greedy and want all 4/5 VPs. From this, I can conclude that when the game is played at a high level, random cross-table actions are actually highly detrimental to your OWN position - you waste an action, and you end up helping out either your predator, prey, or both. If I kill my grandpredator's first vampire (5 player table), then I cause myself two main problems: My predator will have no pressure behind him, and will be all over me. I will have to defend a lot more. If he is a fast deck, I may die on the spot. My grandprey will have no obstacle to gaining his own VPs, and can rush forward rapidly. If he is a fast deck, I may have just handed him one VP. Since my own forward progress is slowed by having to defend against my predator more, my likely best-case scenario is that by the time I oust my prey by the skin of my teeth, my grandprey will have ousted both my grandpredator and predator and is an excellent position. This leaves me on the wrong end of a 2-1 split, and unless I happen to have a good "stopper" deck for my final opponent, the table is likely to fall 4-1. This leads me to believe that in general, destabilizing the table is NOT a good thing to do unless you can be certain of the results. Early on, you cannot be certain of the results, so destabilizing the table is just a dumb idea. This is why Anarch Revolt decks are so risky to play. If you drop 5 Anarch Revolts by turn 3, the table is completely destabilized in favor of whoever is playing the fast bleed deck. Since you don't know where the fast bleed deck is going to be sitting, you can't guarantee that you get your VPs - you may have just handed the table to someone else. >> - You need to quit watching pro wrestling. All that yapping you do >> just makes you look like a fool, especially the STUPID challenge about >> "can you back it up in-game"? What sort of twit newbie remark is >> that? Unless you haven't noticed, this game generally consists of >> four or five players. "duels" are not part of it. > >I am just stating, that I can back up my arguments in game. I can, >and have been able to effectivly cross table, and still out my prey. And that's a stupid statement to make. You may have done it in Detroit, but apparently you weren't able to do it in Toronto. Trying to brag about your own game and how good you yourself are is just a silly thing to do, since each game is highly dependent on the OTHER FOUR PLAYERS at the table. You're just asking to be shot down, and by the way... you just were. >I have had decks/stragetys that relied on confusing the other plays by >cross table actions that, at the time, they could not understand. Feel free to describe them. >Your arguments seem to be from your over active imagination. No, my arguments are from a hell of a lot of experience and time spent theorizing about, studying, and PLAYING this game. It's never been enough for ANY of us in this group to say "damn, i screwed up" - the question "why did I screw up?" gets thrown around tons, as well as "what could I have done better?" The intercept deck I played in the Atlanta qualifier was, to some degree, an experiment. Intercept isn't supposed to win tournaments. It isn't even supposed to do well. But that deck missed making the finals by half a VP, and finished in 6th place. I thought about it for a bit afterwards, trying to analyze whether i slipped with wrong play or wrong deck design. It's one thing to constantly play the "good" decks and be winning. It's another thing to play the "bad" decks and try to figure out ways to win with them anyway... you start to learn a lot about just WHY some decks are "bad", and WHY some plays just never quite work. >Everything I say has happened, or could happen, you simply pass off as >impossible. Can you say you have never seen a cross table action that >you didn't understand when it happened, but in retrospect makes >perfect sense? I don't pass it off as impossible, I pass it off as highly unlikely, or under odd/local circumstances. A deck that relies on confusing other players has an obvious weak spot; what happens if the other players aren't confused? Good players can assess actions very quickly. In general, if I see a competent player suddenly randomly Rush and torporize someone cross-table, I can assume that he has a good reason for doing so. Usually he'll follow up with something like a Grave Robbing, or the like, which matches up to that reason. >>there is quite a bit of GAME discussion next to the dismissive >>insults. Perhaps you could focus on that instead? > >It is hard to locate the game dissussion within the insults, please >mark they so I can skip over them, I am not interested. I do not want >to miss any constructive input that may be hiding somewhere in your >posts? Then read them. All of them. >>Is it possible that you haven't had to deal with the type of gamer in >>question, who will yammer and yammer and yammer about how he doesn't >>think some rule or other is fair because it interferes with how HE >>wants to play the game? That's what rules are for - so everyone >plays >>the game the same way. If it doesn't agree with your world, SO WHAT? > >If you understand the entire purpose of my post, it is not to >encourage whining. In fact I cannot stand it. I cannot stand to have >any more crying in games then there already is. I am trying to >prevent games from taking forever, being extended beyond reasonable >lengths, excessive arguing with judges, players feeling alienated by >playing strageties other then bleed left. When it's game time, I want >to play, period. You are WAY off base here, though. There is no evidence that the rule will cause such problems - as LSJ has pointed out, there was ALREADY a rule there stating that you must play each game towards the goal stated in the rulebook, and nobody's been having excessive arguments with judges over THAT one, have they? That's actually evidence to the CONTRARY - that the rule WON'T cause problems. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >How would you call it? > > How I'd call it would have to depend on how the people involved > answered the questions/explained the situation... And not just what > they said, either, but how they said it. Player 1: Hey, he said he was just gonig to cycle some cards?! Player 2: Sorry, you should have had more prevent, I didn't mean to kill you. Player 1: JUDGE!!!! Derek: Whats the trouble? Player 1: He said he just needed to cycle card, I demand to know why he killed my cardinal!! Player 2: I did cycle cards didn't I? Derek: Okay, what did you guys say, at the start of the deal? And HOW did you say it?? Player 1: Well, he had a sweet innocent look on his face. And he made a nice coo-ing sound when he talked. He has a little lisp, but it didnt' distract me. Player 2: Yeah, and he answered with a slight puzzled look. His voice was indefinate and he seemed to be holding back, as if he was afraid of Don Cruez for some reason? Derek: Okay, thats enough. Player 1, you are right. I believe the face you described player 2 making is unsportsman like. Player 2, you are given a warning, make a face like that again and I'll kick you out of Atlanta! Player 2: But that is part of my strategy, to make funny faces at player 1! They I kill all his minions, and burn all his pool. Followed by a life boon to keep him alive, and then I start on my predator to gain him a VP! Derek: Hey, I've never heard of any such stragety so it must not exist. Sorry, arguing with a judge is also in the rules, pack up your stuff, you are out!

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9fqs3...@enews1.newsguy.com... [clip] > Honestly, does this shit happen often enough to warrant a rule like this > though? I'm surprised. I like to think that most if not all the players I've > played with are honest. When mistakes happen they are generally > unintentional, ignorant of new card changes or based on (understandable) > misunderstandings. Have you witnessed many intentional cheats or > dishonourable plays? No. The examples given in the tournament rules cover most of the issues we were attempting to aleviate. There were people who were doing things (honestly and openly) to keep others out of the finals or mess with their V:EKN ratings, or keep others from qualifying for the Continental Championships, etc. While not our main goal, we knew that the rule would also apply to the guy who sits down at the table with a goal of: "I'm not here to win. I'm just trying to get my 8-card combat combo off and then I'll transfer out." [clip] > This will depend more on the judge (and the player requesting the judge). I > can see annoying players who call the judge over every time somebody bleeds > them will start looking like the Boy Who Cried Wolf and earn little > sympathy. Players who do this will be less popular than players who cheat. Annoying and unnecessary requests may also incur a penalty from the judge. [clip] > That could happen either way though can't it? Having a BIASED judge (of this > type of behaviour) vs NO judge seems to be much more of the network you > mean. I'm sure it won't be too long before 'favouritism' becomes an issue. A biased judge, I would say, is a separate issue. Even with the old rule a biased judge would make a *huge* difference. As has been said, there are ways to handle it if a biased judge is running events. [clip] > Jyhad is Jyhad, sure... the Machiavellian aspect is something that people > *love* about Jyhad, correct? So why not extend that for tournaments so that > it encompasses the entire match... *not* just each individual game? That is certainly a fun way to play and we very much enjoy that locally. On the other hand, if you aren't going to draw the line at the game level then things get really messy. When players are motivated to a goal above the current game (current tournament, highest V:EKN rating, National Championships qualifier) it can get really stupid. If you were hoping to do well in an event so that you could qualify to play in the Championships at GenCon, you'd likely find it very little fun to have someone fly into your town with a rush deck or an Eagle's Sight intercept deck designed specifically to stop people who want to go to GenCon. The casual player at the table would also be stumped since he is simply trying to win the current game and his enjoyment of that goal will be lessened by the antics of the out of town visitor. [clip] > Maybe VEKN should set up an appeals court. Maybe Derek and I can play > Prosecution and Defense. We could even make LSJ or Robert wear one of those > ridiculous judge's wigs What do you mean ridiculous? http://vtesinla.org/crusla1.jpg I'm in the far right corner...hey, it was a Halloween event. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

On 8 Jun 2001 09:28:20 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >> >How would you call it? >> >> How I'd call it would have to depend on how the people involved >> answered the questions/explained the situation... And not just what >> they said, either, but how they said it. > <amusing play-by-play snipped> Again, however, you totally miss the point. I don't care how they said their deal in the first place. I want to see their faces and hear them explain to ME why they did something. Someone who is making shit up to cover his ass will usually be very obvious. Someone who had a good reason in mind when he did it will also be very obvious. If you want to be civil, we can be civil. But if you're just going to be an idiot and follow me around USENET making pointless posts, then you really need to grow up. [ quoted text not captured ]

I won't speak for everyone else, but my answer is "Bleed prey, heavily." On 6 Jun 2001 11:49:13 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >I don't want to debate, or hear everyones views on the subject, just >an answer:

In article <3b20...@212.18.160.197>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: >This case was discussed in the portuguese mailing list a couple of months >ago, it happened in a Oporto tournament, where I didn't participate: >4 player table, A pred B etc. >A controls Amelia, uses special ability to rush the only <4 vampire on the >table, controlled by C. >C blocks with Kyle (!Ventrue Cardinal), since A claims he only wants to >cycle some cards and won't harm him. >A then puts down a Torn Signpost and strikes with Pushing the Limit. C >prevents with Skin of Steel. >A plays superior Blur, Kyle cannot prevent any further damage, takes 6. >A then plays a press, claiming he still needs to cycle cards, and sends Kyle >to torpor with another strike for 3. >There was no Kindred Restructure to be played, nor any agreements to split >the table (AFAIK). If B managed to oust C he'd qualify for the finals, and A >and B are friends. >How would you call it? Game Loss for A, per the Penalty Guideline, with a DQ if he gives me any shit. This is blatant collusive play as described and is exactly what the new tourney rule is designed to prevent. gomi -- the direction of the eye so misleading the corruption of the soul nauseously quick

In message <3b21075e...@news.atl.mediaone.net>, evil_p...@moc.yahoo.com writes >I won't speak for everyone else, but my answer is "Bleed prey, >heavily." It's useful on Usenet if you don't top-post, so that the threading is preserved. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:36:24 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> said: Derek> Frog sodomy. You know, if you just go about trying to WIN THE GAME, Derek> then you won't ever come under fire from this rule, will you? That's Derek> something nobody wants to face. "Normal players", as you put it, Derek> don't GO randomly Rushing cross-table, because they're... you guessed Derek> it... TRYING TO WIN THE GAME. [butting into the fight ;)] Well, the key word there is "randomly". Attacking someone cross-table might be random malice. But it might also very well be good strategy in certain cases - for example, if the deck I'm attacking has something that can seriously hurt my deck, or maybe because I have some other nefarious scheme. It's pretty hard to put any sort of blanket rules on these things. *Normally* cross-table actions are fairly rare, but they do happen time to time in perfectly valid contexts. I'd be pretty pissed off if I was building towards some strategic goal by dropping a cross-table vamp, and then having some judge say "you can't do that". Of course, I haven't run into abusive behaviour over here yet, the players here in Finland tend to be a pretty civilized lot. //Petri

> <amusing play-by-play snipped> As long as it was amusing, I think we needed a little comedy. > Again, however, you totally miss the point. I don't care how they > said their deal in the first place. I want to see their faces and > hear them explain to ME why they did something. Someone who is making > shit up to cover his ass will usually be very obvious. Someone who > had a good reason in mind when he did it will also be very obvious. > > If you want to be civil, we can be civil. But if you're just going to > be an idiot and follow me around USENET making pointless posts, then > you really need to grow up. I'm not following you around. You are the one posting on my thread. It's not specific against you, you just seem to be very in favor of kicking people out of tournaments, for an assortment of reasons. Some of those just go beyond the single rule I am interested in. It really makes no impact that you want to remove stupid, funny, "annoying" or "crying" players from the game. It's easy, call someone a child or dumb ass in a serious tournament you will be kicked out. I never dispusted the profanity/civil treatment of other players rule. Just the "why'd you do that?" rule. Which, makes little sense to me. If you like it for some reason, other then kicking people out, fine. I think it will just waste time. And when tournaments are supposed to take the unholy time of 10 hours to complete, and they end up taking 11...or more because of several 10-15 minute cry sessions over cheating, then it ruins everyones experience. Your example of a 2 minute, (tops even!) ruling is silly. It will take you at least 1 minute to get out of earshot of the other players, 1 minute to explain, assuming your judge is competent, and 1 minute to get back. Thats 3 minutes, minium, and that assues the judge is looking at the game, doesn't have to come across the room and listen to a big explination of why someone things they are being cheated. Save us the time, save us the arguing. Like someone posted earlier, make some specific situations or forms for judges to follow. Judges are there to make decisions to make sure things keep moving. They should really never make a decision at all. If an effect in game comes into consideration, it should be read straight out of the rules, judges shouldn't have to 'figure out' which side is right.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4rp1itse21v19v6qt...@4ax.com>... > Quis ipsos custodes custodiat? > > Someone has to be trusted. In this case, it's going to have to be the > judges. Yes, a biased judge will be a problem, but if someone truly > believes that a judge acted in a biased manner, he CAN bounce it up > the VEKN chain as necessary. He had better have a LOT of evidence, as But wouldn't this normally be too late? I mean if I get outted by the Judge in the 2nd round of a 5 round tournament, it'll be the next day before I can get ahold of anyone to do anything about it, and someone else will have already won, perhaps fairly, perhaps not. I used to run a lot of tournaments when I was younger, we always had multiple refs available. I just have worries about single judge systems. I can handle it, but then again, I dislike almost everyone, so it works out for me. :) > opposed to "he ruled against meee!", but there IS recourse if a > situation ever exists. > > I can say that at -every- tournament I've attended, I've never had a This might not be much of a statement. I've played in one sanctioned VEKN tournament, I can make the same claim, it just doesn't mean much. Sorry, I'm not going to lend much weight to it. No offense intended. :) > reason to believe that a judge was biased. I've been ruled in favor > on and ruled against before, and each time I think the judge was > making the best call he could... whether I agreed with him or not. > > You only have an advantage if your Prince is biased. Todd (Atlanta's > prince) has made rulings AGAINST me in tournaments before. =) You may also have a disadvantage. If Todd called everything that comes up against you, it would probably effect your ability to win a round. Same thing, different side. > > (head shake) You're missing it, I think. It isn't if your tactic is > valid... it's if you HAVE a tactic at all. While I would be highly > suspicious of a POT Rush deck that included one Dramatic Upheaval in a > 90-card library and used the reasoning "i hope to draw it and move > behind him!", I would probably let it go at first, and wait and see if > any pattern against a specific person, or in favor of a specific > person (or a pattern of totally random action) became obvious. I'm with you on this, but I do know of decks that appear to be a random jumble of cards. I have a "Big Guns" deck that doesn't really have a focus, or rather it's focus is trying to handle everything. It doesn't work for most people because you have to know the flow of the deck. However, just because I only have 10 vote cards in it doesn't mean that it can't work as a vote deck. I tailor the deck as needed. If my predator isn't bleeding, I'll pitch the deflections. If he's deflecting me, then I'll rush and vote on him. I guess it has multiple pathways to victory, and although they aren't as effective as a dedicated deck, it's still a valid tactic. Just because table 1 and table 2 pan out the same way, doesn't mean I'm acting randomly. > > Don't get me wrong - I still maintain that one action can disrupt an > entire game. But a judge is going to need more than one action to > issue anything other than a verbal untracked caution. > > -- Derek > Thug of Atlanta Lee Who's Laughing Now?

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >>This case was discussed in the portuguese mailing list a couple of months >>ago, it happened in a Oporto tournament, where I didn't participate: > >>4 player table, A pred B etc. >>A controls Amelia, uses special ability to rush the only <4 vampire on the >>table, controlled by C. >>C blocks with Kyle (!Ventrue Cardinal), since A claims he only wants to >>cycle some cards and won't harm him. >>A then puts down a Torn Signpost and strikes with Pushing the Limit. C >>prevents with Skin of Steel. >>A plays superior Blur, Kyle cannot prevent any further damage, takes 6. >>A then plays a press, claiming he still needs to cycle cards, and sends Kyle >>to torpor with another strike for 3. > >>There was no Kindred Restructure to be played, nor any agreements to split >>the table (AFAIK). If B managed to oust C he'd qualify for the finals, and A >>and B are friends. > >>How would you call it? > >Game Loss for A, per the Penalty Guideline, with a DQ if he gives me any >shit. This is blatant collusive play as described and is exactly what the >new tourney rule is designed to prevent. That's exactly what I was afraid to hear. This reaction is *way* out of proportion. You handle a game loss to A, and you won't even give the guy a chance to defend himself (threatening to disqualify him if he argues)! You have no evidence for collusion. A is obviously lying his head off to C, but that's OK. He suckered him into blocking with a big vamp. Depending on the table situation, this could be a good move in itself. Player C was the only possible target (as he had the only small vamp out). If C looked strong and A was in a good position, it probably *is* the right play. Sure beats bleeding for one. If, on the other hand, B was steamrolling C, who would probably die anyway, it's a questionable play. Still, hear the guy out, OK? ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > > No. The examples given in the tournament rules cover most of the issues we were > attempting to aleviate. There were people who were doing things (honestly and > openly) to keep others out of the finals or mess with their V:EKN ratings, or > keep others from qualifying for the Continental Championships, etc. While not > our main goal, we knew that the rule would also apply to the guy who sits down > at the table with a goal of: "I'm not here to win. I'm just trying to get my > 8-card combat combo off and then I'll transfer out." Hmmm... again, I think this proves that I indeed *am* talking out of my ass. I haven't seen things like this, more's the better. If it does happen enough that it warrants some kind of rule, then by all means... I just hope the rule itself doesn't come back and bite you. > [clip] > > This will depend more on the judge (and the player requesting the judge). I > > can see annoying players who call the judge over every time somebody bleeds > > them will start looking like the Boy Who Cried Wolf and earn little > > sympathy. Players who do this will be less popular than players who cheat. > > Annoying and unnecessary requests may also incur a penalty from the judge. That would be good actually. Also prone to bias of course but I don't see any way to get around that except to have unbiased judges... which would be impossible. > [clip] > > That could happen either way though can't it? Having a BIASED judge (of this > > type of behaviour) vs NO judge seems to be much more of the network you > > mean. I'm sure it won't be too long before 'favouritism' becomes an issue. > > A biased judge, I would say, is a separate issue. Even with the old rule a > biased judge would make a *huge* difference. As has been said, there are ways > to handle it if a biased judge is running events. Whatever the case, it will require a lot more 'training' to get the right kind of judge for these events. Perhaps it might be a good idea to prepare some kind of judge's kit for prospective Princes, etc.? Make them get 'certification' as well... heh. > [clip] > > Jyhad is Jyhad, sure... the Machiavellian aspect is something that people > > *love* about Jyhad, correct? So why not extend that for tournaments so that > > it encompasses the entire match... *not* just each individual game? > > That is certainly a fun way to play and we very much enjoy that locally. On the > other hand, if you aren't going to draw the line at the game level then things > get really messy. When players are motivated to a goal above the current game > (current tournament, highest V:EKN rating, National Championships qualifier) it > can get really stupid. If you were hoping to do well in an event so that you > could qualify to play in the Championships at GenCon, you'd likely find it very > little fun to have someone fly into your town with a rush deck or an Eagle's > Sight intercept deck designed specifically to stop people who want to go to > GenCon. The casual player at the table would also be stumped since he is simply > trying to win the current game and his enjoyment of that goal will be lessened > by the antics of the out of town visitor. I can see that happening, yeah. Personally, I'd rather keep things as is and hope for the best as far as goofy players. Other games must have had similar problems... anyone know what kind of solutions they found to this problem? I don't play a lot of games so it's not my area really... > [clip] > > Maybe VEKN should set up an appeals court. Maybe Derek and I can play > > Prosecution and Defense. We could even make LSJ or Robert wear one of those > > ridiculous judge's wigs > > What do you mean ridiculous? > http://vtesinla.org/crusla1.jpg > > I'm in the far right corner...hey, it was a Halloween event. Oops! I withdraw the question, your honour... My client would like to plead guilty to metagaming on a suspended sentence. Will you accept a three-turn removal from the game and a fine of 4 pool? Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9frd7...@enews1.newsguy.com... > My client would like to plead guilty to metagaming on a suspended sentence. > Will you accept a three-turn removal from the game and a fine of 4 pool? Only if you are my prey; otherwise no. :) -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

In article <3b21394a...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: [I said:] >>Game Loss for A, per the Penalty Guideline, with a DQ if he gives me any >>shit. This is blatant collusive play as described and is exactly what the >>new tourney rule is designed to prevent. > >That's exactly what I was afraid to hear. This reaction is *way* out >of proportion. You handle a game loss to A, and you won't even give >the guy a chance to defend himself (threatening to disqualify him if >he argues)! You have no evidence for collusion. >A is obviously lying his head off to C, but that's OK. He suckered him >into blocking with a big vamp. >Depending on the table situation, this could be a good move in itself. >Player C was the only possible target (as he had the only small vamp >out). If C looked strong and A was in a good position, it probably >*is* the right play. Sure beats bleeding for one. >If, on the other hand, B was steamrolling C, who would probably die >anyway, it's a questionable play. Still, hear the guy out, OK? We can wiggle the situation to support any conclusion we want; that's why I stipulated 'as described' in my response above. Let me clarify what that means. It means that, after suitably convincing investigation including hearing everyone out, the facts of the matter are as described -- no extra table conditions to modify the rationale. The bare facts supplied to me, _which I assumed were the full and complete pertinent facts_, support only one conclusion: A fucked over C to help B, and for no other reason. This is, as I stated, blatant collusion and well worth the described penalty. gomi -- the direction of the eye so misleading the corruption of the soul nauseously quick

In article <7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Save us the time, save us the arguing. Like someone posted earlier, >make some specific situations or forms for judges to follow. Judges >are there to make decisions to make sure things keep moving. They >should really never make a decision at all. If an effect in game >comes into consideration, it should be read straight out of the rules, >judges shouldn't have to 'figure out' which side is right. Use these: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=82bc20a6e7738d9a,95&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=9fm0u2%247vk%241%40nntp1.ba.best.com Nice and specific. Note, however, that judges will always have to figure out which side is right. That's, you know, their job. If you don't think judges should have to figure out which side is right, we can all just sell our cards right now and go play ASL, which has the masso-text comprehensive rules. Oh, wait. More text there is in a ruleset, more loopholes. A good judge makes better calls with rules that outline strong basic principles and is fuzzy on specifics than with a specific ruleset that allows ironclad loopholes that are perfectly legal by the letter of the specific rule but violates the general principle. Or, in short: Of COURSE judges should have to figure out which side is right. It's, like, their job. gomi yeesh -- 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

> Use these: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=82bc20a6e7738d9a,95&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=9fm0u2%247vk%241%40nntp1.ba.best.com > > Nice and specific. > > Note, however, that judges will always have to figure out which side is > right. That's, you know, their job. If you don't think judges should > have to figure out which side is right, we can all just sell our cards > right now and go play ASL, which has the masso-text comprehensive > rules. > > Oh, wait. More text there is in a ruleset, more loopholes. A good judge > makes better calls with rules that outline strong basic principles and > is fuzzy on specifics than with a specific ruleset that allows ironclad > loopholes that are perfectly legal by the letter of the specific rule > but violates the general principle. > > Or, in short: Of COURSE judges should have to figure out which side > is right. It's, like, their job. > > gomi > yeesh Just one more thought. Is this rule also going to cover compulsatory actions? I mean, lets just assume that I have 15 minions out, and my prey has only 2(happened last weekend, sorry Noal) I saw no immediate value to bleeding out my prey. Hell he even helped me to pass my atarkus persecutions to gain 30 or so. To Maximize my VP I should have bled him out right? I mean, another guy did end up sweeping that game. So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What about lack of action? I can collude with some of my Detroit bros to allow bleeds by, or to not attack them before the game even begins. If I should get in combat with someone who has an Owl companion, and they happen to see that I have all the stealth and bleed in the world am I going to be given a warning for NOT bleeding my prey? Will the Dereks of the world be able to make me bleed because they want to? Or will judges be looking over our shoulders to make sure we are maximizing our bleeds? Or are we back to the standard arguments? 'judges are superior people and won't make mistakes'-and-'we made the rule so to hell with you for not liking it, after all we are the rules mongers!'

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > maximizing our bleeds? Or are we back to the standard arguments? > 'judges are superior people and won't make mistakes'-and-'we made the > rule so to hell with you for not liking it, after all we are the rules > mongers!' You forgot "You are a dumn kid whose opinions don't matter and even if they did it's just the internet so I don't care." - Jason Bell

In message <9frlce$1k8p$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei <go...@best.com> writes >Use these: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=82bc20a6e7738d9a,95&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=9fm0u2%247vk%241%40nntp1.ba.best.com > >Nice and specific. Google articles can be more compactly referred to with: <URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=PUTMESSAGEID@HERE> -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

<If you don't think judges should have to figure out which side is right, we can all just sell our cards right now and go play ASL, which has the masso-text comprehensive rules. > Why not play them both. Jeff Prince of Cleveland "Wake up sucker! We're thieves and we're bad guys, that's EXACTLY what we are!" Peter, "Dawn of the Dead"

In article <4045-3B2...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, <Trut...@webtv.net> wrote: ><If you don't think judges should have to figure out which side is >right, we can all just sell our cards right now and go play ASL, which >has the masso-text comprehensive rules. > >Why not play them both. (sic) Since this is the land where nit-pick is the rule (thanks Reyda!), I feel compelled to point out that questions are traditionally ended with question marks ("?"). While many people whose opinion I respect assure me ASL is a fine game indeed, it simply exceeds my admittedly non-paranormal threshold of tedium. But de gustibus non est disputandum*. gomi *odds some will correct my latin: 3:1 against** **odds the correction will be crowing about nitpicking a nitpicker: even*** ***odds someone will accuse me of plagiarising the nested-footnote thing from Terry Pratchett: 5:1 against [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:53:15 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > > >All you have to do is go back and re-read your posts. > > Pot, kettle, black? > > Hint: I don't care =) It is this exact attitude which seems to highlight your overall attitude towards both the game and the game players. I trust there are not to many more people like you playing the game. I'd shudder to think I would have to be dassociate that sort of behavior. Raille

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:30:01 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 07:53:15 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >> >> >All you have to do is go back and re-read your posts. >> >> Pot, kettle, black? >> >> Hint: I don't care =) > >It is this exact attitude which seems to highlight your overall attitude >towards both the game and the game players. No. It highlights my overall attitude towards USENET, and about "arguments" on USENET. There is a significant difference. I care quite a bit about this game, and even about the players involved. If I didn't, I wouldn't have gotten up at 7am Saturday, on three hours' sleep, just to attend the pre-release event in Columbia (three and a half hours away). >I trust there are not to many more people like you playing the game. >I'd shudder to think I would have to be dassociate that sort of >behavior. You know, I *almost* understand this. What's "dassociate", and how does one "be" it? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > I care quite a bit about this game, and even about the players > involved. If I didn't, I wouldn't have gotten up at 7am Saturday, on > three hours' sleep, just to attend the pre-release event in Columbia > (three and a half hours away). > > >I trust there are not to many more people like you playing the game. > >I'd shudder to think I would have to be dassociate that sort of > >behavior. > > You know, I *almost* understand this. What's "dassociate", and how > does one "be" it? > > -- Derek > Thug of Atlanta Coffee, more coffee. lets take the 'd' from the Front and drop it on the end. My spelling might be bad, but its not usually THAT bad. :) Now on a friendly note! so how did you do? I got 3.5 VPs with the Settite precon. Raille

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com... [clip] > So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What > about lack of action? I can collude with some of my Detroit bros to > allow bleeds by, or to not attack them before the game even begins. Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude. Actions or inactions or anything else that you agree to do for one of your bros is illegal if you've colluded to do it. > If I should get in combat with someone who has an Owl companion, and > they happen to see that I have all the stealth and bleed in the world > am I going to be given a warning for NOT bleeding my prey? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. If someone accuses you of cheating and the judge isn't aware of any admission of the colluding then they will look at the facts. The Owl companion issue would be one of the factors I'd look at. The fact that the benefactor of your not bleeding is a Detroit bro is another fact I'd look at. If I concluded you were a cheater I'd be right. What's the problem? > Will the > Dereks of the world be able to make me bleed because they want to? I imagine the Dereks, Roberts, Noals, LSJs, etc. will all get involved if you are going to cheat. -Robert

>> "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What >> about lack of action? I can collude with some of my Detroit bros to >> allow bleeds by, or to not attack them before the game even begins. > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude. Actions or > inactions or anything else that you agree to do for one of your > bros is illegal if you've colluded to do it. > > I imagine the Dereks, Roberts, Noals, LSJs, etc. will all get involved > if you are going to cheat. Amen. I'm offended at the mere suggestion of a hypothetical situation involving cheating among players from Detroit. You might want to switch tracks on this thread right about now, Aaron. For the record, if I, or any tournament organizer, _ever_ catch a player from Michigan cheating, that person will never be welcome at any tournament or local game that I run. Ever. There will be no probation or warning. I don't put up with that kind of crap in any fashion and I will punish it in the most severe methods at my disposal. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

Noal McDonald wrote: > I don't put up with that kind of crap in any fashion and I will punish it > in the most severe methods at my disposal. > As I. Raille

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:59:11 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Coffee, more coffee. lets take the 'd' from the Front and drop it on >the end. My spelling might be bad, but its not usually THAT bad. :) That's sort of an aggressive misspelling, yes. =) >Now on a friendly note! > >so how did you do? About as well as can be expected on 3 hours' sleep. =) >I got 3.5 VPs with the Settite precon. I drafted a lovely uber-weenie crypt for the Ravnos pre-con, set the deck up all nicely to be stealth/bleed, with plenty of Patshiv, Red Herring, and other toys, and lots of stealth reducers. I then got all my weenies repossessed in the first round by the Setite precon (predator), and got all my weenies killed in the second round by the Assamite precon (prey) who apparently had something against consistent bleeds for 3 at 1 stealth coming his way. (The new Fata Morgana is fun. =) Lots of fun, though... the Ravnos are going to be pretty damn solid, especially with the Path of Paradox. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.01061...@posting.google.com>... > >> "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What > >> about lack of action? I can collude with some of my Detroit bros to > >> allow bleeds by, or to not attack them before the game even begins. > > > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude. Actions or > > inactions or anything else that you agree to do for one of your > > bros is illegal if you've colluded to do it. > > > > I imagine the Dereks, Roberts, Noals, LSJs, etc. will all get involved > > if you are going to cheat. Too bad they don't get involved if you ask a question. Only to poke fun, go off topic, protect reputations, dodge substance, etc. Maybe I'll ask again, and do it as simple as possible. I am bleeding someone. He blocks. I have an owl companion and happen to notice, while looking at his hand, and he has a kine resource contested.(otherwise I would not know what cards he has) He has 15 votes up on the table, and a prey with 1 pool. On his turn he chooses to do nothing. Can I call him for cheating, as it is obvious that the vote will succeed, gaining himself a VP? Can the 5.2 be used to compel action(or issue a warning) if someone is not killing their prey when it is obvious that they could?(as it can be used if someone is killing you cross table when they should be killing their prey) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.01061...@posting.google.com... > dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.01061...@posting.google.com>... > > >> "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What > > >> about lack of action? I can collude with some of my Detroit bros to > > >> allow bleeds by, or to not attack them before the game even begins. > > > > > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude. Actions or > > > inactions or anything else that you agree to do for one of your > > > bros is illegal if you've colluded to do it. > > > > > > I imagine the Dereks, Roberts, Noals, LSJs, etc. will all get involved > > > if you are going to cheat. > > Too bad they don't get involved if you ask a question. Uh, do you actually have all of us on a blocked senders list or something? Once you take all of us out of your killfile you'll see all of the questions being answered. Glad I could help with your technical problems. > I am bleeding > someone. He blocks. I have an owl companion and happen to notice, > while looking at his hand, and he has a kine resource > contested.(otherwise I would not know what cards he has) He has 15 > votes up on the table, and a prey with 1 pool. On his turn he chooses > to do nothing. Can I call him for cheating, as it is obvious that the > vote will succeed, gaining himself a VP? You could ask a judge to review the situation. It is quite possible that, even though the player can oust his prey that he might have a reason for not doing so at the moment. The judge can act if he sees some indication that the player with all the votes is not playing to win the game. > Can the 5.2 be used to compel action(or issue a warning) if someone is > not killing their prey when it is obvious that they could?(as it can > be used if someone is killing you cross table when they should be > killing their prey) The story here is just too incomplete. With just the above info, No. That is, unless there is some additional info that makes it clear he is not voting out his prey because of some out of game goal. -Robert

On 11 Jun 2001 12:10:06 -0700, roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote: >> > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> > Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude. Actions or >> > inactions or anything else that you agree to do for one of your >> > bros is illegal if you've colluded to do it. >> > >> > I imagine the Dereks, Roberts, Noals, LSJs, etc. will all get involved >> > if you are going to cheat. > >Too bad they don't get involved if you ask a question. Only to poke *snort* Foolish boy, I KNOW you know better than that. >Maybe I'll ask again, and do it as simple as possible. I am bleeding >someone. He blocks. I have an owl companion and happen to notice, >while looking at his hand, and he has a kine resource >contested.(otherwise I would not know what cards he has) He has 15 Everyone else also notices, because the Owl Companion mandates that you show your hand to all players. Pesky card text. >votes up on the table, and a prey with 1 pool. On his turn he chooses >to do nothing. Can I call him for cheating, as it is obvious that the >vote will succeed, gaining himself a VP? No, although you've given a sadly incomplete picture of the situation, so this cannot be a firm, 100% no. However... There are many good reasons why he would wish to delay action. - He may be worried about being intercepted and losing a vampire. - He may wish to let his prey do more damage to his grandprey before snagging the oust, speeding his process of gaining 2 VPs. - He may want to solidify his position in some manner before moving within intercept-range of his new prey - possibly by getting an extra vampire out, possibly by cycling to some combat defense, possibly by blocking you a few times and making you a weaker predator, possibly by playing Disputed Territory and stealing an intercept location that would be used against him later. - In a rare subset of cases, he might actually want to let his prey oust his grandprey FOR him... such as if the seating were Ventrue vote, Gangrel unblockable bleed, and Tzimisce intercept. If he ousted his Gangrel prey immediately, he could count on getting absolutely no votes off and would die with 1VP. But the unblockable bleed should be able to oust the Tzimisce, and then the Ventrue can run over the Gangrel and move on with a better chance of gaining more than just the 1VP he was sure to gain anyway. To determine any of the above for sure, additional information about the game state is necessary. >Can the 5.2 be used to compel action(or issue a warning) if someone is >not killing their prey when it is obvious that they could?(as it can >be used if someone is killing you cross table when they should be >killing their prey) It should never be used to compel an action, or to forbid an action. It should only be used to issue cautions/warnings, etc. Warnings might be issued if the circumstances were appropriate; for example, if the player above REPEATEDLY declined to make any move towards ousting his prey, I would start to be suspicious of collusion... especially if his prey were close to ousting someone himself. But delaying an oust for a turn or two is frequently a very good strategic move, and in the situation I outlined above I wouldn't even need an explanation -- it's obvious that the Ventrue need the intercept deck gone to gain more than 1VP, and they need help doing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: > Maybe I'll ask again, and do it as simple as possible. I am bleeding > someone. He blocks. I have an owl companion and happen to notice, > while looking at his hand, and he has a kine resource > contested.(otherwise I would not know what cards he has) He has 15 > votes up on the table, and a prey with 1 pool. On his turn he chooses > to do nothing. Can I call him for cheating, as it is obvious that the > vote will succeed, gaining himself a VP? You should ask your judge. If that were me, I'd say he's not cheating if his course of action still (eventually) plans to lead to a VP. -- 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/

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<X69V6.3975$eZ6.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... > "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:7ab27d37.01061...@posting.google.com... > > dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message > news:<bb705c59.01061...@posting.google.com>... > > > >> "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What > > > >> about lack of action? I can collude with some of my Detroit bros to > > > >> allow bleeds by, or to not attack them before the game even begins. > > > > > > > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude. Actions or > > > > inactions or anything else that you agree to do for one of your > > > > bros is illegal if you've colluded to do it. > > > > > > > > I imagine the Dereks, Roberts, Noals, LSJs, etc. will all get involved > > > > if you are going to cheat. > > > > Too bad they don't get involved if you ask a question. > > Uh, do you actually have all of us on a blocked senders list or something? Once > you take all of us out of your killfile you'll see all of the questions being > answered. Glad I could help with your technical problems. No kill file or blocked list. Just check the posts. ME: "So far all the talk has focused around cross table actions. What about lack of action?" and my response was: "Collusion is against the rules. You cannot collude" and "I'm offended at the mere suggestion of a hypothetical situation involving cheating among players from Detroit" neither of which helped me figure out if my predator would be able to call me for not attacking my prey...or anyone. It just seemed to me that if cross table assaults weren't allowed, and spliting tables VP was okay as long as it was done in game, that you might need to figure out why someone is not killing their prey, especially if you know that they have a hand full of 'kill my prey anytime I want' cards. Derek actually gave me a much better response...as scary as that sounds.