Tournament rules regarding different backs on cards.

4.1 in the tournament rules states that > If cards with distinct backs are used in the same deck (e.g., Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards, or upside-down 3rd Edition cards and right-side up cards, or mis-cut cards) are used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the different sets, printings, etc. must be of sufficiently mixed card type. > What does "significant advantage" mean? Does the usage of the word "significant" indicate that minor advantages from using cards with different backs is ok? In a grander perspective, why isn't sleeves mandatory for tournament play (at least when using cards with different backs)?

Pascal: I would agree that the phrase "in order to prevent a significant advantage" should be striken from this sentence. Henrik: Sleeves are not mandatory because a)it would provide a barrier to entry to some players, and b)because you don't assume that players are guilty and create institutional rules stating such (see: the 'Mandatory Deck Lists' discussion) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > a)it would provide a barrier to entry to some players > It's not a particularly big barrier and demanding it for tournament play doesn't seem too excessive, I don't think. > KevinM wrote: > b)because you don't assume that players are guilty and create institutional rules stating such (see: the 'Mandatory Deck Lists' discussion) > If it was a real hassle, I could see your point. But as it is sleeving takes 10 minutes and costs you 10 dollars the first time. Also, during tournament play I think we should value the integrity of the competition over our insecurities. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > If it was a real hassle, I could see your point. But as it is sleeving takes 10 minutes and costs you 10 dollars the first time. > I've never heard anyone complain about the cost of sleeves. I have heard some people complain about the time taken to sleeve decks, but not many. Most of the complaints about sleeves that I've heard, including mine, are that it's unnecessarily difficult to shuffle a sleeved deck of cards (at least when it comes to a deck as big as a VTES library). > Xaddam wrote: > Also, during tournament play I think we should value the integrity of the competition over our insecurities. > This makes it sound as though you're against mandatory sleeving, though I don't know if "the competition" refers to our opponents or the competition inherent in the game itself. If the latter, then sleeves should be disallowed entirely, since it's easier to cheat with sleeves than without them.

> Kushiel wrote: > Most of the complaints about sleeves that I've heard, including mine, are that it's unnecessarily difficult to shuffle a sleeved deck of cards (at least when it comes to a deck as big as a VTES library). > Did you try shuffling sleeves with artwork or a pattern? They're really bad, I agree. If you tried it with single-sheet back, I guess we can only agree to disagree. Shuffling with proper sleeves is so much easier than without sleeves. > Kushiel wrote: > This makes it sound as though you're against mandatory sleeving, though I don't know if "the competition" refers to our opponents or the competition inherent in the game itself. If the latter, then sleeves should be disallowed entirely, since it's easier to cheat with sleeves than without them. > I mean competition in the meaning of the tournament rules, games and scene. Which would indeed be 'the latter'. I see you're being intentionally inflammatory. I'm sure you know why I think mixing jyhad backings with vtes backings might be misused. How do you mean sleeves facilitates cheating? (Which can't be proven after the fact, of course.) Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Kushiel wrote: > [...] it's easier to cheat with sleeves than without them. > Do you have any proof of this? I'd say it seems much easier to cheat with unsleeved cards due to the (sometimes very big) color difference between many of the sets.

> Xaddam wrote: > It's not a particularly big barrier and demanding it for tournament play doesn't seem too excessive, I don't think. > And yet an awful lot of folks would object to such a notion. As they don't like using sleeves. For any number of reasons (I, for one, kind of object to sleeves on the ground that it is very difficult to actually shuffle decks in sleeves; I have been to many an event where someone at the table is "shuffling" their deck with sleeves into "randomized" piles, and then they stack them up and do a bit of overhand stack shuffling, and call it done. And all I can think is "man. That deck is not remotely shuffled enough..."). Requiring them seems like a horrible idea. Especially given that the likelihood of someone trying to cheat by virtue of mixed card backs is really low in the first place. And it is incredibly easy to cheat with sleeved cards anyway. > If it was a real hassle, I could see your point. But as it is sleeving takes 10 minutes and costs you 10 dollars the first time. > > > > The hassle or cost isn't the issue. It is just something some people don't like. And as it doesn't actually solve anything (it is very easy to cheat using sleeves if you are concerned about cheating), mandating it is a questionable idea. > > > > > Also, during tournament play I think we should value the integrity of the competition over our insecurities. > > > > > > > > Which is why mandatory sleeving is a silly idea. > >

> henrik wrote: > Do you have any proof of this? > I'd say it seems much easier to cheat with unsleeved cards due to the (sometimes very big) color difference between many of the sets. > I wouldn't necessarily say it is *easier* to cheat with sleeves (although it is certainly easier to cheat in some ways with sleeves), but it is *easy* to cheat with sleeves: -Nick corners of sleeves intentionally to indicate a specific type of card. Very difficult to notice if you aren't looking for it. -Get very similar but slightly different sleeves and use the difference to indicate a specific type of card (I do use sleeves on my crypt; I generally use just featureless black sleeves. Different brands of featureless black sleeves, for example, often are slightly different in terms of size or finish, such that they look almost the same, but if you know there is a difference, you can easily pick out the difference). -Intentionally stick cards together; if you slightly moisten the face of the sleeve on your Giant's Blood when mixing your deck and make sure it lands on top of a Villein, you can easily get them to cling together. I realize that the obvious card back differences can lead to people having information that they shouldn't, but if one assumes that everyone is playing in good faith, and that if they are using mixed backs, they are using reasonably varied cards with mixed backs, it isn't a problem. And if one realizes that it is at the very least just as easy to cheat with sleeved cards and not sleeved cards if one is inclined to cheat, one will probably come to the conclusion that mandating sleeves on decks isn't really a solution to anything.

> Xaddam wrote: > Did you try shuffling sleeves with artwork or a pattern? They're really bad, I agree. If you tried it with single-sheet back, I guess we can only agree to disagree. Shuffling with proper sleeves is so much easier than without sleeves. > I bridge shuffle. So far as I know, it's not possible to bridge shuffle a 70 or 80 card deck with sleeves. If it is possible, I can't do it. > Xaddam wrote: > I mean competition in the meaning of the tournament rules, games and scene. Which would indeed be 'the latter'. I see you're being intentionally inflammatory. I'm sure you know why I think mixing jyhad backings with vtes backings might be misused. How do you mean sleeves facilitates cheating? (Which can't be proven after the fact, of course.) > You'll know when I'm being inflammatory. This isn't it. This isn't the first time this has been discussed: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6de21e726aa4cdd0 It's easier to cheat with sleeves because people are less likely to notice marked sleeves than marked cards or cards with different backs. It's more likely that people who want to cheat by marking cards/sleeves will do so with sleeves, because that doesn't degrade the condition of their cards. > henrik wrote: > Do you have any proof of this? > Nope. I have deductive reasoning. Unless someone got cheating, there'd be no way to have proof of this one way or the other. So unless you have proof that I'm wrong, you're not getting any traction with this line of argument. > henrik wrote: > I'd say it seems much easier to cheat with unsleeved cards due to the (sometimes very big) color difference between many of the sets. > Which, as I point out above, you'd be more likely to get caught doing, and less ways to weasel out of consequences if you did get caught. I've had to throw away numerous sleeves during play due to wear that I hadn't noticed until I was playing, but if every Final Nights card in my deck is Card X and I've got no non-FN copies of Card X in my deck? And that pattern repeats with other set/card combinations? Whole lot less chance of that occuring randomly.

> bakija wrote: > -Nick corners of sleeves intentionally to indicate a specific type of card. Very difficult to notice if you aren't looking for it. > > -Get very similar but slightly different sleeves and use the difference to indicate a specific type of card (I do use sleeves on my crypt; I generally use just featureless black sleeves. Different brands of featureless black sleeves, for example, often are slightly different in terms of size or finish, such that they look almost the same, but if you know there is a difference, you can easily pick out the difference). > Both of these things can be done without sleeves as well, just as easily as with sleeves. None of them are allowed by tournament rules. It's not a issue in the sleeve/no sleeve debate, it's a problem with cheating in general. > bakija wrote: > -Intentionally stick cards together; if you slightly moisten the face of the sleeve on your Giant's Blood when mixing your deck and make sure it lands on top of a Villein, you can easily get them to cling together. > You're allowed to shuffle the other players deck when offered before the game. Do this every game and it can't happen. > I realize that the obvious card back differences can lead to people having information that they shouldn't, but if one assumes that everyone is playing in good faith, > In which case we wouldn't need any enforcement at all. Of course we should have rules which makes it impossible to cheat, if they are functioning as intended and they're not too cumbersome. > and that if they are using mixed backs, they are using reasonably varied cards with mixed backs, it isn't a problem. > I know I could easily make a deck which would pass inspection by judge but when playing I will have a lot of free information by the time I've drawn 2/3:d of the deck. If I know I can easily do it, then anyone who wants to can do it as well. (of course, I use sleeves to make it impossible for me to unintentionally gain free information) > And if one realizes that it is at the very least just as easy to cheat with sleeved cards and not sleeved cards if one is inclined to cheat, one will probably come to the conclusion that mandating sleeves on decks isn't really a solution to anything. > Logical fallacy. Just because we can't find a perfect solution doesn't mean we shouldn't settle for a better-than-what-we-have but imperfection solution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > Logical fallacy. Just because we can't find a perfect solution doesn't mean we shouldn't settle for a better-than-what-we-have but imperfection solution. > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy > From your cited source: "This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes." In this case, "there are people who don't want to sleeve their decks" is one of those component elements. Given that I don't think there's much/any cheating going on at VTES tables, and don't much care if there is, instituting a new rule which inconveniences people and isn't necessarily going to achieve its stated goal doesn't make much sense.

> Xaddam wrote: > Both of these things can be done without sleeves as well, just as easily as with sleeves. None of them are allowed by tournament rules. It's not a issue in the sleeve/no sleeve debate, it's a problem with cheating in general. > Given that you acknowledge that it is just as easy to cheat with sleeves as it is without, what is mandating sleeves doing to prevent cheating? The only thing you can do to prevent people from cheating is to catch people cheating and then call them on it. That has nothing to do with sleeves or not sleeves. > You're allowed to shuffle the other players deck when offered before the game. Do this every game and it can't happen. > Do you shuffle every single player's deck at the table at the start of every game? Honestly? I don't. As I don't really worry about it. As I believe that the vast, vast majority of people playing VTES are not actively trying to cheat. And as I believe that this is the case, I'm not really worried about enforcing rules to prevent people from cheating. As most people aren't trying to cheat in the first place. > In which case we wouldn't need any enforcement at all. Of course we should have rules which makes it impossible to cheat, if they are functioning as intended and they're not too cumbersome. > We already have all the rules we need to prevent cheating--if you discover someone cheating, call them on it. We don't need any other rules to prevent cheating. > I know I could easily make a deck which would pass inspection by judge but when playing I will have a lot of free information by the time I've drawn 2/3:d of the deck. If I know I can easily do it, then anyone who wants to can do it as well. (of course, I use sleeves to make it impossible for me to unintentionally gain free information) > And yet as you apparently realize that you can use sleeves to intentionally gain free information as easily as you can without sleeves, what is mandating sleeves accomplishing?

> bakija wrote: > And yet an awful lot of folks would object to such a notion. As they don't like using sleeves. For any number of reasons (I, for one, kind of object to sleeves on the ground that it is very difficult to actually shuffle decks in sleeves; I have been to many an event where someone at the table is "shuffling" their deck with sleeves into "randomized" piles, and then they stack them up and do a bit of overhand stack shuffling, and call it done. And all I can think is "man. That deck is not remotely shuffled enough..."). Requiring them seems like a horrible idea. Especially given that the likelihood of someone trying to cheat by virtue of mixed card backs is really low in the first place. And it is incredibly easy to cheat with sleeved cards anyway. > Whether people shuffle their decks enough or not has nothing to do with sleeves. Or at least it shouldn't have. If people shuffle worse due to sleeves then they should be told to shuffle their decks properly. > bakija wrote: > I wouldn't necessarily say it is *easier* to cheat with sleeves (although it is certainly easier to cheat in some ways with sleeves), but it is *easy* to cheat with sleeves: > > -Nick corners of sleeves intentionally to indicate a specific type of card. Very difficult to notice if you aren't looking for it. > This can be done easy with unsleeved cards as well. > bakija wrote: > -Get very similar but slightly different sleeves and use the difference to indicate a specific type of card (I do use sleeves on my crypt; I generally use just featureless black sleeves. Different brands of featureless black sleeves, for example, often are slightly different in terms of size or finish, such that they look almost the same, but if you know there is a difference, you can easily pick out the difference). > Which, like it or not, is already done with unsleeved cards. Identifying cards from different expansions and editions, give it a try with Sabbat and KoT if you don't believe me. The difference is like night and day. > bakija wrote: > -Intentionally stick cards together; if you slightly moisten the face of the sleeve on your Giant's Blood when mixing your deck and make sure it lands on top of a Villein, you can easily get them to cling together. > I'm not sure what kind of sleeves you're using, but I tried this and found it impossible with any of mine (got a few different brands). I'd certainly not call it easy. > bakija wrote: > I realize that the obvious card back differences can lead to people having information that they shouldn't, but if one assumes that everyone is playing in good faith, and that if they are using mixed backs, they are using reasonably varied cards with mixed backs, it isn't a problem. And if one realizes that it is at the very least just as easy to cheat with sleeved cards and not sleeved cards if one is inclined to cheat, one will probably come to the conclusion that mandating sleeves on decks isn't really a solution to anything. > If we assume good faith, the point about added possibilities to cheat with sleeves is a non-issue. In fact, if we assume good faith, the entire discussion (and part of the tournament rules) about cheating is meaningless. Mandatory opaque sleeves when using cards with different backs is a solution to the issues that may arise due to cards having different backs. If you have differently backed cards I'd say it's really hard to spread the different backs enough to not be able to gain some information during most of your games (certainly harder than shuffling with sleeves). It might not be intentional cheating, but the information is there and that's bad enough for me.

You've replied to everything except for my conclusion, bakija. As said, just because requiring sleeves doesn't solve the backing problem perfectly it doesn't mean we shouldn't use the solution. We're basically allowing one kind of card back variance (jyhad vs. vtes backing and colour schemes) and disallowing all other kinds of card back variance. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > b)because you don't assume that players are guilty and create institutional rules stating such (see: the 'Mandatory Deck Lists' discussion) > > > If it was a real hassle, I could see your point. But as it is sleeving takes 10 minutes and costs you 10 dollars the first time. Also, during tournament play I think we should value the integrity of the competition over our insecurities. > So you believe that people that don't play with sleeves have no integrity, or their integrity is somehow less than yours? I see. Oh, my Paypal address is , I'll be awaiting your $10 so that I can start sleeving my cards. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Xaddam wrote: > Shuffling with proper sleeves is so much easier than without sleeves. > I'd be willing to make a bet with you (for that $10, say?) that I can sufficiently randomize my unsleeved deck faster than you can achieve the same result with your sleeved deck. But let's say that your statement (and mine) is unprovable. Ok? No problem. As Kushiel stated, it is a fact that it is FAR easier to cheat with sleeves than without, since sleeves are easier to mark than a card. So, you should be more concerned with players that use sleeves than players that don't. Are you? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > So you believe that people that don't play with sleeves have no integrity, or their integrity is somehow less than yours? I see. > > Oh, my Paypal address is , I'll be awaiting your $10 so that I can start sleeving my cards. ;) > I'm not a native speaker, so my syntax or semantics might off. I'm sorry if that's what's happened here. Of course I don't mean that. By 'integrity of the competition' I mean our ability, as community members, to say "our competition format is fair and results reflects the participants' skill". If someone might have cheated and we didn't do our utmost to hinder it it's hard to claim the competition has integrity. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> KevinM wrote: > As Kushiel stated, it is a fact that it is FAR easier to cheat with sleeves than without, since sleeves are easier to mark than a card. So, you should be more concerned with players that use sleeves than players that don't. Are you? > I'd still like some kind of proof for this statement.

I think we are discussing a rather pointless issue and with some unreal arguments (I'll give two examples): - "It is easier to cheat with sleeves" One can make a deck without sleeves where only the Deflections or the Freak Drives are Jyhad. I think this example counters the quoted statement. True story: I break my Predator's deck. He draws his first 7 cards. His 8th card is Jyhad. He says "You're screwed" with a smile. I ask why. He says "I know what card that is". This player was a known cheater. Thank the Lords of Kobol he's also very stupid. - "It is easier to shuffle without sleeves" This is not an absolute truth. Physically it is the opposite. People who know me personally, know where I'm coming from here. With sleeves, specially new ones, there's much less friction. To the point that people complain that the cards slide off stack (another argument). I find it MUCH easier to shuffle (I do it well with or without sleeves), because I need to have less grip on the cards. Again, I don't really need to use sleeves, personally. I just take the easier way. I should note that I don't shuffle using the "bridge method" or the "mini random stacks" method. Both these methods are proven to randomize the deck if used enough times. I shuffle normally enough times for it not to be an issue. All is needed is one player cheating once for us to force sleeves upon certain conditions. The rules are ok, although one can still abuse them. You guys can have a romantic view of the game. I probably have one too in different aspects of it. But people are people. People will cheat. Even if it's 1 in 1000. That sucks? Most definitely. Lots of things suck. Some of them we can go around (LSJ wants out, Floppy goes in). Others we can't. EDIT: I don't understand how it is possible to be against Proxies by counter argumentation of the money issue for new players, and claim that the cost is an issue for sleeves and that it would be a barrier to new players. Yeah, I'm looking at you Kevin

This can be a bit of being a jerk but I have been thinking what is "significant advantage"? Can I use all cards which for example cost blood as mixed jyhad/3ed cards? I guess not but what is "significant"? I think there is always some small advantage when using different printings. If this advantage is offered for every player I see no reason to not to use it. I wouldn't call it cheating, the advantage just comes instantly when you have cards with different printing in your deck. Sleeves would be easy solution (at least for important tournaments).

> Brum wrote: > I think we are discussing a rather pointless issue and with some unreal arguments (I'll give two examples): > > - "It is easier to cheat with sleeves" > One can make a deck without sleeves where only the Deflections or the Freak Drives are Jyhad. I think this example counters the quoted statement. > It doesn't, unless you can prove that it's somehow impossible to make a sleeved deck in which the Deflections or Freak Drives are marked. And, again, the method you're describing here is much easier to catch - call a judge over and have him go through the deck. If every Jyhad card is a Freak Drive and every FD is Jyhad, that's very easy to spot. Much harder to spot deliberately marked sleeves. So at best, your example here establishes equivalence - it's as easy to cheat with sleeves as without them. So why require them, given that not everyone agrees that they should be required? > Brum wrote: > - "It is easier to shuffle without sleeves" > This is not an absolute truth. > Couldn't care less. For me, it's true. That's good enough reason for me to not want to sleeve my deck.

> henrik wrote: > > > Kushiel wrote: > > [...] it's easier to cheat with sleeves than without them. > > > Do you have any proof of this? > I'd say it seems much easier to cheat with unsleeved cards due to the (sometimes very big) color difference between many of the sets. > Do you have any proof that people that don't use sleeves are, by definition, cheaters, or have less integrity than players that use sleeves? That's why this discussion is moot -- because we punish people for things that they DO (cheat) not things that they MIGHT do based on the way that they are acting (not using sleeves). SIDE DISCUSSION: I show up in a VTES community with a dozen decks, ready to play, you're going to tell me that I have to buy sleeves, put them on all my decks, and play far out of my comfort zone, without having any evidence that I'm a bad guy at any level, instead of just inviting me in and happily getting another player for a few games? ^^ THIS is how the "pro-sleeve" argument logically falls. It sounds like an awful, fearful place to be as a player and as a gaming community, and I've always wondered why certain VTES communities wish to punish players by forcing them to spend money on sleeves that aren't needed. Can anyone explain this to me? (I've also wondered why those French players that were KNOWN cheaters were allowed by the rest of the community to continue to play, and not ostracized, but that's a completely different discussion.) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Brum wrote: > - "It is easier to cheat with sleeves" > One can make a deck without sleeves where only the Deflections or the Freak Drives are Jyhad. I think this example counters the quoted statement. > True story: I break my Predator's deck. He draws his first 7 cards. His 8th card is Jyhad. He says "You're screwed" with a smile. > I ask why. He says "I know what card that is". > This player was a known cheater. Thank the Lords of Kobol he's also very stupid. > I assume this means that you reported him for cheating. I only rarely sleeve my decks. Maybe it's a cultural thing: I'm American, and not everyone sleeves their decks here. I usually sleeve my crypt in order to save wear and tear on those cards. If I felt that my mix of cards would give me an advantage (or would be judged to give me an advantage), I would sleeve them in a tournament. Usually I have random staple Jyhad cards that are truly randomized. Possible example of Jyhad cards in a Tremere deck: 2x Magic of the Smith/ 1x Govern the Unaligned/ 2x Wake with Evening's Freshness/ 2x Taste of Vitae/ 1x Conditioning/ 2x Deflection. That kind of thing. I don't want to have to sleeve every deck I play with. That's too much work. I want it to be easy to alter, dismantle, and build decks.

> KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > > > > Kushiel wrote: > > > [...] it's easier to cheat with sleeves than without them. > > > > > > > > Do you have any proof of this? > > I'd say it seems much easier to cheat with unsleeved cards due to the (sometimes very big) color difference between many of the sets. > > > Do you have any proof that people that don't use sleeves are, by definition, cheaters, or have less integrity than players that use sleeves? > I don't. But since it's nothing I have said I don't see why I should have to prove it. > KevinM wrote: > That's why this discussion is moot -- because we punish people for things that they DO (cheat) not things that they MIGHT do based on the way that they are acting (not using sleeves). > I'm not talking about punishing. I'm talking about prohibiting people from playing with differently backed cards. > KevinM wrote: > SIDE DISCUSSION: > > I show up in a VTES community with a dozen decks, ready to play, you're going to tell me that I have to buy sleeves, put them on all my decks, and play far out of my comfort zone, without having any evidence that I'm a bad guy at any level, instead of just inviting me in and happily getting another player for a few games? > > ^^ THIS is how the "pro-sleeve" argument logically falls. > > It sounds like an awful, fearful place to be as a player and as a gaming community, and I've always wondered why certain VTES communities wish to punish players by forcing them to spend money on sleeves that aren't needed. Can anyone explain this to me? > For casual games I don't care. You can do whatever you want. I'm interested in the tournament rules and not your community's comfort zone. And as I've stated before in this thread, opaque sleeves are needed due to the very different colouring of the sets. > KevinM wrote: > (I've also wondered why those French players that were KNOWN cheaters were allowed by the rest of the community to continue to play, and not ostracized, but that's a completely different discussion.) > Either you're going to create that thread yourself or you're being a jerk. If the former, I look forward to discussing it in your thread. If the latter, please stop.

> Aaron wrote: > I only rarely sleeve my decks. Maybe it's a cultural thing: I'm American, and not everyone sleeves their decks here. I usually sleeve my crypt in order to save wear and tear on those cards. If I felt that my mix of cards would give me an advantage (or would be judged to give me an advantage), I would sleeve them in a tournament. Usually I have random staple Jyhad cards that are truly randomized. Possible example of Jyhad cards in a Tremere deck: 2x Magic of the Smith/ 1x Govern the Unaligned/ 2x Wake with Evening's Freshness/ 2x Taste of Vitae/ 1x Conditioning/ 2x Deflection. That kind of thing. > > I don't want to have to sleeve every deck I play with. That's too much work. I want it to be easy to alter, dismantle, and build decks. > How many other copies of those cards do you have with other backs? In a game with that deck where you've got 2x Magic of the Smith/ 1x Govern the Unaligned/ 2x Wake with Evening's Freshness/ 2x Taste of Vitae in your ash heap or hand, you will have a very good chance of knowing what card you'll draw next if your top library card has a Jyhad back.

> Kushiel wrote: > It doesn't, unless you can prove that it's somehow impossible to make a sleeved deck in which the Deflections or Freak Drives are marked. And, again, the method you're describing here is much easier to catch - call a judge over and have him go through the deck. If every Jyhad card is a Freak Drive and every FD is Jyhad, that's very easy to spot. Much harder to spot deliberately marked sleeves. me, it's true. That's good enough reason for me to not want to sleeve my deck. > Can I then put 8 deflections and 3 freak drives as jyhad cards in my deck? Or some other combination which will help. My point is more that there is automatic advantage when playing without sleeves with jyhad cards even when you are not "cheating" (and I think non sleaves allows easier ways to cheat also).

> Xaddam wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > So you believe that people that don't play with sleeves have no integrity, or their integrity is somehow less than yours? I see. > > > > Oh, my Paypal address is , I'll be awaiting your $10 so that I can start sleeving my cards. ;) > > > I'm not a native speaker, so my syntax or semantics might off. I'm sorry if that's what's happened here. > > Of course I don't mean that. By 'integrity of the competition' I mean our ability, as community members, to say "our competition format is fair and results reflects the participants' skill". If someone might have cheated and we didn't do our utmost to hinder it it's hard to claim the competition has integrity. > Your English is excellent. What I'm saying is that there is no reason to assume that people are going to cheat and to create barriers, however slight, above and beyond the rules of the game, to play, and the lack of such barriers, however few, are not grounds to state that a community does not have 100% integrity in regards to leveling the playing field. The non-sleeve-based rules are completely sufficient to ensure a proper, legitimate, integrity-based game. There is no reason that I can see, other than fear -- of the rules, of the unknown player, of the unwanted player, etc -- that a gaming community would institute "house" rules above-and-beyond the given rules of the game which mandate barriers, however slight, to entry into the community. If the rules of a game aren't sufficient for the community, I'd suggest that the community STOP playing the game, to lessen the fear in their lives, and play something properly and completely designed. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Brum wrote: > EDIT: I don't understand how it is possible to be against Proxies by counter argumentation of the money issue for new players, and claim that the cost is an issue for sleeves and that it would be a barrier to new players. Yeah, I'm looking at you Kevin > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you be more specific so that I can respond? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> henrik wrote: > Either you're going to create that thread yourself or you're being a jerk. If the former, I look forward to discussing it in your thread. If the latter, please stop. > When you come up with something on your own, feel free to let me know. Maybe I'll reuse it over and over again because it's as cool as what I came up with. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> henrik wrote: > And as I've stated before in this thread, opaque sleeves are needed due to the very different colouring of the sets. > They've very obviously not been needed in the past, since they haven't ever been required by the VEKN tournament rules. What's changed since you started this thread to make them necessary?

> Xaddam wrote: > You've replied to everything except for my conclusion, bakija. > That's 'cause John did a completely sufficient job of it in a previous post. > As said, just because requiring sleeves doesn't solve the backing problem perfectly it doesn't mean we shouldn't use the solution. We're basically allowing one kind of card back variance (jyhad vs. vtes backing and colour schemes) and disallowing all other kinds of card back variance. > The issue is that it doesn't really matter. Either someone is going to cheat (in which case, if you can discern that they are cheating, you call them on it) or they aren't (in which case the backing issue isn't an issue; I regularly use different card backs in my non sleeved decks. It doesn't hand my any extra info as I mix the cards sufficiently).

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > And as I've stated before in this thread, opaque sleeves are needed due to the very different colouring of the sets. > > > They've very obviously not been needed in the past, since they haven't ever been required by the VEKN tournament rules. What's changed since you started this thread to make them necessary? > I discussed it with a friend and here we are.

> henrik wrote: > If we assume good faith, the point about added possibilities to cheat with sleeves is a non-issue. In fact, if we assume good faith, the entire discussion (and part of the tournament rules) about cheating is meaningless. > Agreed. That is why I think this whole discussion is meaningless. As I assume good faith. As my experience in many years of competitive VTES is that the vast, vast majority of players are playing in good faith.

> Surreal wrote: > Can I then put 8 deflections and 3 freak drives as jyhad cards in my deck? Or some other combination which will help. > No. As far as I know, the VEKN tournament rules mandate a mix of card backs when playing with unsleeved cards that won't allow for the player using mixed backs to gain some advantage by doing so, and always have.

> bakija wrote: > The issue is that it doesn't really matter. Either someone is going to cheat (in which case, if you can discern that they are cheating, you call them on it) or they aren't (in which case the backing issue isn't an issue; I regularly use different card backs in my non sleeved decks. It doesn't hand my any extra info as I mix the cards sufficiently). > Can you post a decklist (with cards from both Jyhad and other sets)? And specify which cards are from what expansions. I'd love to see some examples.

> henrik wrote: > I discussed it with a friend and here we are. > I don't think that your discussion with your friend is really sufficient reason to make a change to a rule that's been working without any problem since the founding of the VEKN.

> bakija wrote: > > > Xaddam wrote: > > You've replied to everything except for my conclusion, bakija. > > > That's 'cause John did a completely sufficient job of it in a previous post. > I don't know if Xaddam knows who I am, so just to clear up any confusion pre-emptively, bakija is referring to me here.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I discussed it with a friend and here we are. > > > I don't think that your discussion with your friend is really sufficient reason to make a change to a rule that's been working without any problem since the founding of the VEKN. > I've never said it was. The arguments would be the reason to change the rules. You asked for my reason to start this thread though, and I gave them.

> henrik wrote: > I've never said it was. The arguments would be the reason to change the rules. You asked for my reason to start this thread though, and I gave them. > Okay. Care to answer the spirit of the question that I asked, which is, "What has changed in the nature of VTES cardbacks such that sleeves are now required when they haven't been in the history of the VEKN tournament rules, even though those rules were established well after cardbacks were a potential issue?"

I don't think cheating is so important in this discussion. Cheaters will find way with whatever. I just feel non sleeve decks with jyhad backs offers me automatically more information of my deck than sleeved does. This advantage is also available for every player and not necessary "cheating". EDIT This can be cultural thing also. I think almost everybody sleeves decks in Europe.

> henrik wrote: > Can you post a decklist (with cards from both Jyhad and other sets)? And specify which cards are from what expansions. > I'd love to see some examples. > Probably not, simply because it would take more time to do this than I think it is worth. The short version is--I try to avoid mixing Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards in decks that aren't generally about half of each; if I'm using Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards in a given deck, I will endeavor to have a significant number (about half, give or take) and a good mix of of Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I've never said it was. The arguments would be the reason to change the rules. You asked for my reason to start this thread though, and I gave them. > > > Okay. Care to answer the spirit of the question that I asked, which is, "What has changed in the nature of VTES cardbacks such that sleeves are now required when they haven't been in the history of the VEKN tournament rules, even though those rules were established well after cardbacks were a potential issue?" > I really didn't get your question. There's been no real change the last few years I suppose. Or, the Inner Circle of VEKN has changed a bit I think. I just don't get how that matters. I'm putting forward a problem and a proposed change (actually I didn't even do that in the OP, I just asked a couple of questions). Cards from different expansions have easily distinguished backs, but yet it's allowed to play with them without using opaque sleeves. I think is a problem.

I don't think card sleeves go far enough. My proposal is that everybody playing in a VTES tournament must have a sticker that says "I AM NOT A CHEATER" and wear it on their shirt while playing. Because everyone will be wearing a sticker, you can be confident that nobody at the tournament is cheating. It's a win-win scenario! You may purchase these stickers from me for $10 each, plus shipping and handling. I will setup the website order form shortly. Counterfeit stickers will not be tolerated.

> Surreal wrote: > I don't think cheating is so important in this discussion. Cheaters will find way with whatever. I just feel non sleeve decks with jyhad backs offers me automatically more information of my deck than sleeved does. This advantage is also available for very player and not necessary "cheating". > Certainly, using the very clearly different card backs of 'Jyhad' and 'V:TES' could be an issue of information, and possibly cheating. The issue is that it COULD BE, not that it IS. That difference between 'is' and 'could be' is the heart of the matter of sleeves vs no sleeves. I know a player that bought dozens of Jyhad boxes, and he moves cards into and out of decks with little regard for what backs he is using. (You could add 3rd into this, as well, since the card backs got printed upside-down.) We joke with him that he is using a Jyhad card when we see the back, but it could be a Blood Doll or Ivory Bow as easily as it could be a WWEF or a Computer Hacking. He doesn't intentionally do anything, doesn't have any special knowledge and doesn't care as to what card back he is using, so there is no extra information there in any way despite what some may argue. He has seriously asked me about the rules and I've told him that, unless he plays in Europe, no one is going to say anything to him about it ever, including the European players that attend North American events (in my experience, they've never said anything ever, so there's no reason that they would start saying something). > Surreal wrote: > EDIT > This can be cultural thing also. I think almost everybody sleeves decks in Europe. > Which is why I said something about the known French cheaters (Henrik's snarky reply notwithstanding) because I think that having cheaters involved in play, as I've been told that they were in tournaments in France and at some ECs for YEARS, has put the idea of cheating into European player's heads, whereas in North America there has never been, to the best of my knowledge, a case of cheating at any tournament ever. Either that, or Europeans are more distrustful in general. Or some other reason that we haven't stumbled on yet, that differentiates (some) Europeans from (most) Americans in this regard. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > Brum wrote: > > EDIT: I don't understand how it is possible to be against Proxies by counter argumentation of the money issue for new players, and claim that the cost is an issue for sleeves and that it would be a barrier to new players. Yeah, I'm looking at you Kevin > > > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you be more specific so that I can respond? > You (and not only you) wrote that the price of some chase cards (Villein, Ashur Tablets, etc) is not a good enough reason to stop new players from entering the game. I agreed with your arguments. You wrote that the price of sleeves for a deck might be an issue to keep new players away. Sorry, I'm very tired. My English was awful.

> KevinM wrote: > Either that, or Europeans are more distrustful in general. Or some other reason that we haven't stumbled on yet, that differentiates (some) Europeans from (most) Americans in this regard. > I can think of some reasons: - People from completely different countries and cultures traveling between countries gives way to "some" suspicion. Not on purpose, but it's there. - Many players like to be professional as much as they can. - Many more players in Europe, many different backgrounds, ergo more chances of someone cheating. - Maybe in the US everyone knows each other. Or they come from the playgroup of someone you know. That gives way to a much healthier atmosphere, IMO. For instance if I receive a regular from Atlanta or LA, I will subconsciously trust him more than someone I don't have any reference from. That doesn't mean I'll be suspicious of strangers. Really. I hope people understand that. We love receiving players from abroad and we've done so without any problems! - More players in Europe -> more chance of one of them being rotten.

> KevinM wrote: > Certainly, using the very clearly different card backs of 'Jyhad' and 'V:TES' could be an issue of information, and possibly cheating. The issue is that it COULD BE, not that it IS. That difference between 'is' and 'could be' is the heart of the matter of sleeves vs no sleeves > Jyhad cards with no sleeves is automatically more information in every deck than all sleeved deck. I can't think how this argument can be turned. The question is can it be too much information within tournament rules. And this not discussion about cheating so much. It is also impossible to draw a line which is "significant advantage" or "very cleary different card backs". That thing is easily abused. Am I cheating or just having small advantage if almost half of my decks cards cost blood and I use only jyhad/3ed cards for them? What about if I don't have any master cards or cards I can play out-of-turn as jyhad cards? There can be many those kind of examples. When it is small advantage and when it is cheating? Small advantage is there everytime with jyhad cards but can it be too much sometime?

> Brum wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > > > > Brum wrote: > > > EDIT: I don't understand how it is possible to be against Proxies by counter argumentation of the money issue for new players, and claim that the cost is an issue for sleeves and that it would be a barrier to new players. Yeah, I'm looking at you Kevin > > > > > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you be more specific so that I can respond? > > > You (and not only you) wrote that the price of some chase cards (Villein, Ashur Tablets, etc) is not a good enough reason to stop new players from entering the game. I agreed with your arguments. You wrote that the price of sleeves for a deck might be an issue to keep new players away. > The difference is that there is no need to own Villein/Ashur/etc, nor any card for that matter, to be able to competitively play the game of VTES. There are LOTS of decks you can make without these cards, especially now that Villein's card text got changed. If you CHOOSE to obtain certain pricey cards, either now via eBay or trading, or, as I did, by purchasing ten to twenty boxes of each booster set for the last 10 years, that is a choice. The sleeve discussion is about being FORCED to use sleeves, and the cost, time factor, and comfort issues involved. Granted, it's probably less about a price comparison than a freedom comparison, but price is still in there at some fundamental level. And if the cost of sleeves (or Villeins/Ashur's) isn't an issue for some players, they can give away all that they wish. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Brum wrote: > More players -> more chance of one of them being rotten. > Perhaps that's a fundamental difference between the pro-force sleeves and the anti-force sleeves crowd? The pro-force sleeves crowd believes that as the number of gamers becomes larger, there is a chance approaching 100% that one of them will be a cheater, and the anti-force sleeves crowd doesn't believe this. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > Perhaps that's a fundamental difference between the pro-force sleeves and the anti-force sleeves crowd? The pro-force sleeves crowd believes that as the number of gamers becomes larger, there is a chance approaching 100% that one of them will be a cheater, and the anti-force sleeves crowd doesn't believe this. > For me the reason is with sleeving all the problems with jyhad and coming pdf cards can be done with very easy way. Plus I guess over 95% sleeve their decks here anyway so it wouldn't be big change in here.

> Surreal wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > Certainly, using the very clearly different card backs of 'Jyhad' and 'V:TES' could be an issue of information, and possibly cheating. The issue is that it COULD BE, not that it IS. That difference between 'is' and 'could be' is the heart of the matter of sleeves vs no sleeves > > > Jyhad cards with no sleeves is automatically more information in every deck than all sleeved deck. > Except for the player that I mentioned. Except for other players like that, of whom I can name several (not a lot, but several). Except for them. So, not automatically. > Surreal wrote: > I can't think how this argument can be turned. The question is can it be too much information within tournament rules. And this not discussion about cheating so much. > I agree, it isn't about cheating. It's about fear. Either fear, or the tournament rules haven't been working perfectly well for thousands of tournaments so far. > Surreal wrote: > It is also impossible to draw a line which is "significant advantage" or "very clearly different card backs". That thing is easily abused. > I'm sure at this point, someone would say: Evidence, please? (Note that *I* don't think you need evidence for such a thing, since I agree with you, but I'm sure some person that has posted in this thread more than once who likes demanding evidence would demand you provide it.) > Surreal wrote: > Am I cheating or just having small advantage if almost half of my decks cards cost blood and I use only jyhad/3ed cards for them? > That depends on if you're a cheater or not. Since, by definition, if you aren't a cheater, you're gaining nothing. > Surreal wrote: > What about if I don't have any master cards or cards I can play out-of-turn as jyhad cards? There can be many those kind of examples. When it is small advantage and when it is cheating? > When you're a cheater, you're a cheater. when you're not -- such as the player in my example -- then you're not. Which is why I asked for that line to be striken from the rules. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to see the pro-sleevers' point. Having sleeves does create a more standardized environment in tournament play. Overall, it would be better to require sleeves than not to require sleeves. That said, if I go to a casual local tournament, such as the ones in LA or the ones I attended in San Jose over the summer, I just don't see the need for it. Some people sleeve, some don't. I don't think people are trying to use card backs for an advantage. There are some newer or very casual players who probably aren't even capable of using it to their advantage. Having played in the 2010 EC, I can see Tiago's point that in Europe people's trust level might be lower.

For me it's not so much that I believe people are cheating a lot, but more that the tournament rules allows a kind of marked cards. I find this very strange, and I think it makes calling the real cheaters on cheating harder. I would love to see a decklist (with sets included) that doesn't give any extra information to the player when (for example) their library is down to 10 cards and only 1 of them have a Jyhad back. Since all the other cards will be visible for the player in some way, xe can easily get information xe shouldn't have access to. (Cards like Erciyes Fragments can potentially hide a small part of the information, but that's quite rare and it's announced when taken.)

I too have always thought it is totally silly that the tournament rules allow you to mark cards. I understand that this is not perceived a problem over in the US where people apparently play unsleeved a lot and in Europe literally everyone plays with sleeves. Sure, so we all assume people don't cheat, but with the rules as they are it's *extremely easy* to actually do so.

> henrik wrote: > 4.1 in the tournament rules states that > > > If cards with distinct backs are used in the same deck (e.g., Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards, or upside-down 3rd Edition cards and right-side up cards, or mis-cut cards) are used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the different sets, printings, etc. must be of sufficiently mixed card type. > > > What does "significant advantage" mean? > Knowledge of the card to draw would be "significant advantage". > henrik wrote: > Does the usage of the word "significant" indicate that minor advantages from using cards with different backs is ok? > Yes. Players already have minor advantages. It's called "your decklist" (or "the cards in your deck"). "I really need a Deflection, should I discard? Let's see.. I've drawn a total of 10 cards without one, and I play 10 copies in 90 cards. So this card on the top of my library has a 78% chance of being a Deflection." > henrik wrote: > In a grander perspective, why isn't sleeves mandatory for tournament play (at least when using cards with different backs)? > Because minor advantage is ok. Discussing this subject more would end with a (bad, I think) ruling of this kind: > > When using Jyhad cards, a player must follow these: > - each card of a card must have X% (pick any convenient number) (round down) of its copies in the deck with Vampire backs ("All your Parity Shits aren't Jyhad") > - if a deck contains at least 1 Jyhad back card, it must contain at least Y (pick any convenient number) different cards with Jyhad backs ("all your Jyhad cards aren't Parity Shifts") > - if a deck contains at least 1 Jyhad back cardtype, it must contain at least Z (pick any convenient number) different cardtypes with Jyhad backs ("All your Jyhad cards aren't Political Actions") > But this would require smart values for X, Y and Z, where "smart" means "non-affecting deckbuilding". Cards of Third Edition aren't an issue.

> Pascal wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > 4.1 in the tournament rules states that > > > > > If cards with distinct backs are used in the same deck (e.g., Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards, or upside-down 3rd Edition cards and right-side up cards, or mis-cut cards) are used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the different sets, printings, etc. must be of sufficiently mixed card type. > > > > > > > > > > What does "significant advantage" mean? > > > Knowledge of the card to draw would be "significant advantage". > Once the library or crypt starts to diminish, that knowledge comes. A crypt with 6 Jyhad backs and 6 VTES backs can get quite good knowledge of their top crypt card from the start of the game if they draw 4 Jyhad backs in their uncontrolled region and has a Jyhad back on top of their crypt. > Pascal wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > Does the usage of the word "significant" indicate that minor advantages from using cards with different backs is ok? > > > Yes. > Players already have minor advantages. It's called "your decklist" (or "the cards in your deck"). "I really need a Deflection, should I discard? Let's see.. I've drawn a total of 10 cards without one, and I play 10 copies in 90 cards. So this card on the top of my library has a 78% chance of being a Deflection." > The difference would be that, later in the game, even with a "good" mix of Jyhad and VTES backs you could easily count that to being 100%. A deck with 45 Jyhad backs and 45 VTES backs might very well end up having the last 15 cards being 1 Jyhad and 14 VTES. Even with 2 Jyhad backs and 13 VTES and the Jyhad cards being different you can narrow your chances quite a lot (instead of 1/15 it's 1/2). > Pascal wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > In a grander perspective, why isn't sleeves mandatory for tournament play (at least when using cards with different backs)? > > > Because minor advantage is ok. > I assume this means that using sleeves of different colour and type in the same library/crypt is allowed as well? > Pascal wrote: > Discussing this subject more would end with a (bad, I think) ruling of this kind: > > > > When using Jyhad cards, a player must follow these: > > - each card of a card must have X% (pick any convenient number) (round down) of its copies in the deck with Vampire backs ("All your Parity Shits aren't Jyhad") > > - if a deck contains at least 1 Jyhad back card, it must contain at least Y (pick any convenient number) different cards with Jyhad backs ("all your Jyhad cards aren't Parity Shifts") > > - if a deck contains at least 1 Jyhad back cardtype, it must contain at least Z (pick any convenient number) different cardtypes with Jyhad backs ("All your Jyhad cards aren't Political Actions") > > > But this would require smart values for X, Y and Z, where "smart" means "non-affecting deckbuilding". > Cards of Third Edition aren't an issue. > I agree that a ruling of that kind would be somewhat horrible, both to follow and to enforce. However, discussing the subject more could also end with a rule about mandatory sleeving.

I just did a little test. Semi-random cards; the first card of every unique set (excluding promo cards) in my unsorted pile of cards. Try it yourself. Attachment cardbacks1.jpg not found The top row is the blue-tinted sets ordered by fullness of colour. The bottom row is the green-tinted sets ordered by fullness of colour. Attachment cardbacks2-third-kot.jpg not found Comparing Third (the least full of blue tint) with Keepers of Tradition (the most full of green tint). Attachment cardbacks3-finalnights-kot.jpg not found Comparing Final Nights (the most full of blue tint) with Keepers of Tradition (the most full with green tint) This is not even handled by the tournament rules. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> henrik wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > henrik wrote: > > > In a grander perspective, why isn't sleeves mandatory for tournament play (at least when using cards with different backs)? > > > > > Because minor advantage is ok. > > > I assume this means that using sleeves of different colour and type in the same library/crypt is allowed as well? > No. If you're using sleeves, they must all be of the same factory. I should restate my earlier message: "Minor advantage from prints is ok, because making it not ok would be too much of a pain." We can enforce "same sleeves if you're using sleeves" because sleeves come in packs of 50/100.

Ye see, this is where it becomes blurry. So I *can* use 45 Jyhad backed cards and 45 VTES backed cards, but I *cannot* use 45 black sleeves and 45 green sleeves. Yet, this is *exactly* the same thing. > "Minor advantage from prints is ok, because making it not ok would be too much of a pain." > We can enforce "same sleeves if you're using sleeves" because sleeves come in packs of 50/100. > You could just enforce sleeves; that's hardly a pain. Ye, sure some people don't use sleeves for reasons I probably won't ever understand, but you're already doing it if decks have any of the VEKN-issued printed cards in them anyway. Magic does that and has been doing it forever. Presumably people are more likely to cheat in Magic because there's so much money associated with it whereas VTES is just a bunch of hobby guys playing a niche game without any real prices, let alone price money. I'm not saying people cheat, because I like to believe VTES players in general don't cheat, but really... it's so damned easy with all these different card backs.

> Izaak wrote: > Ye see, this is where it becomes blurry. > > So I *can* use 45 Jyhad backed cards and 45 VTES backed cards, but I *cannot* use 45 black sleeves and 45 green sleeves. Yet, this is *exactly* the same thing. > I harly see how. In the first case, you're using cards as you got them. In the second case, you're deliberately using different sleeves.

But that's true that without intending to cheat I have from time to time used information gotten by card back.

I'm curious: Did those known cheaters in France sleeve their decks?

Maybe I'm wrong but how can the possible information about the coming card be so decisive? Okay, yes, I can predict the nature of my next card if I really do the work and take the same card from just one set. I never made up my mind on this, but is that a crucial problem? Let the cheaters cheat, I don't think the different card backds will be a big problem (maybe I'm naive). Baron of Frankfurt

> I harly see how. In the first case, you're using cards as you got them. > In the second case, you're deliberately using different sleeves. > How the cards were marked is irrelevant. I'm allowed -by the rules- to deliberately "mark" cards as long as I don't use sleeves. Yet doing exactly the same *with* sleeves is cheating. Double standards much? > Maybe I'm wrong but how can the possible information about the coming card be so decisive? Okay, yes, I can predict the nature of my next card if I really do the work and take the same card from just one set. > I would be pretty trivial to build a deck where like, all your Deflections are from Jyhad, all your stealth cards from Third and the rest from other sets. Watch my topdecking skills now. One could easily take it one step further and use only master cards that are slighty worn on the top and whatnot. There is a VERY good reason why competitive CCG's like Magic and Pokemon *require* sleeved decks.

> Izaak wrote: > I would be pretty trivial to build a deck where like, all your Deflections are from Jyhad, all your stealth cards from Third and the rest from other sets. > > Watch my topdecking skills now. > Yes, but such a deck construction is explicitly forbidden by the tournament rules. Joscha's point is the basic reasoning behind the rule: in general the advantage to be gained by different card backs (assuming they are mixed as dictated by the tournament rules) is minimal. The minimal advantage that can be gained must be balanced by the penalty that players as consumers face because of the failure of the publisher(s) to provide cards with consistent card backs. Forcing players to buy sleeves and use them is punishing them for the publisher's(s') errors. That's why the current rule is reasonable, even though I agree ideally it would be better if all backs were the same, which can only be accomplished by sleeving.

> henrik wrote: > For me it's not so much that I believe people are cheating a lot, but more that the tournament rules allows a kind of marked cards. I find this very strange, and I think it makes calling the real cheaters on cheating harder. > This is entirely possible, but since we can never collect any data on cheaters that get away with it, it seems less than useful to attempt such a thing. Instead, we as players remain vigilant to the best of our ability, so that with or without sleeves, the other players are not cheating. > henrik wrote: > I would love to see a decklist (with sets included) that doesn't give any extra information to the player when (for example) their library is down to 10 cards and only 1 of them have a Jyhad back. > I described such a player previously. The deck list isn't relevant, it's the player's intent that is questioned. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Izaak wrote: > I too have always thought it is totally silly that the tournament rules allow you to mark cards. > You are misdefining the term "to mark cards", as the rules do not allow this. The rules are quite clear about different card backs. What this discussion is evolving into is the difference between a cheating player and a player that uses cards with different backs, and how the former is clearly breaking the rules while the latter is, with no care or knowledge about his card backs, not doing so, and how difficult it is for some people to believe that such a player can exist. > Izaak wrote: > I understand that this is not perceived a problem over in the US where people apparently play unsleeved a lot and in Europe literally everyone plays with sleeves. > Correctly and well stated. The issue at hand here is: Either the cheaters in the USA (North America?) are FANTASTIC and have NEVER been caught in thousands of tournaments in 15+ years, or the players in the USA (NA?) who don't play with sleeves don't pay attention to their card backs because they just don't care and aren't cheaters. > Izaak wrote: > Sure, so we all assume people don't cheat, but with the rules as they are it's *extremely easy* to actually do so. > If true, why is it that 99.99999% of VTES players don't cheat? (I ask because I think this point is very important to the discussion.) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> henrik wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > henrik wrote: > > > In a grander perspective, why isn't sleeves mandatory for tournament play (at least when using cards with different backs)? > > > > > Because minor advantage is ok. > > > I assume this means that using sleeves of different colour and type in the same library/crypt is allowed as well? > You believe that using sleeves of different color and/or type in the same library/crypt equates to "minor advantage"??? Now you're the cheater. Is that your goal? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Why isn't anyone buying my "I AM NOT A CHEATER" stickers? You must all be cheaters. the only way mandatory card sleeves can possibly prevent any cheating is if your predator sleeves your deck with his own product before the game begins, without looking at the contents of course. and the sleeves must be changed between every tournament round because they could be marked by the cheater player mid-game. DO YOU WANT THIS? it's neither easier nor harder to cheat with sleeves on. all it does is make it more subtle, and possibly harder to catch, assuming a player wants to cheat. if someone wants to cheat, they will find a way to cheat. right now the only enforcement against cheating is that if you think an opponent is topdeck-cheating, you ask a judge to examine his deck. it would be very easy to notice a pattern of Jyhad-only cards compared to tiny scratches or smudges on the sleeves. the only benefit from sleeves, aside from preferring their feel or wanting to protect your cards, is that you can prevent unintentional self-cheating if you feel that it is an issue. if I make a deck that has 2 Jyhad cards in it, because I have no other versions of those cards, then I'll probably sleeve it all to make sure I don't accidentally see them on top of the deck. but I rarely sleeve because I'm usually too distracted to look at my library deck. Others may unconsciously know too much about their deck composition and the different colors on card backs and choose to keep themselves honest. this is voluntary and should stay that way, because making it mandatory doesn't do SHIT. oh yes, an addendum to the above proposal: someone will need to change the sleeves on your deck when you play 3 Ashur Tablets, because you CHEATERS might mark the cards in your ash heap before shuffling them back in.

> Haze wrote: > Why isn't anyone buying my "I AM NOT A CHEATER" stickers? You must all be cheaters. > > the only way mandatory card sleeves can possibly prevent any cheating is if your predator sleeves your deck with his own product before the game begins, without looking at the contents of course. and the sleeves must be changed between every tournament round because they could be marked by the cheater player mid-game. DO YOU WANT THIS? > > it's neither easier nor harder to cheat with sleeves on. all it does is make it more subtle, and possibly harder to catch, assuming a player wants to cheat. if someone wants to cheat, they will find a way to cheat. right now the only enforcement against cheating is that if you think an opponent is topdeck-cheating, you ask a judge to examine his deck. it would be very easy to notice a pattern of Jyhad-only cards compared to tiny scratches or smudges on the sleeves. > > the only benefit from sleeves, aside from preferring their feel or wanting to protect your cards, is that you can prevent unintentional self-cheating if you feel that it is an issue. if I make a deck that has 2 Jyhad cards in it, because I have no other versions of those cards, then I'll probably sleeve it all to make sure I don't accidentally see them on top of the deck. but I rarely sleeve because I'm usually too distracted to look at my library deck. Others may unconsciously know too much about their deck composition and the different colors on card backs and choose to keep themselves honest. > > this is voluntary and should stay that way, because making it mandatory doesn't do SHIT. > > oh yes, an addendum to the above proposal: someone will need to change the sleeves on your deck when you play 3 Ashur Tablets, because you CHEATERS might mark the cards in your ash heap before shuffling them back in. > This might be the Post Of The Year on VEKN.net! Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> If true, why is it that 99.99999% of VTES players don't cheat? (I ask because I think this point is very important to the discussion.) > Because, supposedly, since there isn't any sort of cash to be won in VTES and non-money price support hasn't exactly been stellar either in the past 10 years, there is no real reason to cheat other than claiming TWDA spots and appearing in a cool, but totally meaningless Hall of Fame. I'm fairly convinced that if the EC or NAC paid a $/€ 25k price, we'd be having mandatory sleeves. I also don't think it's very relevant for the discussion whether or not people actually cheat. I was merely saying I find it strange the rules of the game leave an enormous opportunity to cheat "legally". > <snipped a lot of stuff by Haze> > This entire argument can be repeated for Magic, where substantial amounts of cash can be won and mandatory sleeving presumably has kept away cheaters for years.

> Izaak wrote: > This entire argument can be repeated for Magic, where substantial amounts of cash can be won and mandatory sleeving presumably has kept away cheaters for years. > Unfortunately incorrect. There are LOTS of cheaters at most Magic events, and always have been. It's largely because the sport refuses to police itself and relies on a weak justice system. I myself have gotten several 1-year and at least two 5-year bans, back when I played. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Izaak wrote: > > I also don't think it's very relevant for the discussion whether or not people actually cheat. I was merely saying I find it strange the rules of the game leave an enormous opportunity to cheat "legally". > [hijack] If you are worried about the rules allowing legal cheating, I would also think you would be worried about the current rules on sportsmanlike conduct. It is currently legal to speak to other players about the details of particular game when one or more other players are not present as long as you do not agree to a particular VP split. As far as I'm concerned, that is also legalized cheating, which has even bigger chances for abuse.[/hijack]

> KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > For me it's not so much that I believe people are cheating a lot, but more that the tournament rules allows a kind of marked cards. I find this very strange, and I think it makes calling the real cheaters on cheating harder. > > > This is entirely possible, but since we can never collect any data on cheaters that get away with it, it seems less than useful to attempt such a thing. Instead, we as players remain vigilant to the best of our ability, so that with or without sleeves, the other players are not cheating. > Allowing differently backed cards is not really to "remain vigilant to the best of our ability". > KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I would love to see a decklist (with sets included) that doesn't give any extra information to the player when (for example) their library is down to 10 cards and only 1 of them have a Jyhad back. > > > I described such a player previously. The deck list isn't relevant, it's the player's intent that is questioned. > My point is that any deck with different backs will start at, or move towards a point where your chance of guessing the top card in the deck is higher than a sleeved deck (with identical backs). This is additional information that players can gain which can give them a significant (in my opinion) advantage. Of course, the advantage is only there if they chose not to use sleeves on their cards, making the situatione even worse. It's not really the players intent that is my issue here. It's the tournament rules that allows a way of playing with marked cards, which I think can give a rather big advantage in a significant number of games. > KevinM wrote: > You believe that using sleeves of different color and/or type in the same library/crypt equates to "minor advantage"??? > > Now you're the cheater. Is that your goal? > I believe that having cards with different backs in your library or crypt equates to "significant advantage". I believe using sleeves with different colours (in a mix as good as in those decks that use both Jyhad and VTES backs) would put me in the same situation as players who chose to not sleeve their decks. Calling me a cheater for wanting that would be to call all those who doesn't sleeve their decks cheaters. Well played.

> henrik wrote: > It's not really the players intent that is my issue here. It's the tournament rules that allows a way of playing with marked cards, which I think can give a rather big advantage in a significant number of games. > I'll try rephrasing this question one last time in hopes of getting an answer from you: Given that these rules have been in place for the 10+ years of VEKN's history, and there haven't been significant issues with them, why is this an issue now?

> henrik wrote: > I believe that having cards with different backs in your library or crypt equates to "significant advantage". > Perhaps we should revisit statistics. I don't plan to, but the advantage is only significant if you intend to cheat when you build the deck. I am sorry that you live in a world where planning to cheat is such a problem for you. For me, V:TES is a game with value, and will be enjoyed as such, without sleeves. Cheating has no value.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > It's not really the players intent that is my issue here. It's the tournament rules that allows a way of playing with marked cards, which I think can give a rather big advantage in a significant number of games. > > > I'll try rephrasing this question one last time in hopes of getting an answer from you: Given that these rules have been in place for the 10+ years of VEKN's history, and there haven't been significant issues with them, why is this an issue now? > I still don't see why this matters at all. I'm presenting a problem with the current tournament rules (they allow playing with marked cards). But sure, I'll give you the full story of why I decided to create this thread at this point in time. Last weekend me and some friends drove to a tournament (~3 hour drive) and during the trip we discussed VTES stuff. One of us seemed to recall a ruling about players not being allowed to shuffle around their crypt cards in the uncontrolled region (relevant for Brain Wash after Banishment and weird stuff like that). We wondered if that ruling would be applicable to cards in the hand as well (like the ones that Mistress Fanchon fetches). After the tournament we checked this out and it was all false, shuffling uncontrolled crypt cards are allowed. Anyway, that discussion led us to talk a bit about the fact that you're allowed to use cards with different backs in tournaments and that it can give you advantages. After getting home we talked some more about it and I read the tournament rules more closely. I found them weird and made this thread. Not sure if that's what you're after or if I'm misunderstanding your question again. I guess I could've asked years back if the thoughts had passed my mind, but they didn't. At least not at a time when I was sitting at my computer, just a few clicks from making a new post. For what it's worth I think this has been a flaw in the rules since the change in back prints on the cards.

> Adonai wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I believe that having cards with different backs in your library or crypt equates to "significant advantage". > > > Perhaps we should revisit statistics. > Not sure what you mean by this. > Adonai wrote: > I don't plan to, but the advantage is only significant if you intend to cheat when you build the deck. > Playing with differently backed cards can lead to a position where you will have better knowledge of your library than you would if your cards had sleeves or identical backs. Whether or not this was your intent doesn't really matter, as the information will be there either way. > Adonai wrote: > For me, V:TES is a game with value, and will be enjoyed as such, without sleeves. > > Cheating has no value. > It has a value to me as well. That's why I want tournament rules that doesn't allow marked cards, no matter how or why they were marked.

> Kushiel wrote: > I'll try rephrasing this question one last time in hopes of getting an answer from you: Given that these rules have been in place for the 10+ years of VEKN's history, and there haven't been significant issues with them, why is this an issue now? > It might always have been a problem. Most of these arguments would have been the same 15 years ago had anyone brought the discussion up. Open discussion should be encouraged, no? > I don't plan to, but the advantage is only significant if you intend to cheat when you build the deck. > I can illustrate with an example: I want to oust my prey, if I succeed with my bleed I will win the game. If I attempt and fail the bleed I will lose the game. If I do not attempt the bleed I might win the game. (common scenario, by all accounts) But the only card which can make me succeed is an Elder Impersonation, and I know I need to top-deck one. If I look at the top of my library and I see a Jyhad back, I'm sure I won't draw an Elder Impersonation. I don't need to intend to cheat to have this happen to me. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

"Significant" has a specific meaning in statistics. The 'advantage' of knowing what the next card is likely to be is so small that no one but Bakija plays with Tusk, the Talebearer . How often do you see Maris Streck take her re-ordering ability? (I've seen it twice in the last 4 years.) How often do you see Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna in play? (He's even more scarce than Tusk.) When was the last time you played with The Marrakesh Codex ? Clearly, if knowing the possible next card was a 'significant' advantage, you would already be playing with these cards. No sleeves on my cards, and I'm not cheating and my cards are not marked.

> henrik wrote: > I'm presenting a problem with the current tournament rules (they allow playing with marked cards). > This is what I'm taking issue with (ignoring the fact that it's been explained to you multiple times that the tournament rules do not actually allow you to play with marked cards). You keep saying that there is a problem with the current tournament rules as though it's obviously true. But you're begging the question when you do that, because it isn't an a priori a fact that there's a flaw with the tournament rules. In fact, given that there's been so little proven cheating involving those rules, I can't see why you're assuming that a system of rules that's been in place for this long has always been a problem, because history flatly contradicts your argument.

> Adonai wrote: > "Significant" has a specific meaning in statistics. > Do tell the whole story instead of keeping us up all night waiting for more. > Adonai wrote: > The 'advantage' of knowing what the next card is likely to be is so small that no one but Bakija plays with Tusk, the Talebearer . > > How often do you see Maris Streck take her re-ordering ability? > (I've seen it twice in the last 4 years.) > > How often do you see Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna in play? > (He's even more scarce than Tusk.) > > When was the last time you played with The Marrakesh Codex ? > > Clearly, if knowing the possible next card was a 'significant' advantage, you would already be playing with these cards. > I've played with Anatole quite a lot. His ability is really strong. I also had Marrakesh Codex in a block deck and found it good, just not worth the card slot. Maris' ability is strong, but since she has no reliable ability to untap, there are more useful actions to take with her. Tusk's problem is hardly his ability. It's his disciplines and clan. Just because something is a significant advantage doesn't necessarily mean that I will go out of my way completly to gain it. I would say that having +1 stealth on all actions is a significant advantage, yet I don't think playing with Lucretia in all my decks is a good idea. > Adonai wrote: > No sleeves on my cards, and I'm not cheating and my cards are not marked. > What's your definition of marked cards? Having a clearly different backside is included in my definition at least.

> Xaddam wrote: > It might always have been a problem. Most of these arguments would have been the same 15 years ago had anyone brought the discussion up. > They did bring them up. Scroll back up the thread and check out that link to the Google newsgroup discussion that occurred when 3rd Edition was printed. If you really want to take up some archaeology, you can even find a thread about this very same topic from 1995, when the first V:TES set was printed. In all that time, it was never determined that sleeves were necessary, hence why I wonder what's changed to make them so.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I'm presenting a problem with the current tournament rules (they allow playing with marked cards). > > > This is what I'm taking issue with (ignoring the fact that it's been explained to you multiple times that the tournament rules do not actually allow you to play with marked cards). You keep saying that there is a problem with the current tournament rules as though it's obviously true. But you're begging the question when you do that, because it isn't an a priori a fact that there's a flaw with the tournament rules. In fact, given that there's been so little proven cheating involving those rules, I can't see why you're assuming that a system of rules that's been in place for this long has always been a problem, because history flatly contradicts your argument. > How does history contradict the fact that using differently backed cards gives you a better chance of knowing your next draw? How are cards with different backs not marked? If it's not a way of cheating how come doing the same thing with sleeved cards allowed? There's no statistics over how much, if at all, the information gained through having different backed cards have been used. But the facts are that the information is there, and it can be used. For me, this is a bad thing.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > Xaddam wrote: > > It might always have been a problem. Most of these arguments would have been the same 15 years ago had anyone brought the discussion up. > > > They did bring them up. Scroll back up the thread and check out that link to the Google newsgroup discussion that occurred when 3rd Edition was printed. If you really want to take up some archaeology, you can even find a thread about this very same topic from 1995, when the first V:TES set was printed. In all that time, it was never determined that sleeves were necessary, hence why I wonder what's changed to make them so. > The second sentence was merely clarification, I'm sorry I included it. It was obviously just confusing. This is my point: > > Xaddam wrote: > It might always have been a problem. > Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > This is my point: > > > > Xaddam wrote: > > It might always have been a problem. > > Or, it has never been a problem.

> henrik wrote: > What's your definition of marked cards? > "Marked" = changed "Marked" = "to put a mark or marks on" The printed cards as published are not marked. To cheat by changing the cards backings, with pen/pencil/blade, is to mark it. To use the published card as printed as not marking. See also: Marked Cards

> Adonai wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > What's your definition of marked cards? > > > "Marked" = changed > > "Marked" = "to put a mark or marks on" > > The printed cards as published are not marked. > > To cheat by changing the cards backings, with pen/pencil/blade, is to mark it. > > To use the published card as printed as not marking. > > See also: Marked Cards > I see. I don't really see any practical difference (except that marked cards are harder to notice for others) but I'll try to use the term "differently backed" in the future.

> Adonai wrote: > Or, it has never been a problem. > Right. This is what we're discussing. > Kushiel wrote: > In fact, given that there's been so little proven cheating involving those rules, > You want to prove a rule's efficacy with its history of not catching cheaters? That doesn't mean anything. If it's been faulty it would have failed to catch cheaters because it's faulty. > I can't see why you're assuming that a system of rules that's been in place for this long has always been a problem, > Just because it's always been like this it doesn't mean it's the best way. Change can be good. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Henrik wrote: > (except that marked cards are harder to notice for others) > I don't agree. As I tried to illustrate with the pictures I posted earlier, the difference in colour scheme between sets are quite distinct but subtle. I can imagine this difference is actually easier to use than jyhad backs (or marked cards) if you want to cheat (no personal experience, so if a cheater could pitch in with theirs!), at least with the current tournament rules allowing it. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> henrik wrote: > I believe that having cards with different backs in your library or crypt equates to "significant advantage". I believe using sleeves with different colours (in a mix as good as in those decks that use both Jyhad and VTES backs) would put me in the same situation as players who chose to not sleeve their decks. Calling me a cheater for wanting that would be to call all those who doesn't sleeve their decks cheaters. Well played. > See, you don't even read (or care about) what I write, and that's the problem. You just want to keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're in your own echo chamber. But I'm willing to try again. I told you about a player I know -- I know lots, actually, but I specifically told you about one person in particular -- who mixes lots of card backs, doesn't sleeve his cards, and isn't a cheater because he doesn't pay attention to his card backs because he couldn't give a shit. You keep stating that he is a cheater, except that he isn't one, by definition. And then you create an absurd situation where you are trying to equate a player like in my example to you actively and knowingly cheating by using different color sleeves. Well played. While your original post was useful in questioning the status quo, your two errors with your continued echo chamber attitude have led you astray. Cheating has been demonstrated not to be a problem in VTES. This is a fact. Welcome to a game where people are nice. They really are. So, count the number of times you've ever so much as heard a story of someone cheating at VTES, compare that to the number of games and tournaments that you've ever played (or the number of posts in this thread) and then ask yourself if it's still worth it to make the entire VTES playerbase spend money on sleeves. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Come on, Kevin. We're not talking about who or who cheated. We're talking about whether or not one specific rule is good or bad. There's a big, big difference between stating 1) mixing Jyhad and VTES backed cards can be used to cheat and stating 2) most who mixes Jyhad and VTES backed cards are cheating. I don't think (2) is true. I don't think anyone claims (2) to be true, so maybe we can talk about something else? Do you think (1) is untrue? If so, why? Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > Come on, Kevin. We're not talking about who or who cheated. We're talking about whether or not one specific rule is good or bad. There's a big, big difference between stating 1) mixing Jyhad and VTES backed cards can be used to cheat and stating 2) most who mixes Jyhad and VTES backed cards are cheating. > > I don't think (2) is true. I don't think anyone claims (2) to be true, so maybe we can talk about something else? > I have provided an example, to which Henrik doesn't pay attention, to which he then says "I believe that having cards with different backs in your library or crypt equates to 'significant advantage'." So, yes, someone -- Henrik -- is saying that my friend, as well as lots and lots of other players that I know, are cheaters. He's said it repeatedly, in fact. You get him to stop saying it, if you can. > Xaddam wrote: > Do you think (1) is untrue? If so, why? > I have already answered this well in previous posts, but I will repost the relevant parts: Sleeves are not mandatory because a)it would provide a barrier to entry to some players, and b)because you don't assume that players are guilty and create institutional rules stating such (see: the 'Mandatory Deck Lists' discussion) ... That's why this discussion is moot -- because we punish people for things that they DO (cheat) not things that they MIGHT do based on the way that they are acting (not using sleeves). ... What I'm saying is that there is no reason to assume that people are going to cheat and to create barriers, however slight, above and beyond the rules of the game, to play, and the lack of such barriers, however few, are not grounds to state that a community does not have 100% integrity in regards to leveling the playing field. The non-sleeve-based rules are completely sufficient to ensure a proper, legitimate, integrity-based game. ... Certainly, using the very clearly different card backs of 'Jyhad' and 'V:TES' could be an issue of information, and possibly cheating. The issue is that it COULD BE, not that it IS. That difference between 'is' and 'could be' is the heart of the matter of sleeves vs no sleeves. ... The rules are quite clear about different card backs. What this discussion is evolving into is the difference between a cheating player and a player that uses cards with different backs, and how the former is clearly breaking the rules while the latter is, with no care or knowledge about his card backs, not doing so, and how difficult it is for some people to believe that such a player can exist. ... Cheating has been demonstrated not to be a problem in VTES. This is a fact. Welcome to a game where people are nice. They really are. So, count the number of times you've ever so much as heard a story of someone cheating at VTES, compare that to the number of games and tournaments that you've ever played (or the number of posts in this thread) and then ask yourself if it's still worth it to make the entire VTES playerbase spend money on sleeves. ... I hope something in there answers your question. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I believe that having cards with different backs in your library or crypt equates to "significant advantage". I believe using sleeves with different colours (in a mix as good as in those decks that use both Jyhad and VTES backs) would put me in the same situation as players who chose to not sleeve their decks. Calling me a cheater for wanting that would be to call all those who doesn't sleeve their decks cheaters. Well played. > > > See, you don't even read (or care about) what I write, and that's the problem. You just want to keep repeating the same thing over and over. You're in your own echo chamber. But I'm willing to try again. > > I told you about a player I know -- I know lots, actually, but I specifically told you about one person in particular -- who mixes lots of card backs, doesn't sleeve his cards, and isn't a cheater because he doesn't pay attention to his card backs because he couldn't give a shit. > I don't care about a single person who doesn't pay attention. I care that the information is obtainable for those who chose to not sleeve their decks, yet the advantage gained seems to be big enough to prohibit me from using 2 different colours on my sleeves. > KevinM wrote: > You keep stating that he is a cheater, except that he isn't one, by definition. And then you create an absurd situation where you are trying to equate a player like in my example to you actively and knowingly cheating by using different color sleeves. > > Well played. > Do quote me (several times) where I call your friend a cheater. Or stop saying that I do, my intention has not at all been to call anyone out as a cheater and I apoligise if I have. My point is that the information is there. > KevinM wrote: > While your original post was useful in questioning the status quo, your two errors with your continued echo chamber attitude have led you astray. > > Cheating has been demonstrated not to be a problem in VTES. This is a fact. > Link me that proof. I have not yet seen it. I do think I have presented proof that differently backed cards gives additional information to players though. Of course, if this information is used or not depends on the player. I find it hard to believe that it hasn't happened in a single tournament though, but neither you or me can prove that. > KevinM wrote: > Welcome to a game where people are nice. They really are. > > So, count the number of times you've ever so much as heard a story of someone cheating at VTES, compare that to the number of games and tournaments that you've ever played (or the number of posts in this thread) and then ask yourself if it's still worth it to make the entire VTES playerbase spend money on sleeves. > The point still isn't about whether people actually cheat or not. The point is that the tournament rules allows people to have access to additional information that should be hidden. To have access to this information they must chose not to sleeve their decks. How is this possible good for a competitve environment? If I'm supposed to trust that noone who uses differently backed cards uses the information given through that, how come I can't be trusted to not use that information if I sleeve my deck with sleeves in two different colours?

This entire discission might be moot anyway. It depends on wether or not you're allowed to SHOW the content of your hand or uncontrolled region (hidden resources known to you) to another player. Let's say you're NOT allowed to show your hidden resources to another player. By playing a sleeveless deck after the first V:EKN fan-based set is tournament legal you are indeed SHOWING all players at the table that your deck does not include any cards from said set, which would be illegal. Sure, a tad corner case, but V:TES has a lot of corner case rulings.

> yappo wrote: > Let's say you're NOT allowed to show your hidden resources to another player. By playing a sleeveless deck after the first V:EKN fan-based set is tournament legal you are indeed SHOWING all players at the table that your deck does not include any cards from said set, which would be illegal. > Incorrect. Letting other players know you're not playing cards from the VEKN fan-based sets is OK as much as letting other players know you're playing with Jyhad crypt cards (group 1-2 vampires).

If cheating is not a problem in VTES, which I believe is the case for reasons I stated elsewhere, the rules should still have one standard. I still haven't read any justification why I'm not allowed to sleeve all my Jyhad-backed cards black and all my non-Jyhad backed cards green.

Just to show one the issues I'm talking about. Here's the library from the latest of Peter Bakija's decks that show up in the TWDA : 1x Far Mastery 12x Govern the Unaligned 2x Harass 4x Rumble 4x Bonding 4x Murmur of the False Will 6x High Ground 4x Stunt Cycle 6x Target Vitals 6x Taste of Vitae 12x Thrown Gate 1x Anarch Troublemaker 1x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x Fame 1x Giant's Blood 2x Haven Uncovered 1x Political Hunting Ground 1x Potence 1x Power Structure 2x Vessel 8x Deflection 2x Delaying Tactics 4x On the Qui Vive 4x Wake with Evening's Freshness For the sake of simplicity I will assume that the mix of Jyhad and VTES backs is 45/45. First, there are 8 cards that are only included in a single copy. These 8 have no chance of being mixed. Remembering which back these 8 cards have is quite easy, and gives some advantage. Of the 6 rush cards (2 Harass, 4 Rumble), none exist with Jyhad back. Knowing for a fact that your top card isn't a rush can be very useful information if playing a combat deck (whether it's good or bad for you in the current game is another thing though, I'm just pointing out that the information is given). I know that there are also 2 Haven Uncovered, I consider them master cards and not rush cards. Cycling cards in order to draw a rush usually means you want an action card that you can use that same turn (and it's while considering cycling cards to draw into what you need that the information given is most useful). There are 12 bounce cards in total. 4 of them is a card that doesn't exist with Jyhad back (Murmur of the False Will). How are those to be split between different backs? 4 Murmur and 2 Deflection with VTES backs and 6 Deflections from Jyhad? Or should each card be separatly mixed, giving us 4 Murmur and 4 Deflections with VTES backs and 4 Deflections with Jyhad backs? The latter way would give us a higher concentration of bounce with VTES backs. Same goes for wake cards. 4 out of 8 doesn't exist with Jyhad backs. Do we split them 4/4? Or 2/6? Which of these two options would be considered to be "sufficiently mixed". Even if we ignore these examples (single copies, cards that doesn't exist with Jyhad backs), there's a rather big difference between guessing from a deck of 45 cards and a deck of 90 cards (or 30 vs 60, or some other 50%/50% ratio depending on your deck size). Why should this easier top decking be allowed for anyone? Why should it not be allowed for everyone, regardless of whether they sleeve their cards or not? And I'll add a disclaimer here. I'm not accusing Peter Bakija of cheating during that, or any other tournament. That's not the point here. I just took one of his decks as an example since he stated earlier that he tried to have "a good mix of of Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards" . I just want to point out that you can't have a perfect mix. I want to show that even if some players doesn't consider it, the information is given through the backs of the cards. I believe that no matter how hard you try, there will be some issues like the ones I pointed out above (in almost all decks). And even in decks where you don't have single copies of any cards, so you actually can split all cards into 50% Jyhad backs and 50% VTES backs you will have a much easier time guessing the top card of your library. In some games you will even be able to know for 100% certainty when you're down to your last few cards (can be as low as 10-15 cards easy, higher with some "luck"). And I didn't even touch the fact that different printings should be "sufficiently mixed" as well, which increases the problem.

> Izaak wrote: > If cheating is not a problem in VTES, which I believe is the case for reasons I stated elsewhere, the rules should still have one standard. > > I still haven't read any justification why I'm not allowed to sleeve all my Jyhad-backed cards black and all my non-Jyhad backed cards green. > That would be marking the cardbacks. Regarding the back, he difference between a Jyhad card and a Lords of the Night card is that the Jyhad only comes with the Jyahd word on the back. From printers. If you sleeve a Jyhad card black and a LotN card green, you're creating a difference that isn't inherent to the card. > Judges' wrote: > 132. Marked Cards - Observable pattern > > Definition: > > A player's cards are marked with no pattern to the types of cards that are marked. If a player is using opaque sleeves, they are taken into consideration instead of the actual cards >

> Haze wrote: > HOW ABOUT WE PUT ALL THE DECKS IN AN ADJACENT ROOM. WHEN YOU NEED TO DRAW A CARD, TELL A VEKN MESSENGER BOY HOW MANY YOU NEED AND YOUR ID NUMBER, AND HE'LL FETCH THEM FOR YOU. > > EVEN BETTER, WE PLAY WITH A BOX COVERING THE DECK. YOU PUT YOUR HAND IN THE BOX TO DRAW AN UNSEEN CARD. IF YOU FEEL A STRANGE TINGLING THAT TURNS INTO INTENSE BURNING PAIN, YOU ARE BEING TESTED. > I'll ask the LackeyCCG and Jyhad OnLine guys if they can kindly add a plugin that would sleeve cards (with opaque sleeves).

> Haze wrote: > HOW ABOUT WE PUT ALL THE DECKS IN AN ADJACENT ROOM. WHEN YOU NEED TO DRAW A CARD, TELL A VEKN MESSENGER BOY HOW MANY YOU NEED AND YOUR ID NUMBER, AND HE'LL FETCH THEM FOR YOU. > > EVEN BETTER, WE PLAY WITH A BOX COVERING THE DECK. YOU PUT YOUR HAND IN THE BOX TO DRAW AN UNSEEN CARD. IF YOU FEEL A STRANGE TINGLING THAT TURNS INTO INTENSE BURNING PAIN, YOU ARE BEING TESTED. > You don't need to shout. Most can read you clearly. pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Pascal wrote: > > > yappo wrote: > > Let's say you're NOT allowed to show your hidden resources to another player. By playing a sleeveless deck after the first V:EKN fan-based set is tournament legal you are indeed SHOWING all players at the table that your deck does not include any cards from said set, which would be illegal. > > > Incorrect. > Letting other players know you're not playing cards from the VEKN fan-based sets is OK as much as letting other players know you're playing with Jyhad crypt cards (group 1-2 vampires). > So TR 4.4 is followed to the letter? In which case I'm allowed to reveal a card on a Storage Annex (because that card is neither in my hand nor in my uncontrolled region).

> Pascal wrote: > Regarding the back, he difference between a Jyhad card and a Lords of the Night card is that the Jyhad only comes with the Jyahd word on the back. From printers. > If you sleeve a Jyhad card black and a LotN card green, you're creating a difference that isn't inherent to the card. > > > Judges' wrote: > > 132. Marked Cards - Observable pattern > > > > Definition: > > > > A player's cards are marked with no pattern to the types of cards that are marked. If a player is using opaque sleeves, they are taken into consideration instead of the actual cards > > Would you agree that the advantage gained from using differently coloured sleeves would be the same as the advantage gained from using cards differently printed backs? Assuming the spread is equal in both cases.

> Haze wrote: > HOW ABOUT WE PUT ALL THE DECKS IN AN ADJACENT ROOM. WHEN YOU NEED TO DRAW A CARD, TELL A VEKN MESSENGER BOY HOW MANY YOU NEED AND YOUR ID NUMBER, AND HE'LL FETCH THEM FOR YOU. > That is a great idea! However he will charge you 0.10€ per card drawn. > > Haze wrote: > EVEN BETTER, WE PLAY WITH A BOX COVERING THE DECK. YOU PUT YOUR HAND IN THE BOX TO DRAW AN UNSEEN CARD. IF YOU FEEL A STRANGE TINGLING THAT TURNS INTO INTENSE BURNING PAIN, YOU ARE BEING TESTED. > Tested for drugs?

> yappo wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > yappo wrote: > > > Let's say you're NOT allowed to show your hidden resources to another player. By playing a sleeveless deck after the first V:EKN fan-based set is tournament legal you are indeed SHOWING all players at the table that your deck does not include any cards from said set, which would be illegal. > > > > > Incorrect. > > Letting other players know you're not playing cards from the VEKN fan-based sets is OK as much as letting other players know you're playing with Jyhad crypt cards (group 1-2 vampires). > > > So TR 4.4 is followed to the letter? > Yes. > > yappo wrote: > In which case I'm allowed to reveal a card on a Storage Annex (because that card is neither in my hand nor in my uncontrolled region). > Wrong. 4.4 doesn't allow this. If you want to know what you can do with cards that are facedown, refer to cardtext: "facedown".

> henrik wrote: > Would you agree that the advantage gained from using differently coloured sleeves would be the same as the advantage gained from using cards differently printed backs? Assuming the spread is equal in both cases. > Agreed.

> Pascal wrote: > > > yappo wrote: > > > > So TR 4.4 is followed to the letter? > > > Yes. > > > > yappo wrote: > > In which case I'm allowed to reveal a card on a Storage Annex (because that card is neither in my hand nor in my uncontrolled region). > > > Wrong. 4.4 doesn't allow this. If you want to know what you can do with cards that are facedown, refer to cardtext: "facedown". > That's strange. Quoting 4.4: "Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to any opponent is not allowed." Following 4.4 to the letter I'm keeping the revelaed card on my Storage Annex above the playing surface. Also following 4.4 to the letter I'm not revealing any card in my uncontrolled region. 4.4 says nothing about "facedown" cards in general, but it does target the facedown cards in my uncontrolled region specifically, which begs the question: what are the rules concerning other facedown cards, or as I termed it earlier, 'hidden resources'. Obviously I'm perfectly aware that you're not supposed to show face-down cards, but I'm deliberately being an ass-hat and twisting 4.4 in order to point out a problem with the wording.

> yappo wrote: > what are the rules concerning other facedown cards, or as I termed it earlier, 'hidden resources'. > > Obviously I'm perfectly aware that you're not supposed to show face-down cards, but I'm deliberately being an ass-hat and twisting 4.4 in order to point out a problem with the wording. > You forget to make it clear that you take it for granted that any card should be showable. That's not trivial at all - and also isn't in the rules. My point earlier was that 4.4 doesn't read "you can show other players cards on Storage Annex or in your library". Would "Cards face up in play (and contested cards) are the only revealed cards" be enough?

> Pascal wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > Would you agree that the advantage gained from using differently coloured sleeves would be the same as the advantage gained from using cards differently printed backs? Assuming the spread is equal in both cases. > > > Agreed. > What are the reasons for not allowing differently coloured sleeves in the same library then? Or rather, the reasons for not changing the tournament rules to allow this. Why not have tournament rules that tries to enforce an even competition, where no advantages are given to people based on such a trivial thing as whether or not they use sleeves on their decks?

> Pascal wrote: > > > yappo wrote: > > what are the rules concerning other facedown cards, or as I termed it earlier, 'hidden resources'. > > > > Obviously I'm perfectly aware that you're not supposed to show face-down cards, but I'm deliberately being an ass-hat and twisting 4.4 in order to point out a problem with the wording. > > > You forget to make it clear that you take it for granted that any card should be showable. That's not trivial at all - and also isn't in the rules. My point earlier was that 4.4 doesn't read "you can show other players cards on Storage Annex or in your library". > > Would "Cards face up in play (and contested cards) are the only revealed cards" be enough? > Well, one problem is that tournament rules take precedence over general rules, and hence TR 4.4 takes precedence over how every tournament player I've seen, myself included, implement GR 6.1.5. Following 4.4 to the letter forces me to place the reqruited ally face-down in my uncontrolled region in order not to reveal that card. And yes, I'm still being a PITA. Edit: I may be wrong, but I don't think anything in the genral rules expressively forbids me from revealing face-down cards in general. Is there any rule apart from 4.4 that prohibits me from doing so?

> johannes wrote: > Tested for drugs? > No, tested by the Bene Gesserit. If you fail the test, Sting dyes his hair orange, and NOBODY wants that ever again.

> henrik wrote: > And I'll add a disclaimer here. I'm not accusing Peter Bakija of cheating during that, or any other tournament. That's not the point here. I just took one of his decks as an example since he stated earlier that he tried to have "a good mix of of Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards" . > Just for the sake of throwing a spanner in the works, this particular deck that you have quoted is composed of absolutely no Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards in any case. But that is neither here nor there for purposes of your argument.

> bakija wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > And I'll add a disclaimer here. I'm not accusing Peter Bakija of cheating during that, or any other tournament. That's not the point here. I just took one of his decks as an example since he stated earlier that he tried to have "a good mix of of Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards" . > > > Just for the sake of throwing a spanner in the works, this particular deck that you have quoted is composed of absolutely no Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards in any case. But that is neither here nor there for purposes of your argument. > Oh, well. According to the tournament rules I would still be allowed to play the deck with a "sufficient mix", so I think that throwing in Jyhad cards would be a legal (with all the possible gains it would give me).

I have a practical question. Does the judge in a tournament list all your cards and check theirs editions if their is suspicion of cheating ? This seem a major pain in the ass, and I somehow doubt that this is done very often. So, only the most blatant form of this are punished.

> Xaddam wrote: > You want to prove a rule's efficacy with its history of not catching cheaters? That doesn't mean anything. If it's been faulty it would have failed to catch cheaters because it's faulty. > So, if we haven't been catching the cheaters our there, whom we know must be out there cheating without getting caught because uh well actually we don't know that, but anyway, we'd better toughen up the rules to catch them? That's police state mentality. Yuck. > Xaddam wrote: > Just because it's always been like this it doesn't mean it's the best way. Change can be good. > Yes. But you're approaching an institution with the intent of changing one of its rules, without being able to point out even one actual real world example of how that rule isn't working. I mean, I can't help but notice that nobody's answered my question about whether or not those French players whom we do know were cheating sleeved their decks or not. The only other concrete instance of cheating that I've heard about is the guy whom Brum caught monologuing, and I'm really not worried about him not getting caught cheating because he's apparently a James Bond villain and the plans of those guys never work out right.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > Tested for drugs? > > > No, tested by the Bene Gesserit. If you fail the test, Sting dyes his hair orange, and NOBODY wants that ever again. > And the blue diaper. Yes, let's not travel down that road.

> Kushiel wrote: > I mean, I can't help but notice that nobody's answered my question about whether or not those French players whom we do know were cheating sleeved their decks or not. The only other concrete instance of cheating that I've heard about is the guy whom Brum caught monologuing, and I'm really not worried about him not getting caught cheating because he's apparently a James Bond villain and the plans of those guys never work out right. > Not sure which French players you're talking about, and since you just refer to them as "those French players" it's kinda hard to say something about it. The only case I recall hearing about at all though was one a few years back, but that was about decklists not being correct or card switching between rounds, not 100% sure. That particular case feels very irrelevant to this discussion though. Do you have any more information at all about "those French players"?

> henrik wrote: > > > Kushiel wrote: > > I mean, I can't help but notice that nobody's answered my question about whether or not those French players whom we do know were cheating sleeved their decks or not. The only other concrete instance of cheating that I've heard about is the guy whom Brum caught monologuing, and I'm really not worried about him not getting caught cheating because he's apparently a James Bond villain and the plans of those guys never work out right. > > > Not sure which French players you're talking about, and since you just refer to them as "those French players" it's kinda hard to say something about it. > The only case I recall hearing about at all though was one a few years back, but that was about decklists not being correct or card switching between rounds, not 100% sure. That particular case feels very irrelevant to this discussion though. Do you have any more information at all about "those French players"? > You're not referring to one of the finals of the EC 2002, are you? pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Amenophobis wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > > > > Kushiel wrote: > > > I mean, I can't help but notice that nobody's answered my question about whether or not those French players whom we do know were cheating sleeved their decks or not. The only other concrete instance of cheating that I've heard about is the guy whom Brum caught monologuing, and I'm really not worried about him not getting caught cheating because he's apparently a James Bond villain and the plans of those guys never work out right. > > > > > > > > Not sure which French players you're talking about, and since you just refer to them as "those French players" it's kinda hard to say something about it. > > The only case I recall hearing about at all though was one a few years back, but that was about decklists not being correct or card switching between rounds, not 100% sure. That particular case feels very irrelevant to this discussion though. Do you have any more information at all about "those French players"? > > > You're not referring to one of the finals of the EC 2002, are you? > I might be. It's mostly hearsay and muddled memories from my part, but it's the only "official" I've heard about cheatin/cheaters in VTES. As for the discussion at hand though, it's not so much about actual cheating as the allowance of differently backed cards (which gives information, whether that is used or not).

> henrik wrote: > Not sure which French players you're talking about, and since you just refer to them as "those French players" it's kinda hard to say something about it. > The only case I recall hearing about at all though was one a few years back, but that was about decklists not being correct or card switching between rounds, not 100% sure. That particular case feels very irrelevant to this discussion though. Do you have any more information at all about "those French players"? > No, sorry. I'm not being deliberately obtuse about the topic, I only know next to nothing about it. Early in this thread (I think it was in this thread?), Kevin mentioned some French players who were known cheats and Ankha replied that they were retired now. But that's all I know, and those are the only known cases of cheating that I know anything about (aside from that idiot who explained to Brum how he was going to cheat).

> Kushiel wrote: > > > Xaddam wrote: > > You want to prove a rule's efficacy with its history of not catching cheaters? That doesn't mean anything. If it's been faulty it would have failed to catch cheaters because it's faulty. > > > So, if we haven't been catching the cheaters our there, whom we know must be out there cheating without getting caught because uh well actually we don't know that, but anyway, we'd better toughen up the rules to catch them? > No. I'm intentionally not talking about whether or not anyone's cheating or not, because I know that it's not fruitful. The matter of whether or not people are cheating can never prove whether or not a rule is functional. To make this totally clear, so you don't misunderstand again, I don't think anyone is cheating. I don't think anyone is not cheating. It's a non-topic. Let's talk about whether or not the rule is functional. > That's police state mentality. Yuck. > I'm sorry. Let's not have any rules at all. Oh, did I misinterpret you and make your opinion seem more extreme than it actually is? > Kushiel wrote: > Yes. But you're approaching an institution with the intent of changing one of its rules, without being able to point out even one actual real world example of how that rule isn't working. > Every single deck with visibly different backs is a "real world example of how that rule isn't working", since it gives everyone information they shouldn't have. And the deck builders' best intentions doesn't affect this. All the other players around the table who wants to does get the information "this player does not have enkil cog on his hand" when they see seven Jyhad-backed cards on his/her hand. Even if I don't consider this, I can be the third part when the first player plays with visibly differently backed cards and a second player uses this information to his/her advantage. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> henrik wrote: > As for the discussion at hand though, it's not so much about actual cheating as the allowance of differently backed cards (which gives information, whether that is used or not). > Here's the thing. I do believe you when you say that you're not talking about cheating, but rather about the information available to players who don't sleeve their decks. But what you don't seem to be understanding is that these two are implicitly the same thing. When you say, "I'm not calling people who don't sleeve their decks cheaters," I nod and agree. But then you go on to say, "But those people have the potential to gain an unfair advantage by not sleeving their decks," and there are only two ways to interpret that. 1) You think that there's the potential for people to gain an unfair advantage by not sleeing their decks, but that they're not doing so. If that's the case, there wouldn't have been a reason for you to start this thread, because there's no actual problem there. Since you did start this thread, it seems that this isn't the case. Which brings us to: 2) You think that people are gaining an unfair advantage by sleeving their decks. "Gaining an unfair advantage" is the exact definition of cheating, and since you're concerned enough that it's happening to start this thread, you must be worried that people are cheating by not sleeving their decks.

> Kushiel wrote: > No, sorry. I'm not being deliberately obtuse about the topic, I only know next to nothing about it. Early in this thread (I think it was in this thread?), Kevin mentioned some French players who were known cheats and Ankha replied that they were retired now. But that's all I know, and those are the only known cases of cheating that I know anything about (aside from that idiot who explained to Brum how he was going to cheat). > Sure. But even if they were cheating by means of their card sleeves somehow, I don't think that really matters. I think we all agree that cheating can (and will, I guess) be possible no matter what the rules state. At least as far as sleeving/not sleeving goes. The thing I find bad about this tournament rules is that it allows for more information to be gained based on sleeving/not sleeving your cards. I don't see how anyone can think this is good, since it's creating an uneven playing field for competitions (even if it might be a small advantage, that's discussable as well). Fact still stands that it can be changed rather easy. Either by enforcing mandatory sleeves, or by allowing different colours of sleeves in the same deck.

> Kushiel wrote: > When you say, "I'm not calling people who don't sleeve their decks cheaters," I nod and agree. But then you go on to say, "But those people have the potential to gain an unfair advantage by not sleeving their decks," and there are only two ways to interpret that. > > 1) You think that there's the potential for people to gain an unfair advantage by not sleeing their decks, but that they're not doing so. If that's the case, there wouldn't have been a reason for you to start this thread, because there's no actual problem there. Since you did start this thread, it seems that this isn't the case. Which brings us to: > > 2) You think that people are gaining an unfair advantage by sleeving their decks. "Gaining an unfair advantage" is the exact definition of cheating, and since you're concerned enough that it's happening to start this thread, you must be worried that people are cheating by not sleeving their decks. > That's a false dilemma. What I'm sure Henrik means and what I mean is this solution: 3) You think the rules should make it as hard as reasonably possible to gain an unfair advantage. The current rules can reasonably be changed to make it harder to gain an unfair advantage. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > To make this totally clear, so you don't misunderstand again, I don't think anyone is cheating. I don't think anyone is not cheating. It's a non-topic. Let's talk about whether or not the rule is functional. > The point of the rule is to prevent cheating. Talking about whether or not it's funtional requires talking about whether or not people are cheating. > Xaddam wrote: > Every single deck with visibly different backs is a "real world example of how that rule isn't working", since it gives everyone information they shouldn't have. > The rule doesn't say anything abot information they should or shouldn't have, only "unfair advantage." As our very own rulesmonger has stated in this thread, the advantage gleaned by different cardbacks isn't considered unfair. So, by the standard that the rule sets for itself, it's working. The onus on you is not to prove whether or not different cardbacks give out information to people. I haven't seen anyone here argue that they don't. The onus on you is to prove that said information grants an unfair advantage which the rule on mixing sets doesn't prevent.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > As for the discussion at hand though, it's not so much about actual cheating as the allowance of differently backed cards (which gives information, whether that is used or not). > > > Here's the thing. I do believe you when you say that you're not talking about cheating, but rather about the information available to players who don't sleeve their decks. But what you don't seem to be understanding is that these two are implicitly the same thing. > > When you say, "I'm not calling people who don't sleeve their decks cheaters," I nod and agree. But then you go on to say, "But those people have the potential to gain an unfair advantage by not sleeving their decks," and there are only two ways to interpret that. > Xaddam summed up this pretty much. > Kushiel wrote: > 1) You think that there's the potential for people to gain an unfair advantage by not sleeing their decks, but that they're not doing so. If that's the case, there wouldn't have been a reason for you to start this thread, because there's no actual problem there. Since you did start this thread, it seems that this isn't the case. Which brings us to: > I don't really consider this something "I think". I consider this a fact (except for the unfair part since that implies some sort of value, but any advantage could be considered unfair if it's aribrarily prohibited for some players). The actual problem is that the rules allow people different amounts of information based on whether or not they use sleeves on their cards. > Kushiel wrote: > 2) You think that people are gaining an unfair advantage by sleeving their decks. "Gaining an unfair advantage" is the exact definition of cheating, and since you're concerned enough that it's happening to start this thread, you must be worried that people are cheating by not sleeving their decks. > This may or may not happen. It may or may not have happened. I don't know, you don't know. There's no real way of finding out. Either way it doesn't really matter. The issue here is about the rules, and why they're not constructed create a playing field that's as even as possible.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > Xaddam wrote: > > To make this totally clear, so you don't misunderstand again, I don't think anyone is cheating. I don't think anyone is not cheating. It's a non-topic. Let's talk about whether or not the rule is functional. > > > The point of the rule is to prevent cheating. Talking about whether or not it's funtional requires talking about whether or not people are cheating. > No. The point of rules is to define cheating. The rules currently defines using differently backed cards as not cheating. The rules currently defines using differently coloured sleevs as cheating. Do you see the problem here?

> Xaddam wrote: > 3) You think the rules should make it as hard as reasonably possible to gain an unfair advantage. The current rules can reasonably be changed to make it harder to gain an unfair advantage. > If you think that the current rule isn't strict enough to prevent unfair advantage, which obviously you do because that's been your argument all along, you must think that the rule is being abused to create unfair advantage. If you didn't think that the rule wasn't strict enough to prevent unfair advantage, there'd be no reason to change the rule. There's no middle ground between the two, because the only two positions here are "change the rule" or "don't change the rule." There's no way to halfway change the rule.

> henrik wrote: > No. The point of rules is to define cheating. > Good point. > henrik wrote: > The rules currently defines using differently backed cards as not cheating. > The rules currently defines using differently coloured sleevs as cheating. > > Do you see the problem here? > I can see how you think it's a problem. It's clearly not the a priori problem that you think it is, since we don't all agree that it's a problem, and haven't done so for years and years. I understand that, yes, you are unable to comprehend how it's not a given that not sleeving decks could fail to be problematic. But that failure to comprehend doesn't make you automatically correct.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > No. The point of rules is to define cheating. > > > Good point. > \o/ > Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > The rules currently defines using differently backed cards as not cheating. > > The rules currently defines using differently coloured sleevs as cheating. > > > > Do you see the problem here? > > > I can see how you think it's a problem. It's clearly not the a priori problem that you think it is, since we don't all agree that it's a problem, and haven't done so for years and years. > So you don't think that it's a problem that the rules creates different environments for players depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks? That the rules allows for an advantage (be it minor or not) to some players, depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks? > Kushiel wrote: > I understand that, yes, you are unable to comprehend how it's not a given that not sleeving decks could fail to be problematic. But that failure to comprehend doesn't make you automatically correct. > The problem could also be solved be allowing differently coloured sleeves, though. But when I asked about that, Pascal said it wasn't allowed and KevinM called me out as a cheater.

> henrik wrote: > > > Kushiel wrote: > > Good point. > > > \o/ > heh > henrik wrote: > So you don't think that it's a problem that the rules creates different environments for players depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks? > That the rules allows for an advantage (be it minor or not) to some players, depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks? > This is the wall we keep bumping into. You're assuming that "mixed backs" = "advantage." I don't make that assumption. I agree that it's potentially true, but not that it's automatically true. The condition for that to be true is deliberate cheating on the part of the person building a deck such that they're using mixed backs to create an unfair advantage, such as the "all my Freak Drives are Jyhad cards and all my Jyhad cards are Freak Drives" situation from upthread. But, as I mentioned above, that behavior is easier to catch than someone who's cheating by using marked sleeves, and doesn't impinge upon others' desire to not use sleeves if they don't want to (as well as my own). And since the current rule already defines that behavior as cheating, we already have a rule in place to prevent it. So adding a rule that decks must be sleeved is adding a rule that doesn't functionally do anything since what it's meant to prevent is already prevented by the current rule. Incidentally, that new rule would actually make me violate another rule, that of deck randomization, since I can't sufficiently randomize a sleeved deck. Admittedly, that's a side concern to what we're talking about here, but I think it's an example of a nontrivial knock-on effect that would occur as a result of chaning a rule that already accomplishes its given purpose. > henrik wrote: > The problem could also be solved be allowing differently coloured sleeves, though. But when I asked about that, Pascal said it wasn't allowed and KevinM called me out as a cheater. > And Pascal explained why that's the case - one is the fault of the publishers of the game, but the other is due to deliberate intention on the part of a particular player. I know that you and Xaddam keep saying that you don't care about player intentionality, but that doesn't mean that player intentionality doesn't matter. I missed Kevin doing that, but I'm guessing he was using hyperbole to make the point that you're calling non-sleevers out as cheaters for the logical reasons I outlined above. I dunno, I can't always figure out where he's coming from.

> Kushiel wrote: > The onus on you is not to prove whether or not different cardbacks give out information to people. I haven't seen anyone here argue that they don't. The onus on you is to prove that said information grants an unfair advantage which the rule on mixing sets doesn't prevent. > That's a fair point. I think the biggest point is that the rules intent is to prohibit a significant advantage (and implicitly not to prohibit an insignificant advantage). First off the term significant is very vague. Is significant "changing the results of a game of VTES with differently backed cards", "changing the results of 1% of all games of VTES with differently backed cards", "changing the results of 51% of all games of VTES with differently backed cards", is it "changing the results of all games of VTES with differently backed cards". What was the definition used when deciding to accept Jyhad backed cards? Secondly, can any advantage be insignificant? Some games hinges on the smallest of circumstances. If insignificant means 0% advantage then the rule is not functional because there are instances where this could matter, in a game-changing way. Then the intent is not followed. Thirdly, if it's reasonably possible to have a 0% difference in advantage between players with jyhad and vtes backed cards mixed and players who only use one of these sets, is it not unfair to accept a 1% advantage in one party's favour? Fourthly, no matter the definition of the word significant, the same advantage that can be gained with using Jyhad backed cards as with marking cards. Yet, marking cards or sleeves is not allowed, not even in "sufficiently mixed" proportions. In this the rules are inconsistent. This might be a smaller problem, but it's still a problem. My conclusion is that in order to eliminate as much of an advantage (significant or otherwise) as possible the only solution is to enforce sleeves if you mix Jyhad and VTES cards. Now, you might think this is unreasonable, because it's cumbersome or expensive. It's up to VEKN to weigh the benefit of a leveled playing field between all players (at least in this matter) and the discomfort of a part of the player base. I do, obviously, value fairness over comfort in competition. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > So you don't think that it's a problem that the rules creates different environments for players depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks? > > That the rules allows for an advantage (be it minor or not) to some players, depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks? > > > This is the wall we keep bumping into. > > You're assuming that "mixed backs" = "advantage." > > I don't make that assumption. I agree that it's potentially true, but not that it's automatically true. > > The condition for that to be true is deliberate cheating on the part of the person building a deck such that they're using mixed backs to create an unfair advantage, such as the "all my Freak Drives are Jyhad cards and all my Jyhad cards are Freak Drives" situation from upthread. > Did you read my post about the problems with "sufficiently mixed card types" ? Even with a perfect mix (50% of the deck with each type (and that's going with the low stuff, since there's quite good diffrerences in colour between sets, something the tournament rules acknowledges)) you will be guessing your top deck card from a pile of 45 cards instead of 90 (or 30 instead of 60, or whichever ratio you use). In most of my games I play (or discard) some cards in the hopes of the top deck of my library being something I need at that point. Might be a wake, might be a bounce, might be a Villein. To increase my chances of knowing what card I'll draw next is an advantage. Having 50% of my deck with a different back would increase my chances of "topdecking" quite a lot. If the top card is Jyhad, I know it's not the Villein that I really need. I can't help that I know it. I can't pretend that I don't know it. The information would be staring at me, whether I like it or not. > Kushiel wrote: > But, as I mentioned above, that behavior is easier to catch than someone who's cheating by using marked sleeves, and doesn't impinge upon others' desire to not use sleeves if they don't want to (as well as my own). And since the current rule already defines that behavior as cheating, we already have a rule in place to prevent it. So adding a rule that decks must be sleeved is adding a rule that doesn't functionally do anything since what it's meant to prevent is already prevented by the current rule. Incidentally, that new rule would actually make me violate another rule, that of deck randomization, since I can't sufficiently randomize a sleeved deck. Admittedly, that's a side concern to what we're talking about here, but I think it's an example of a nontrivial knock-on effect that would occur as a result of chaning a rule that already accomplishes its given purpose. > I think marking cards without sleeves could be made about as hard to catch. Unless you inspect the decks closely I'm guessing that both ways would pass for normal play (assuming the cheater is good at what xe's doing). > Kushiel wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > The problem could also be solved be allowing differently coloured sleeves, though. But when I asked about that, Pascal said it wasn't allowed and KevinM called me out as a cheater. > > > And Pascal explained why that's the case - one is the fault of the publishers of the game, but the other is due to deliberate intention on the part of a particular player. I know that you and Xaddam keep saying that you don't care about player intentionality, but that doesn't mean that player intentionality doesn't matter. > But why should I trust people with differently backed cards not to use the information available to them if I'm not to be trusted with the same thing myself? Why only extend that good faith to one group of people?

Huh. "Cancel post" button doesn't seem to work. I don't think I've got much else to say on the topic, and my mental energy to debate it has run out. I think all of the stuff brought up in the previous two posts has already been addressed, so I'll just bow out here.

This cheating discussion is leading nowhere. I think point of this discussion should be this: > henrik wrote: > If the top card is Jyhad, I know it's not the Villein that I really need. I can't help that I know it. I can't pretend that I don't know it. The information would be staring at me, whether I like it or not. > Do people think situations (there is sure more examples) like this create unfair advantage for one player? Or is this advantage too minor to enforce sleeving?

> Surreal wrote: > This cheating discussion is leading nowhere. > > I think point of this discussion should be this: > > > henrik wrote: > > If the top card is Jyhad, I know it's not the Villein that I really need. I can't help that I know it. I can't pretend that I don't know it. The information would be staring at me, whether I like it or not. > > > Do people think situations (there is sure more examples) like this create unfair advantage for one player? Or is this advantage too minor to enforce sleeving? > I think that advantage can be significant. Lets take standard Girls deck player with full blood Cybele in play and player just had been bled to low pool. Player starts turn with some pool costing master in hand. Do player want to play the master card hoping to draw villein and survive? If player sees top card is jyhad he will never do that. I don't even think this example is so extreme.

> Surreal wrote: > This cheating discussion is leading nowhere. > > I think point of this discussion should be this: > > > henrik wrote: > > If the top card is Jyhad, I know it's not the Villein that I really need. I can't help that I know it. I can't pretend that I don't know it. The information would be staring at me, whether I like it or not. > > > Do people think situations (there is sure more examples) like this create unfair advantage for one player? Or is this advantage too minor to enforce sleeving? > It's not one player. It's everyone at the table. If you're playing with differently backed cards that will give all players at the table information as well (not the exact same information, but still potentially useful information). Also, allowing differently coloured sleeves would grant everyone the option of using this information (in my opinion it would be worse for the game overall, but still better than the current rules). Of course, the sleeves would have to be identical in all ways except for colour. Mixing different sizes or textures would lead to an advantage the other way around.

Maybe we should have a "how to shuffle with sleeves" seminar at the next EC

But I also think mandatory sleeving would alienate some players so I'm leaning more to allow non sleeved cards. Would be interesting to have some data how many played with sleeved decks in last EC.

> johannes wrote: > Maybe we should have a "how to shuffle with sleeves" seminar at the next EC > Your love for me is so cruel, you monster. You know just what I like. Still, I guess it'd give me a reason to actually attend an EC. B)

> henrik wrote: > The problem could also be solved be allowing differently coloured sleeves, though. But when I asked about that, Pascal said it wasn't allowed and KevinM called me out as a cheater. > Here's what was said, just so everyone is clear: > henrik wrote: > henrik wrote: > In a grander perspective, why isn't sleeves mandatory for tournament play (at least when using cards with different backs)? > > Pascal wrote: > Pascal wrote: > Because minor advantage is ok. > > henrik wrote: > henrik wrote: > I assume this means that using sleeves of different colour and type in the same library/crypt is allowed as well? > > KevinM wrote: > KevinM wrote: > You believe that using sleeves of different color and/or type in the same library/crypt equates to "minor advantage"??? Now you're the cheater. Is that your goal? > So, given that you dishonestly labeled (and keep labeling) "using sleeves of different colour and type in the same library/crypt" as "minor advantage", I correctly suggested (and will keep suggesting) that you would be a cheater if you were to do such a thing. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > Here's what was said, just so everyone is clear:[...] > You "missed" this question and reply: > Pascal wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > Would you agree that the advantage gained from using differently coloured sleeves would be the same as the advantage gained from using cards differently printed backs? Assuming the spread is equal in both cases. > > > Agreed. >

> henrik wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > Here's what was said, just so everyone is clear:[...] > > > You "missed" this question and reply: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > henrik wrote: > > > Would you agree that the advantage gained from using differently coloured sleeves would be the same as the advantage gained from using cards differently printed backs? Assuming the spread is equal in both cases. > > > > > Agreed. > > No, I didn't, since that was later and had nothing to do with me saying that, under the circumstances you had proposed, you'd be a cheater. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > > > > KevinM wrote: > > > Here's what was said, just so everyone is clear:[...] > > > > > > > > You "missed" this question and reply: > > > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > henrik wrote: > > > > Would you agree that the advantage gained from using differently coloured sleeves would be the same as the advantage gained from using cards differently printed backs? Assuming the spread is equal in both cases. > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > No, I didn't, since that was later and had nothing to do with me saying that, under the circumstances you had proposed, you'd be a cheater. > Sure. I asked if it would be allowed and you called me a cheater (you did not say anything about circumstances). You called me a cheater and asked if that was my goal. It's noted. I did not even say I would do it, I just asked if it was allowed. And I most certainly did not say I would do it whether or not Pascal ruled it to legal.

> henrik wrote: > Sure. I asked if it would be allowed and you called me a cheater (you did not say anything about circumstances). You called me a cheater and asked if that was my goal. It's noted. > you missed the word "Now", didn't you? That word designates a circumstance. Note that. > henrik wrote: > I did not even say I would do it, I just asked if it was allowed. And I most certainly did not say I would do it whether or not Pascal ruled it to legal. > I never said that you would do it. I said that "Now...", meaning if you were to do such a thing "Now", then you'd be a cheater. See, here you go again. You're saying that people are gaining significant advantage, the very definition of cheating, and then you say that you don't mean to call them cheaters, even though you just did. Then you say that I said something that I never said. If this is a language problem, then I apologize. But you really need to learn to read more comprehensively. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Since Henrik is no longer discussing the point, but rather attacking me personally, I'm going to leave unless summoned back by more misstatements by Henrik. Enjoy. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > I did not even say I would do it, I just asked if it was allowed. And I most certainly did not say I would do it whether or not Pascal ruled it to legal. > > > I never said that you would do it. I said that "Now...", meaning if you were to do such a thing "Now", then you'd be a cheater. > I thought it was an indicator of time. As in "not before asking that question, but now". Might be my English that's lacking. > KevinM wrote: > See, here you go again. You're saying that people are gaining significant advantage, the very definition of cheating, and then you say that you don't mean to call them cheaters, even though you just did. Then you say that I said something that I never said. > Here I go again? You're quoting me and then stating just below the quote that I said something about "significant advantage"? Please do requote and highlight where I said those things in that quote.

> johannes wrote: > Maybe we should have a "how to shuffle with sleeves" seminar at the next EC > Not a bad idea But I do think that the core of the problem is that some people prefer to shuffle their decks using bridge shuffle and if you sleeve the deck you won't be able to bridge shuffle any more. At least to my experience. Then again, I've only started learning to use bridge shuffling a short while ago and it is still very difficult even with unsleeved decks that are not full 90 card decks. Currently I use sleeves in regular tournaments (normally cheapo soft sleeves, but f there's Jyhad cards I use opaques) but in drafts Iäve started to play with unsleeved decks. Bridge shuffling seems to be the most efficient way of shuffling so I totally understand people who are opposed to sleeves. However, I'm in the bandwagon of using sleeves due to the info especially Jyhad backed cards divulge to the table. Cheating. which is different from divulging information because of the card backs, can be done by those who want to do it. With or without sleeves. Such persons should be taken behind the sauna... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Such persons should be taken behind the sauna... > I'll behave. I promise! Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark

> Forhead wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Such persons should be taken behind the sauna... > > > I'll behave. I promise! > Man, where's the fun in behaving? Especially where saunas are involved. Such a waste...

Yeah, but there's huge difference between in the sauna and to be taken behind the sauna... Trust me. Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark

> Lönkka wrote: > But I do think that the core of the problem is that some people prefer to shuffle their decks using bridge shuffle and if you sleeve the deck you won't be able to bridge shuffle any more. > ...are there actually people who bridge shuffle vtes cards?! Those poor cards! Don't they get totally ruined after a while?

Maybe they just mean riffle? The bridge itself is not needed to shuffle the cards. I don't have much problems to riffle a sleeved deck (I only riffle the corners to bend the cards less), but it tends to damage the sleeves.

> wastaz wrote: > ...are there actually people who bridge shuffle vtes cards?! > Those poor cards! Don't they get totally ruined after a while? > No. I've been using some of the exact same cards, unsleeved, and bridge shuffle them regularly for nigh unto 17 years. And they still work fine. And don't even look particularly worn (exception: the first VTES edition base set cards were of a horrible card stock, and got cruddy very quickly, but Jyhad cards still look fine).

> wastaz wrote: > Those poor cards! Don't they get totally ruined after a while? > Nope. But also keep in mind that not everyone fetishizes their game components.

> wastaz wrote: > ...are there actually people who bridge shuffle vtes cards?! > Yes. Frequently. Never had a problem with it, do it right and the cards aren't damaged.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Man, where's the fun in behaving? Especially where saunas are involved. > > Such a waste... > Taking behind sauna is the Finnish equivalent of taking someone for a ride. Comes from the proverb "There's always room behind sauna". Meaning for one more corpse. I might be wrong about this but the proverb might have its roots in the 1918 Civil War, where especially captured red were often summarily executed. Why behind sauna? In Finland saunas are plentiful and behind a sauna is kinda out of sight. Especially as they rarely are located prominently to begin with. But all this is just guesswork on my part. Yeah, yeah, it doesn't exactly happen behind a sauna. But then again, there's a lake in immediate vicinity so at least one sauna must also be... Finnish Politics!