Secret decklist

Are you allowed to have a list of your entire deck lying next to you while playing (in a tournament)? I couldnt see anything against it, but just wanted to be sure. (this is for a deck where i play with a lot of Sibyl's Tongue and I cant remember the exact names of everything in the deck)

Would anyone complain if you described the effect of the card in case you don't remember the exact name? I know I wouldn't.

At a tournament some would, yeah. I wouldn't either, but they have a good argument, since the card specifically says you must name it.

There's the loose slang for card names that everyone knows. "Arika wakes up." = "Arika plays 'Wake with Evening's Freshness'." I'd be pretty forgiving if someone said "Sibyl's Tongue for a 'Wake'" and took either 'Wake with Evening's Freshness' or 'Forced Awakening', but that's probably illegal officially. Mostly, I'd just want the intended card to be clear. Whether you're grabbing a 'Wake with Evening's Freshness' or a 'Forced Awakening' isn't going to change my decision to block/DI the Sibyl's Tongue. But if you say "Sibyl's Tongue for a Wake." and take out a Legal Manipulation, I'll be mad.

There was a thread about electronic equipment lately.. There should be a "big" discussion amongst tournament organizators on the topic of "what should be allowed, apart from cards, sleeves and pool counters, when seating at a table?"

> Pascal wrote: > There was a thread about electronic equipment lately.. > There should be a "big" discussion amongst tournament organizators on the topic of "what should be allowed, apart from cards, sleeves and pool counters, when seating at a table?" > A beer at least.

If it helps LSJ ruled a printed decklist was perfectly legal in 2010 at the Vegas tournament.

> NikolajWendt wrote: > Are you allowed to have a list of your entire deck lying next to you while playing (in a tournament)? > Of course you can have your deck list available to you while you play the game. You can also have a drink, a lump of uranium, and a picture of your kids. The issue is whether or not they interfere with orderly, timely play of the game. If it takes you 5 seconds to look at your deck list, who could possibly care? But if you are looking at you deck list for 30 seconds every time you are initiating an action, a ruling might be made (correctly) against you. So, it seems better to know your deck list and to only refer to it occasionally than to depend upon it. 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

I don´t understand why this should ever be allowed. What´s next, a written user manual for your deck? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > I don´t understand why this should ever be allowed. What´s next, a written user manual for your deck? > Omg, no! Heck, new players might even want a copy of the rulebook at hand, next. This is madness! -- salem

> Ashur wrote: > I don´t understand why this should ever be allowed. What´s next, a written user manual for your deck? > Can you explain to us why you believe that having a deck list used by a player would always be a negative for the game? 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

I take notes often when I'm playing in tournaments (mostly about bad decisions I've made or how a deck performs against other key archetypes). Those are legit. I can't see a problem with keeping a deck list with you (my memory can be crap too) but then again keeping it out of sight of others would be important. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

is it okay to have your grocery shopping list at the table? what about a guitar and a chord book so you can practice during boring turns? what about a holy bible so when you have to make a table deal with another player, you can put your hand on it and pretend you're being sworn in as president? (and then you hilariously break the deal anyway)

> Haze wrote: > is it okay to have your grocery shopping list at the table? > what about a guitar and a chord book so you can practice during boring turns? > what about a holy bible so when you have to make a table deal with another player, you can put your hand on it and pretend you're being sworn in as president? (and then you hilariously break the deal anyway) > If you can do all that without impacting the game then feel free.

This isn't my decklist, it's my shopping list! see right here, I need to buy 4 cartons of blood dolls, 6 bottles of conditioning, 3 loaves of wakes, 1 bushel of pentex...

> Haze wrote: > what about a holy bible so when you have to make a table deal with another player, you can put your hand on it and pretend you're being sworn in as president? (and then you hilariously break the deal anyway) > I think that last one would be a violation of rule 5.2 Unsportsmanlike Conduct, specifically the part against using profanity. I'd be inclined to issue a warning for it.

Ok, this quickly turned into a matter of personal opinion for everyone. So I assume that to the question about whether there is anything in the rules that prohibit me from doing it, I would assume no. Barring cases where people use it for stalling or otherwise hindering the game. PS: The shopping list answer was the best. I am going to do that.

> KevinM wrote: > Can you explain to us why you believe that having a deck list used by a player would always be a negative for the game? > I can try to explain: It is because it offers assistance for the player. Why should any such helpful equipment be allowed? (As a side note: I´m also against the rules allowing people taking notes during play. In this game you can forget stuff, so why should you be allowed to take nptes? The only notes that should be allowed is pregame and postgame, things like who you played against etc.) Also, thanks for all the childish comments here. Great level of discussion. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > I don´t understand why this should ever be allowed. What´s next, a written user manual for your deck? > Anybody got pictures of the manuals the Boston playgroup printed back in '04 or so? Non-Camarilla

> Ashur wrote: > (As a side note: I´m also against the rules allowing people taking notes during play. In this game you can forget stuff, so why should you be allowed to take nptes? The only notes that should be allowed is pregame and postgame, things like who you played against etc.) > If I wasn't allowed to take notes while playing I wouldn't be able to write as detailed tournament reports. I never make notes when I am part of the current game play so they never stall anything. I fail to see how note taking can be abusive. www.lordoftheclog.blogspot.com

> Ashur wrote: > (As a side note: I´m also against the rules allowing people taking notes during play. In this game you can forget stuff, so why should you be allowed to take notes? The only notes that should be allowed is pregame and postgame, things like who you played against etc.) > Luckily there's a rule in the VEKN tournament rules, which expressively allow taking notes. > > 1.4. Taking Notes > > Players are allowed to take written notes of their opponents' decks and activities, so long as doing so doesn't interfere with game play (especially the speed of play). > So please, Stefan, continue masking those nice tournament reports!

> extrala wrote: > Luckily there's a rule in the VEKN tournament rules, which expressively allow taking notes. > Yes, I am aware of this. And I want it removed! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Stefan wrote: > I fail to see how note taking can be abusive. > I mean, do you think it should be ok if someone took notes like "Remember Edge", "Remember HG", "Remember to remember grandprey of Edge" and so on? (If it could be done without stalling that is.) "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > Stefan wrote: > > I fail to see how note taking can be abusive. > > > I mean, do you think it should be ok if someone took notes like "Remember Edge", "Remember HG", "Remember to remember grandprey of Edge" and so on? (If it could be done without stalling that is.) > If it can be done without stalling: Yes! Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> Ashur wrote: > > > Stefan wrote: > > I fail to see how note taking can be abusive. > > > I mean, do you think it should be ok if someone took notes like "Remember Edge", "Remember HG", "Remember to remember grandprey of Edge" and so on? (If it could be done without stalling that is.) > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters.

> Pagan wrote: > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters. > And that is allowed? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Pagan wrote: > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters. > Are you suggesting that those things are allowed?

> Ashur wrote: > > > Pagan wrote: > > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters. > > > And that is allowed? > Holding counters in your hand or placing the edge marker on a card you control (without obscuring the card) or on top of your library? Those are definitely allowed. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > > > > Pagan wrote: > > > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters. > > > > > And that is allowed? > > > Holding counters in your hand or placing the edge marker on a card you control (without obscuring the card) or on top of your library? Those are definitely allowed. > If counters are put on a card by card text, that's where they should be. Taking them up in your hand just before burning them, or to clearer see card text is one thing but holding them in your hand for a longer period or for some other reason is something I'd definitly rule against. They should be on the card, visible to all players (except for shorter periods, like the ones mentioned above). The edge has no reason (ruleswise) to be put on cards, thus it shouldn't be. Just like your library shouldn't be put on top of your crypt etc.

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > > > > Ashur wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pagan wrote: > > > > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters. > > > > > > > And that is allowed? > > > > > > > > Holding counters in your hand or placing the edge marker on a card you control (without obscuring the card) or on top of your library? Those are definitely allowed. > > > If counters are put on a card by card text, that's where they should be. Taking them up in your hand just before burning them, or to clearer see card text is one thing but holding them in your hand for a longer period or for some other reason is something I'd definitly rule against. > They should be on the card, visible to all players (except for shorter periods, like the ones mentioned above). > > The edge has no reason (ruleswise) to be put on cards, thus it shouldn't be. Just like your library shouldn't be put on top of your crypt etc. > The counters held in hand are not the counters already on Temptations but rather the counters that are going to be placed on Temptations in your next Master Phase. So that you'd remember to put those counters on the Temptations. And that's definitely allowed. As for the location of the Edge: as long as its clearly visible for other players and it doesn't obstruct anything, you can keep it where ever you want to keep it. If it's small enough (e.g. a die) you can as well put it on top of your library. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > > > > Ashur wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pagan wrote: > > > > No different than putting the edge on your cards in a way you need to interact with it while untapping or holding counters in your hand to remember Temptation counters. > > > > > > > And that is allowed? > > > > > > > > Holding counters in your hand or placing the edge marker on a card you control (without obscuring the card) or on top of your library? Those are definitely allowed. > > > If counters are put on a card by card text, that's where they should be. Taking them up in your hand just before burning them, or to clearer see card text is one thing but holding them in your hand for a longer period or for some other reason is something I'd definitly rule against. > You misunderstood: Pagan was speaking of holding *new* counters in hand during the untap to remember to put them on the cards. > henrik wrote: > The edge has no reason (ruleswise) to be put on cards, thus it shouldn't be. Just like your library shouldn't be put on top of your crypt etc. > I just hope then that you put your Blood Dolls ON your vampire, not UNDER. Yes, it hides the vampire, but hey, you have to play according to the rules, right? So you can put the edge wherever you want, as long as it doesn't hides important information (a vampire card, some pool). You can put it on your head too. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> jhattara wrote: > The counters held in hand are not the counters already on Temptations but rather the counters that are going to be placed on Temptations in your next Master Phase. So that you'd remember to put those counters on the Temptations. And that's definitely allowed. > Ah, I see. Counters that are out of game is a different story, of course. Can do almost whatever with those. > jhattara wrote: > As for the location of the Edge: as long as its clearly visible for other players and it doesn't obstruct anything, you can keep it where ever you want to keep it. If it's small enough (e.g. a die) you can as well put it on top of your library. > Putting things on cards without the rules stating that those things should be put on cards is something that shouldn't be done. Putting stuff on top of your library (or crypt) without the rules stating that those things should be put on your library (or crypt) is something that shouldn't be done.

> jhattara wrote: > The counters held in hand are not the counters already on Temptations but rather the counters that are going to be placed on Temptations in your next Master Phase. So that you'd remember to put those counters on the Temptations. And that's definitely allowed. > > As for the location of the Edge: as long as its clearly visible for other players and it doesn't obstruct anything, you can keep it where ever you want to keep it. If it's small enough (e.g. a die) you can as well put it on top of your library. > Is this in the rules, or is it just how you rule? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > The counters held in hand are not the counters already on Temptations but rather the counters that are going to be placed on Temptations in your next Master Phase. So that you'd remember to put those counters on the Temptations. And that's definitely allowed. > > > > As for the location of the Edge: as long as its clearly visible for other players and it doesn't obstruct anything, you can keep it where ever you want to keep it. If it's small enough (e.g. a die) you can as well put it on top of your library. > > > Is this in the rules, or is it just how you rule? > There is nothing in the rules about where you should keep the Edge. Only thing that limits where you can keep it is this: Tournament Rules 5.1. Cheating Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities: * Misrepresenting or obscuring public information (pool totals, number of cards in deck, and so on) Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> Ankha wrote: > I just hope then that you put your Blood Dolls ON your vampire, not UNDER. Yes, it hides the vampire, but hey, you have to play according to the rules, right? > > So you can put the edge wherever you want, as long as it doesn't hides important information (a vampire card, some pool). You can put it on your head too. > Do we want the discussion at this level? Suggestions that putting a Blood Doll "on" a vampire can only be done by obscuring the vampire card itself isn't really worth replying to. The definition of having a card "on" another card is something that I think is pretty well known and accepted. Personally, I'd define it different from the phrase "on top", which is used for advancement cards in VtES. > jhattara wrote: > There is nothing in the rules about where you should keep the Edge. Only thing that limits where you can keep it is this: > > Tournament Rules > 5.1. Cheating > Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities: > * Misrepresenting or obscuring public information (pool totals, number of cards in deck, and so on) > There are rules for when and what to place on top of cards, library, crypt etc. If those aren't enough for you, here's a ruling from LSJ on the subject: groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/33939ee91ad97bea The highlight would be this, but I suggest reading all of it: > > Only counters indicated by card text and/or rules (blood, disease, corruption, > vandal, etc.) are placed on cards. >

This game is not Magic. We do not need rules for everything. Use common sense. For example, if you read the rules like devil reads the bible, you can not place the Rack under the vampire it supplies the blood to, because the Rack in reality is not attached to that vampire. However, in most cases the Rack is placed as it would be attached directly to that vampire. Same for Edge. You can place the Edge on top of something as a reminder. As long as it doesn't obscure anything and it cannot be mistaken for something it is not. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > This game is not Magic. We do not need rules for everything. Use common sense. > > For example, if you read the rules like devil reads the bible, you can not place the Rack under the vampire it supplies the blood to, because the Rack in reality is not attached to that vampire. However, in most cases the Rack is placed as it would be attached directly to that vampire. > Which would be incorrect and I would (as both player and/or judge) tell the player to correct it. It might not be the most important thing, but it's still better to follow rules and card text than to move away from it. I'd say that it's rather you who "read the rules like the devil reads the bible" when assuming that anything not explicitly prohibited is automatically allowed. Do note that in this case, having things on top of other cards (without rules or card text allowing it) goes against rulings by LSJ (and common sense, imo). > jhattara wrote: > Same for Edge. You can place the Edge on top of something as a reminder. As long as it doesn't obscure anything and it cannot be mistaken for something it is not. > How are the rules and rulings unclear? Apparently we do need rules for certain things, and in this case we even have them. The edge has nothing to do on top of cards, thus it should not be put there.

I know that in the strictest sense of the rules it would be incorrect. But regulating where attached cards and non-attached but related cards exactly should be is useless. Only thing that matters is that people playing the game know with a single glance what is happening. One good example for this are Imbued. When playing Imbued I usually have 2 or 3 stacks of cards, one with the Imbued and the non-mobile attachments, one with tapping attachments (Powers) and convictions. If I'd have all those in a single stack I'd be stalling the game, because I'd have to handle the whole pile of cards every single time I'm doing something with them. Same goes for other decks that use huge amounts of attached cards, especially if some of the attached cards are going to burn, move or tap regularly. I've never had a judge question my habit of not putting attached cards directly under the card they are attached to (because everyone in the game knows they are) or stacking for example my master locations, as they were attached to each other (because everyone in the game knows they are not). And in my experience both are general practices, although explicitly declared non-kosher by Scott. Just play the game. Don't complain about semantics, if there are no problems. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > This game is not Magic. We do not need rules for everything. Use common sense. > > > > For example, if you read the rules like devil reads the bible, you can not place the Rack under the vampire it supplies the blood to, because the Rack in reality is not attached to that vampire. However, in most cases the Rack is placed as it would be attached directly to that vampire. > > > Which would be incorrect and I would (as both player and/or judge) tell the player to correct it. It might not be the most important thing, but it's still better to follow rules and card text than to move away from it. > How do you place 40+ cards on Una without placing any of them on each other?

> jhattara wrote: > I know that in the strictest sense of the rules it would be incorrect. But regulating where attached cards and non-attached but related cards exactly should be is useless. Only thing that matters is that people playing the game know with a single glance what is happening. > > One good example for this are Imbued. When playing Imbued I usually have 2 or 3 stacks of cards, one with the Imbued and the non-mobile attachments, one with tapping attachments (Powers) and convictions. If I'd have all those in a single stack I'd be stalling the game, because I'd have to handle the whole pile of cards every single time I'm doing something with them. Same goes for other decks that use huge amounts of attached cards, especially if some of the attached cards are going to burn, move or tap regularly. > > I've never had a judge question my habit of not putting attached cards directly under the card they are attached to (because everyone in the game knows they are) or stacking for example my master locations, as they were attached to each other (because everyone in the game knows they are not). And in my experience both are general practices, although explicitly declared non-kosher by Scott. > > Just play the game. Don't complain about semantics, if there are no problems. > I agree totally with your reasoning JHattara, except in the following : Cards that can be stolen (like Rack can), should never be put UNDER other cards. I am very sensitive about that, and insist in our playgroup to follow that. I have seen rack go overlooked because people have put it "on" (or rather under) their vampire, when it is clearly not the place for it to be, but rather in front of everybody, at the table, so that everybody can easily see it, and decide weather to take the action or not.

> jhattara wrote: > I know that in the strictest sense of the rules it would be incorrect. But regulating where attached cards and non-attached but related cards exactly should be is useless. Only thing that matters is that people playing the game know with a single glance what is happening. > And such glancing becomes harder when putting things on cards that shouldn't be there, or stacking cards that shouldn't be stacked. > jhattara wrote: > One good example for this are Imbued. When playing Imbued I usually have 2 or 3 stacks of cards, one with the Imbued and the non-mobile attachments, one with tapping attachments (Powers) and convictions. If I'd have all those in a single stack I'd be stalling the game, because I'd have to handle the whole pile of cards every single time I'm doing something with them. Same goes for other decks that use huge amounts of attached cards, especially if some of the attached cards are going to burn, move or tap regularly. > I don't see how this is relevant. Those are cards that should be placed on imbueds and the way you describe it, they are indeed placed on the imbueds. Having more than one stack, for clarity, doesn't hurt. Having the edge on a card does nothing for clarity, rather the opposite. > jhattara wrote: > I've never had a judge question my habit of not putting attached cards directly under the card they are attached to (because everyone in the game knows they are) or stacking for example my master locations, as they were attached to each other (because everyone in the game knows they are not). And in my experience both are general practices, although explicitly declared non-kosher by Scott. > Putting card X under card Y (with Y being fully visible while X is halfcovered, usually having only the card name and part of the art visible) is the card game definition of putting card X on card Y. I don't see the need to debate this here. Putting cards, counters or other things on cards, counters or other things except when the rules tells you to, is against the rules. It's as simple as that. Whether this is heavily enforced by judges or other players is irrelevant. I've seen and heard of people doing all sorts of things that they thought was clear, general practice. Having blood counters above vampires instead of on the card. Having vampires rotated 180 degrees to indicate torpor instead of moving them to a different place in you play area. Doing things like that is wrong, and if you're called on it you should stop. Putting the edge on cards is another of those things. It's not where it should be. If the edge was supposed to be on a card, the rules would tell you to put it there. > jhattara wrote: > Just play the game. Don't complain about semantics, if there are no problems. > Sure. The problem I found here though, was people suggesting that illegal placement of objects was actually well withing the rules. Since it isn't so, I tried to explain. I understand that many of us are doing some things out of habit, like placing cards on each other in certain ways etc. In our playgroup we did that with events, locations, masters in play for a long time. We've stopped that, since it's not a good way to play. It might give you some space, but you have to pay for that space with more often missing cards in play. Except for stacking multiple copies of the same card on each other there are no reason to put cards on each other unless the rules tells you to do so. Of course, I'd separate the stack of multiple copies of the same card if I was told.

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > One good example for this are Imbued. When playing Imbued I usually have 2 or 3 stacks of cards, one with the Imbued and the non-mobile attachments, one with tapping attachments (Powers) and convictions. If I'd have all those in a single stack I'd be stalling the game, because I'd have to handle the whole pile of cards every single time I'm doing something with them. Same goes for other decks that use huge amounts of attached cards, especially if some of the attached cards are going to burn, move or tap regularly. > > > I don't see how this is relevant. Those are cards that should be placed on imbueds and the way you describe it, they are indeed placed on the imbueds. Having more than one stack, for clarity, doesn't hurt. > Having the edge on a card does nothing for clarity, rather the opposite. > This behaviour is explicitly forbidden in that post by LSJ you quoted. Having the edge sitting on top of your library is quite a different thing than having it sit on a controlled card obscuring it from the view. > henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > I've never had a judge question my habit of not putting attached cards directly under the card they are attached to (because everyone in the game knows they are) or stacking for example my master locations, as they were attached to each other (because everyone in the game knows they are not). And in my experience both are general practices, although explicitly declared non-kosher by Scott. > > > Putting card X under card Y (with Y being fully visible while X is halfcovered, usually having only the card name and part of the art visible) is the card game definition of putting card X on card Y. I don't see the need to debate this here. > > Putting cards, counters or other things on cards, counters or other things except when the rules tells you to, is against the rules. It's as simple as that. Whether this is heavily enforced by judges or other players is irrelevant. > I've seen and heard of people doing all sorts of things that they thought was clear, general practice. > Having blood counters above vampires instead of on the card. > Having vampires rotated 180 degrees to indicate torpor instead of moving them to a different place in you play area. > Doing things like that is wrong, and if you're called on it you should stop. Putting the edge on cards is another of those things. It's not where it should be. If the edge was supposed to be on a card, the rules would tell you to put it there. > Sometimes when there are several different counter types and lots of them, several different card types and lots of them, it's actually more clear to separate them a bit. How much have you played with decks that can put most of their library on the table as permanents? Do you have any idea how much table space it takes to have let's say 10 masters on the table and another 10 cards on each of your 4 minions? Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > > > > jhattara wrote: > > > One good example for this are Imbued. When playing Imbued I usually have 2 or 3 stacks of cards, one with the Imbued and the non-mobile attachments, one with tapping attachments (Powers) and convictions. If I'd have all those in a single stack I'd be stalling the game, because I'd have to handle the whole pile of cards every single time I'm doing something with them. Same goes for other decks that use huge amounts of attached cards, especially if some of the attached cards are going to burn, move or tap regularly. > > > > > I don't see how this is relevant. Those are cards that should be placed on imbueds and the way you describe it, they are indeed placed on the imbueds. Having more than one stack, for clarity, doesn't hurt. > > Having the edge on a card does nothing for clarity, rather the opposite. > > > This behaviour is explicitly forbidden in that post by LSJ you quoted. Having the edge sitting on top of your library is quite a different thing than having it sit on a controlled card obscuring it from the view. > Not sure what behaviour you refer to. I don't see LSJ talking about multiple stacks in the post. Either way, I think it's quite clear that unless a rule tells you to put something on your library, you shouldn't put something on your library. It doesn't matter if it's the edge, a rock or a candy. > jhattara wrote: > Sometimes when there are several different counter types and lots of them, several different card types and lots of them, it's actually more clear to separate them a bit. > > How much have you played with decks that can put most of their library on the table as permanents? Do you have any idea how much table space it takes to have let's say 10 masters on the table and another 10 cards on each of your 4 minions? > What does my play experience with certain types of decks have to do with this? I thought this was about rules for where to put cards and counters (and the edge). If table space, heavy wind or something else dictates special conditions I'm sure that's something that can be worked out for that specific tournament.

> henrik wrote: > Not sure what behaviour you refer to. I don't see LSJ talking about multiple stacks in the post. > > Either way, I think it's quite clear that unless a rule tells you to put something on your library, you shouldn't put something on your library. It doesn't matter if it's the edge, a rock or a candy. > I'm talking about not putting attached cards on under the cards they are attached to, but rather next to them. And as there is nothing that can attach to your library, having some counter on your library is quite explicitly something that does not have effect into your library. > henrik wrote: > What does my play experience with certain types of decks have to do with this? I thought this was about rules for where to put cards and counters (and the edge). > If table space, heavy wind or something else dictates special conditions I'm sure that's something that can be worked out for that specific tournament. > Table space and other conditions are exactly what I'm referring to. And if that kind of an exception to a rule is needed, then the rule itself should be scrapped. Who cares about where your cards are as long as everyone involved knows their relationship? Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

So you can't use anarch counter, cards like twillight camp and anarch convert only makes them anarch, nothing about counter? You would just have to remember? - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> jhattara wrote: > I'm talking about not putting attached cards on under the cards they are attached to, but rather next to them. > Ah. That'd be as wrong as putting The Rack on a vampire, sure. I do agree that attempts to keep your play area clear and easy to overlook is a good thing. It should not come at the expense of other players possibly misinterpreting your play area though, which might easily happen if you put the edge on cards, stack locations or events on each other etc. > jhattara wrote: > And as there is nothing that can attach to your library, having some counter on your library is quite explicitly something that does not have effect into your library. > It clearly has some effect, since some people want to do it. Either way, it's not allowed by the rules. > jhattara wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > If table space, heavy wind or something else dictates special conditions I'm sure that's something that can be worked out for that specific tournament. > > > Table space and other conditions are exactly what I'm referring to. And if that kind of an exception to a rule is needed, then the rule itself should be scrapped. > It's only needed in extreme cases. Do you honestly think that anything should be allowed to be put anywhere, because somewhere there might be a table space issue with certain decks? > jhattara wrote: > Who cares about where your cards are as long as everyone involved knows their relationship? > Generally, if things aren't a problem you don't need to fix them. There should, however, be rules for the situations when things like these actually become a problem. In this case, there are rules for it. The rules can be said to care about where your cards are. Personally, as long as it's not on a table where I'm playing or judging I don't care at all how people stack their cards, counters or whatevers. The discussion at hand is about the rules (at least for me), and I think they should be consistent for all tournaments, and not dependent on who's judging at the moment.

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > I'm talking about not putting attached cards on under the cards they are attached to, but rather next to them. > > > Ah. That'd be as wrong as putting The Rack on a vampire, sure. I do agree that attempts to keep your play area clear and easy to overlook is a good thing. It should not come at the expense of other players possibly misinterpreting your play area though, which might easily happen if you put the edge on cards, stack locations or events on each other etc. > Have to remember, if I ever play with you to take an Una, Imbued or Guillaume deck and stack everything as it should be, according to the rules. I'm sorry in advance that all the games timed out, because I will need several minutes each turn to just re-sort my attached cards so that they are all in a single file and still shown properly (or in case of Guillaume that I conquer the whole table for myself) Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > Have to remember, if I ever play with you to take an Una, Imbued or Guillaume deck and stack everything as it should be, according to the rules. I'm sorry in advance that all the games timed out, because I will need several minutes each turn to just re-sort my attached cards so that they are all in a single file and still shown properly (or in case of Guillaume that I conquer the whole table for myself) > Not sure why you feel the need to try get this to some kind of personal insult level. Those decks can all be played while following the rules though, without necessarily timing out. Good bye and thanks for the earlier discussion.

> And as there is nothing that can attach to your library, having some counter on your library is quite explicitly something that does not have effect into your library. > > > > It clearly has some effect, since some people want to do it. Either way, it's not allowed by the rules. > > Quote? Link?

> Izaak wrote: > > > And as there is nothing that can attach to your library, having some counter on your library is quite explicitly something that does not have effect into your library. > > > > > > It clearly has some effect, since some people want to do it. Either way, it's not allowed by the rules. > > > > > > > > > Quote? > > Link? > What sort of quote are you looking for? This is one: > > Only counters indicated by card text and/or rules (blood, disease, corruption, vandal, etc.) are placed on cards. > groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/33939ee91ad97bea Unless the rules tells you to put something on top of your library, you're not supposed to put something on top of your library. Here's an example of when you should: Name: Henry Taylor [BH:U2] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Brujah antitribu Group: 3 Capacity: 6 Discipline: cel pre pro POT Sabbat: After an action, you may move a combat card Henry played during that action from your ash heap to the top of your library. Here's an example of when you shouldn't: Name: Sabbat Threat [Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:U, KMW:PAl] Cardtype: Political Action {Requires a} prince or justicar. Choose one or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each chosen Methuselah gets a threat counter. Each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each threat counter he or she has during his or her untap phase. A Methuselah may never have more than two threat counters, and he or she may burn the Edge to burn all the threat counters he or she has.

The quote you provided tells me something about cards. Not about libraries. It also dates back to 2001, well before anything like Anarch Counters and the like existed. It's also not really relevant in this discussion as it specifically talks about counters and not about the egde. The Sabbat Threat example you provided, didn't specify where the counters should go and therefore you can put them anywhere, as long as they're visible. In contrast, the Henry Taylor example specifies it goes on top of the library (and since it doesn't specify face up it defaults to face down), so is also irrelevant. If your goal is just being anal about something fairly trivial that is somewhat ambigious in the rules, then please tell us so we can stop trying to point out your error in reasoning and move on.

> Izaak wrote: > The quote you provided tells me something about cards. Not about libraries. It also dates back to 2001, well before anything like Anarch Counters and the like existed. It's also not really relevant in this discussion as it specifically talks about counters and not about the egde. > Libraries are composed of cards, if that helps. The way I read it, the core of the post I linked to is that unless you're explicitly told to place something on something else (be it cards on cards, counters on cards or whatever), you're not supposed to place it on something but rather have it by itself in your play area. > Izaak wrote: > The Sabbat Threat example you provided, didn't specify where the counters should go and therefore you can put them anywhere, as long as they're visible. In contrast, the Henry Taylor example specifies it goes on top of the library (and since it doesn't specify face up it defaults to face down), so is also irrelevant. > No, you can't put them anywhere. That's the point of the post I linked to. You can't put counters on cards, for example, unless the rules tell you do put said counters on cards. You're not allowed to put Threat counters on your uncontrolled vampire. However, if we're gonna play the hard way. Can you point me to the rules about cards in library being face down by default? Am I allowed to look at any side of the top card in my library? Can you point me to the rule prohibiting this? > Izaak wrote: > If your goal is just being anal about something fairly trivial that is somewhat ambigious in the rules, then please tell us so we can stop trying to point out your error in reasoning and move on. > So... First you try to make a meaningful distinction between "counter" and "the edge" in the context above, and then you claim that I'm the one being anal about something fairly trivial. It feels rather ironic, to be honest.

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > Have to remember, if I ever play with you to take an Una, Imbued or Guillaume deck and stack everything as it should be, according to the rules. I'm sorry in advance that all the games timed out, because I will need several minutes each turn to just re-sort my attached cards so that they are all in a single file and still shown properly (or in case of Guillaume that I conquer the whole table for myself) > > > Not sure why you feel the need to try get this to some kind of personal insult level. Those decks can all be played while following the rules though, without necessarily timing out. > Good bye and thanks for the earlier discussion. > Sorry if that got to you as insulting. I was trying to be sarcastic. (Humor does not always convey well over internet.) Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> henrik wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > Have to remember, if I ever play with you to take an Una, Imbued or Guillaume deck and stack everything as it should be, according to the rules. I'm sorry in advance that all the games timed out, because I will need several minutes each turn to just re-sort my attached cards so that they are all in a single file and still shown properly (or in case of Guillaume that I conquer the whole table for myself) > > > Not sure why you feel the need to try get this to some kind of personal insult level. Those decks can all be played while following the rules though, without necessarily timing out. > Good bye and thanks for the earlier discussion. > Jussi, there is always one person who completely, totally ruins a forum with his incessant babble, his rules lawyering, and his mindless postings, until finally defeated, he says that it was really you who are insulting him and then he retreats from the battlefield like the coward that he truly is. EVERYONE should STOP feeding the troll named Henrik. 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

Instead of putting edge on top of cards I tend to put it right next to a tapped card, so that when I try to untap that card it'll be impossible as it will hit the Edge instead and I know it is time to take another pool. Finnish Politics!

> KevinM wrote: > Jussi, there is always one person who completely, totally ruins a forum with his incessant babble, his rules lawyering, and his mindless postings, until finally defeated, he says that it was really you who are insulting him and then he retreats from the battlefield like the coward that he truly is. > > EVERYONE should STOP feeding the troll named Henrik. > I have a feeling I'll regret sticking my nose in to this but discussions aren't battles and the forum isn't meant to be a battlefield. It's easy to see why it sometimes looks like one. People see insults where they aren't intended, respond in kind, dig their heels in and so on. The only way to avoid this is to always give the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing to lose from that.