Shortcuts in VtES Official Games

I don't consider this a straight rules question (more like policy) , although it seemed beneficial to post it here, in the forum. I'd also like to state that for the purpose of this discussion, I'm considering shortcuts the usage of words/names not used in the rules book and the shortening/skipping of phases. I believe any game, when played enough times, earns shortcuts and I was thinking exactly what is the policy for shortcuts in official/sancioned play (tourneys)? VtES has one of the most intricate and complex turn structures in all card games and its speed can be greatly improved by the use of shortcuts – I know my playgroup uses them and they don't even realize it, for the most part. Until someone needs the impulse for Madness Network, that is. Thanks in advance, Sérgio

The policy for shortcuts is: avoid them as much as you can. As a judge, I don't give extra time to players who call me because they skipped a phase. That might be harsh, but at least they don't do it again (and play the game properly). My experience as an EC judge (3 ECs, that's about 150*3*2=1200 games ) is that more than 70% of the calls are due to people skipping/forgetting phases "to gain time". Example: A: "Carrion Crows." Waits 2 secs as B remains silent. Start clock here. A: "Long Range with Aid from Bats." B: "Wait. I wanted to play Drawing Out the Beast." A: "But we're in the maneuver step now..." C: "Yeah, it's too late. A's played his card..." D: "But he shouldn't be denied the option to play Drawing Out the Beast!" E (the wise guy): "You know what? Let's call a judge to settle this." E calls the judge. Add 5 sec till judge comes over. E: "See, judge, A plays Carrion Crows, waited 2 seconds, B said nothing. Then A played Aid from Bats, but B said he wanted to play Drawing Out the Beast." Judge (takes some time to analyse): "Ok. Rollback. A, take your Aid from Bats back in your hand. You are now in the Before Range step, A has passed, B now has the impulse." Stop clock here. Now, the only question is: Is that sequence of chatting longer than B saying "Wait a second.", or B saying "No pre's." or B saying "Drawing Out the Beast." ? If the answer is "No", then, perhaps (in tournaments where the judge can be here in 5 secs) skipping the Before Range step could be an option. Otherwise, it isn't.

Now, sometimes, I agree it's pointless to go through each and every step. If Madness Network / Enkil Cog / The Ankou aren't in play, the "Do you want to perform actions during my minion phase" chatting can be skipped. But only then. Don't assume the guy with the Madness Network / Enkil Cog will only use it to bleed during his predator's turn - he might want to use it before it gets contested. Or before having to tap to Telepathic Misdirection. Etc. It would be OK to skip a player's "before range" step, if that player announced explicitely "I will not play a single before range card of the rest of the game." (but still, cards such as Frenzy (scarcely played, I recon) make this more difficult to deal with).

> Pascal wrote: > Now, the only question is: Is that sequence of chatting longer than B saying "Wait a second.", or B saying "No pre's." or B saying "Drawing Out the Beast." ? > The problem here is that by saying "wait a second.", B is leaking the information that he has something to play (of course, he could be bluffing), so while B is thinking about playing his card, he certainly does not want to ask for time.

> Non-existant user wrote: > The problem here is that by saying "wait a second.", B is leaking the information that he has something to play (of course, he could be bluffing), so while B is thinking about playing his card, he certainly does not want to ask for time. > Just bluff half the time anyway. Or each time you want your opponent to think the combat important.

A sounds like either the worst player in the world, or a big fat filthy 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: > A sounds like either the worst player in the world, or a big fat filthy cheater. > not really buddy. If it's the third time B gets rushed in a round and didn't play anything before range before, then the odds of him having a drawing out the beast are quite slim. Especially if B's vamp have only some odd inferior animalism... and don't forget also : some players are sloooooow. It's not their fault, they tend to play carefully and ponder each decision : their brain function that way. C'est la vie. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Wasn't there a championship where someone accidentally self ousted with a magnom, but LSJ decided it should be rolled back because the player did not announce the cost while playing it?

> Reyda wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > 'A' sounds like either the worst player in the world, or a big fat filthy cheater. > > > not really buddy. If it's the third time B gets rushed in a round and didn't play anything before range before, then the odds of him having a drawing out the beast are quite slim. Especially if B's vamp have only some odd inferior animalism... > > and don't forget also : some players are sloooooow. It's not their fault, they tend to play carefully and ponder each decision : their brain function that way. C'est la vie. > In the example given, either 'A' wasn't aware of the rules to the extent that he could play properly and well -- and then he WOULD know well how to do it after the first time, which means that your 'third time' example is moot -- or he does know the rules well and is dishonestly trying to mentally bully 'B' by not verbally or physically announcing in some fashion that the chance to play cards is now on 'B'. I'll say this as a third-option: He could be a bad player AND be trying to bully 'B'. 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

nice. I managed to create a torrent of reactions to bad players. on topic: I might be wrong, but I think I considered shortcuts "the usage of words/names not used in the rules book" as well as "shortening/skipping of phases". the first actually came to mind because of another post in the Rules Question, about Political Actions in which, I believe, Ohlmann said something along the lines of you should know your nomenclature and don't confuse "play", "call", "perform" and "resolve". back to the skipping of phases, how about this example: discarding at the end of turn is usually taken a sign of passing said turn, although player A who discarded might not have said "I pass" or "go" or informed the table that he was passing, in a suitable manner. or even: not having minions to untap, player B goes directly into master phase, while someone has an Omunculus in the table. and yet: not having masters to play, or not wishing to do so, player A immediately taps a vampire, announcing a Fourth Tradition. are these acceptable shortcuts? bear with me here, I really am interested in this and while agreeing with Pascal that players should announce their plays clearly and give the opponent time to react, I am curious just how far this goes. thanks again

> Cyrus wrote: > Wasn't there a championship where someone accidentally self ousted with a magnom, but LSJ decided it should be rolled back because the player did not announce the cost while playing it? > I don't think it was a championship. There was a game in which someone self-ousted by playing Aaron's Feeding Razor when they had 1 pool. However, LSJ ruled that since that player did not announce the cost of the action, the action had to be completely rolled back. I believe that this was not one of LSJ's more popular rulings. Technically you have to announce every facet of an action when you declare it, including the stealth of the acting minion and the cost of the action. This is in the rulebook. LSJ has said that the default stealth during an action is zero and the default cost of an action is zero. Thus, you don't have to declare a minion's initial stealth of zero or an action's initial cost of zero. Otherwise, you have have declare any stealth or cost that is greater than or less than zero. If you do not, the action has not been properly declared and must be rolled back. In the example I gave, the action got through block declaration and resolution before the action was declared invalid and got rolled back. (I may be wrong that the action in the tournament was rolled back - it might have been a retroactive ruling by LSJ.) I guess I could find the links if I really tried. Anyway, technically, for example, if you do not verbally declare that your Govern the Unaligned costs 1 blood, you can roll it back after several other steps have occurred, according to the LSJ ruling and the implication of the rulebook. It's one of those cute cheats that exist in VTES that nobody's exploiting. I think that LSJ ruled that way because the player playing the Aaron's Feeding Razor had obviously not meant to self-oust. He had obviously forgotten the cost of Aaron's Feeding Razor and was trying to cycle the card or something while in a losing position. It appears to me me that LSJ favored "compassionate" rulings that allowed people to go back when they made gross errors. See also "Points of Light" or whatever it's called. Unfortunately people don't really play so specifically in practice - you have to freaking bludgeon some people to get them to acknowledge they are passing through their discard phases or that they choose not to attempt to block. And fully declaring all aspects of an action? Sometimes it happens, and most times it doesn't.

> AaronC wrote: > Anyway, technically, for example, if you do not verbally declare that your Govern the Unaligned costs 1 blood, you can roll it back after several other steps have occurred, according to the LSJ ruling and the implication of the rulebook. It's one of those cute cheats that exist in VTES that nobody's exploiting. > While I understand LSJ's point of view, never, ever, ever, would I allow for a rollback in such a situation unless otherwise ordered by the Headjudge. Although the player might be frustrated and even loose the game, its potential for abuse is GINORMOUS. I might open an exception if the cards had errata (like, say, Delaying Tactics), but that would be a fix carefully pondered.

> AaronC wrote: > It appears to me me that LSJ favored "compassionate" rulings that allowed people to go back when they made gross errors. > It makes sense in a multiplayer game, even without compassion. In the Razor example, if the player who made the mistake is forced to self-oust, then his predator gets an advantage over the other players still in the game. He hasn't done anything to deserve this edge and the other players haven't made any mistake so that can be seen as unfair to them. If the self-ousting player is allowed to roll back, then he is the one being given an unfair advantage, but a much smaller one than a free VP, so that is the least disruptive solution for the table.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > It appears to me me that LSJ favored "compassionate" rulings that allowed people to go back when they made gross errors. > > > It makes sense in a multiplayer game, even without compassion. In the Razor example, if the player who made the mistake is forced to proceed, then his predator gets an advantage over the other players still in the game. He hasn't done anything to deserve this edge and the other players haven't made any mistake so that can be seen as unfair to them. > Well the situation can easily be read the other way around: you are not being simply lenient and compassionate, you're giving an unfair advantage (cards in hand) that establishes a precedent in which a player who, in a position where he might have no chance of winning (ergo, can even self-oust), can bend the rules. In the end of the fix, the player will possibly have new cards in his hand for you can't simply take away and shuffle the new ones, since you don't know which they are; you'll have to do something like return everything played to hand and randomly pick the excess cards. Then do what? give him a warning? big deal, awesome trade -- a warning for a shot at living longer. :/

Some of our favorite "short cuts" are: "nothing before strike with hands for 1" "No more cards to play during this Action / combat" Put you hand on the table and say "play your cards". Or the best that we learned at an EC: Your pred/prey plays a card and asks for blockers - we reply "You do not exist" to mean do anything you want, I will do nothing in response. These phrases seem to get said more in the last 5 minutes of a game. David Tatu V:EKN Scribe

> david.tatu wrote: > Some of our favorite "short cuts" are: > "nothing before strike with hands for 1" > "No more cards to play during this Action / combat" > Put you hand on the table and say "play your cards". > Or the best that we learned at an EC: > Your pred/prey plays a card and asks for blockers - we reply "You do not exist" to mean do anything you want, I will do nothing in response. > > These phrases seem to get said more in the last 5 minutes of a game. > We actually use the first one a lost, except for the strike. The last one is hilarious, I'm gonna ask Brum why he never told us that since he was at the EC. And while it's hilarious, it's also a non-binding block response -- unless the rules contemplate the use of shortcuts Thanks David, that's the kind of examples I wanted to know if people used regularly.

Over here, we generally only use shortcuts in combat to signify that we have nothing pre-range and no maneuvers. We made a big deal over not taking back actions for a while back, and it made things smoother once players go the hang of favouring quick checks over shortcuts. e.g. 'Anything else?' if a player pauses after playing a bunch of card acting player will ask 'Anything before range?' once he/she is done with pre-range 'Blocking?' after declaring the action to indicate that we have nothing else as the action is announced 'Done' to signify the end of our turn What we find is that players become trained to give and listen for audio cues rather than assuming the game state. Much less confusion and much less time wasted on rollbacks Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> then his predator gets an advantage over the other players still in the game. He hasn't done anything to deserve this edge and the other players haven't made any mistake so that can be seen as unfair to them. > His predator gained this advantage by reducing his prey to 1 pool. There is no such thing as 'fair' and 'unfair' during a game of V:TES except in the case of cheating/incorrect rules interpretations. If a player accidently self ousts, try not to smirk as they scoop their cards from the table. If they try to use the rules to gain an advantage on their bad play, you correct the self ousting player who incorrectly declared an action and rewind the game to the point he played the Aaron's Feeding Razor. The player replaces the card he drew from the Feeding Razor to his library and finishes correctly declaring the card he has played. Since he has already indicated the minion to take the action and is only missing the cost and +1 stealth he declares it and continues as normal. > Complete Rules Reference: > > B. Declare the effect. > > 1. Fully announce the effect (as applicable: the minion playing/using it, targets, cost, and so on). If the effect is a card, play the card to the playing area. > > 200:Correction of Game State > > Philosophy: > > It is important that the player committing the infraction receive no benefit in the game for doing so. >

@Kevin: What if, instead of "2 seconds", I had written "1 minute" or "5 minutes"? Would A still have been the biggest cheater in the world? We each have our own perception of how long it should take to determine whether or not to play a card. Regarding Homunculus: It is the player controlling Homunculus's duty to inform the acting player that he wants to use an effect during that untap phase. He could say "Are you done with your untap effects ?" for instance. Of course, that player cannot be denied the option to use an untap phase effect.

There are some shortcuts that we use quite a lot, but the: "Nothing until strike." Is the real winner. Or after the minion phase the "Pass" meaning non influences and no discard... Of course there are some effects/minions that make a difference to the game play, like Anneke, Sascha Vikos, Leandro, madness network, Enkil cog, etc, etc.

Snip > > AaronC wrote: > > Anyway, technically, for example, if you do not verbally declare that your Govern the Unaligned costs 1 blood, you can roll it back after several other steps have occurred, according to the LSJ ruling and the implication of the rulebook. It's one of those cute cheats that exist in VTES that nobody's exploiting. > Minor correction and perhaps this isn't 100% obvious from the current tournament rules but LSJ was very clear that rollbacks shouldn't take place to jsut benefit the player making the error (e.g. don't change game state to facilitate cheating or poor play). This isn't very helpful in the case of the Aaron Feeding Razor example, which i've not heard before, the more common one that is quoted was the announced bleed of 1 when it was actually 0 due to Aranthebes (Swedish EC in Goteborg). An example I would give you would be player A has a Heart of Nizchetus in play whilst player B has a vampire with fame in torpor. Player A untaps his minions etc and then plays a master card, B points out must re-wind to take pool damage (mandatory). Under the guidelines I had from LSJ I wouldn't allow A to use the HoN as i'm only letting him return to a phase he has passed through [by untapping] (bearing in mind you can never skip a phase) to complete his mandatory actions. In Aaron's Govern example it would make a significant difference which bit the player did or didn't declare, for instance the cost and stealth at superior - there's unlikely to be any game impact so need to rollback, declasring superior when he has no legal targets and only noted after blocks a rollback seems sensible etc.

> Pagan wrote: > > 200:Correction of Game State > > Philosophy: > > It is important that the player committing the infraction receive no benefit in the game for doing so. > spot on - thanks David for the correct quote

Doesn't rolling back always fulfill this condition? If you come roll back before the error and cancel it, then the player committing the error got no benefit from it. I thought that guideline was more aimed at cases when an exact rollback is impractical/impossible and the judge has to fudge things.

well see rolling back to untap phase a full rollback would get them to their untap phase to do stuff again, normal sense is for Methuselah to burn a pool for the fame or force a contest choice in whatever phase they are in (often minion phase at this stage) rather than actually rewinding with benefit of hindsight

Hugh, I think your methods are reasonable, and I nominate you to update the Judges' Guidelines I don't know if the cited guideline that refers to an offending player not gaining an advantage is what always happens in practice. In Los Angeles (whose reputation in years past probably led to the "Points of Light" "can't forget a phase" ruling), it is often understood that any rollback is total. You take stuff back, and then you get to play stuff over. That isn't to say that a rollback is the same thing as an adjustment in pool or blood counters. In the examples of declaring an action you can't pay for without ousting yourself or failing to declare the use of any transfers in your second turn before taking your discard phase action, the person making the mistake certainly has something to gain by the rollback.

> Pascal wrote: > @Kevin: What if, instead of "2 seconds", I had written "1 minute" or "5 minutes"? Would A still have been the biggest cheater in the world? > Clearly not. > Pascal wrote: > We each have our own perception of how long it should take to determine whether or not to play a card. > Watch carefully the players in your group/other groups/major tournaments that you KNOW are jerks. They will do things EXACTLY like in your example, trying to gain a mental advantage by not using a single verbal or physical cue for the other player(s). Because they are jerks. 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

> AaronC wrote: > Hugh, I think your methods are reasonable, and I nominate you to update the Judges' Guidelines > . > in progress....(slightly delayed by playtesting)

> Cyrus wrote: > Wasn't there a championship where someone accidentally self ousted with a magnom, but LSJ decided it should be rolled back because the player did not announce the cost while playing it? > The EC in Barcelona, I believe. I was playing with a weenie Cel gun deck, had 3 pool, Concealed out a .44, and then my predator claimed I was ousted because I forgot to lose a pool for an Anarch Revolt. We called LSJ over and he rewound the game back to the untap phase and we played on from there.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Cyrus wrote: > > Wasn't there a championship where someone accidentally self ousted with a magnom, but LSJ decided it should be rolled back because the player did not announce the cost while playing it? > > > The EC in Barcelona, I believe. I was playing with a weenie Cel gun deck, had 3 pool, Concealed out a .44, and then my predator claimed I was ousted because I forgot to lose a pool for an Anarch Revolt. We called LSJ over and he rewound the game back to the untap phase and we played on from there. > what, he really knew you forgot to pay but chose to mention it at that point to "rulebully" you or was it honnest from his part that he realized only at this point ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > > > > Cyrus wrote: > > > Wasn't there a championship where someone accidentally self ousted with a magnom, but LSJ decided it should be rolled back because the player did not announce the cost while playing it? > > > > > > > > The EC in Barcelona, I believe. I was playing with a weenie Cel gun deck, had 3 pool, Concealed out a .44, and then my predator claimed I was ousted because I forgot to lose a pool for an Anarch Revolt. We called LSJ over and he rewound the game back to the untap phase and we played on from there. > > > what, he really knew you forgot to pay but chose to mention it at that point to "rulebully" you or was it honnest from his part that he realized only at this point ? > It was 10 years ago, so I don't remember that part of it (or even who won the game). I just remember that he was insistent that I was ousted and I was very keen on not being ousted, so we called over LSJ.