Cards produced by Black Chantry Productions are effectively marked, due to their lack of the Deckmaster logo on the back.* The tournament rule for playing with these and other marked cards unsleeved is:
"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, or cards without the Deckmaster logo) are used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the different sets, printings, etc. must be of sufficiently mixed card type, unless they are all sleeved with opaque sleeves (recommended)."
This is a good rule, and I understand why it's in place. My question is, what does "sufficiently mixed" entail?
Assuming that there are only two different types cardbacks in a given deck, a 50/50 split would obviously be ideal. But for any ratio not as exactly balanced, how elastic can this ratio get before it's no longer sufficiently mixed? Is a 60/40 split legal?
*Just to be 100% clear, I'm referring to all the cards BCP has produced, not just the ones recently printed with miscut corners.
> Kushiel wrote:
> Assuming that there are only two different types cardbacks in a given deck, a 50/50 split would obviously be ideal. But for any ratio not as exactly balanced, how elastic can this ratio get before it's no longer sufficiently mixed? Is a 60/40 split legal?.
>
I don't believe this is something that can be reasonably settled with just ratios.
Consider a weenie bleed deck like the recently posted Belrus NC winning one - www.vekn.net/forum/event-reports-and-twd/77407-twd-belarusian-nationals-2018
40% of that deck is made up of the actions and action modifiers. If I construct a deck like with a 40/60 random split of the backs across all the card types, I'm sure most people would be fine with that, but if I construct that deck with all the actions and action modifiers having 1 back type, and the other cards having a different one, I doubt many people would consider that sufficiently mixed
This gets worse when you throw in more back types (we can have BC backs, WW backs, third ed and Jyhad all in a single deck, for instance).
It would be good to have more guidance on this in the judges guide, and I feel the tournament rules could use some text encouraging players to check with the head judge before the start of the tournament.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
I think that there should simply be a rule for playing with sleeves. Most sensible players do it already, but still.
I noticed after exchanging some cards with my friends, that US-printed cards(drivethrurpg etc) have a distinct "rougher" texture to them compared to EU-printed(carta mundi) cards. This could also be used to effectively mark cards if you have cards from both sources. You can feel the difference with your fingers.
I also think that the suggested ratios thing solves nothing, because you could easily replace reactions, deflections, and other reactionary cards with marked versions which would then be different from actions and other forward going cards and comprise of that 40%ish of the deck, yet still grant advantage if you knew whether cycling cards was worth it to get a reaction off the top of the deck for example.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
I think the point of the rule of 'sufficiently mixed' isnt the whole deck being mixed, but rather, if you have 10 Governs, that they themselves are a sufficient mix.
'
But yea. just use sleeves, they're not expensive...
> narpassword wrote:
> I think the point of the rule of 'sufficiently mixed' isnt the whole deck being mixed, but rather, if you have 10 Governs, that they themselves are a sufficient mix.
>
It's a bit of both. Historically, there have been more concrete versions of the rule about having certain card types etc. The problem is that unless they go into excruciatingly painful detail, they are often quite easy to game.
For example, taking your version - that it's about individual cards, not the whole deck - you could have some Jyhad Deflections, some Deckmaster Deflections, and literally no other Jyhad cards in the deck. So you know that every time you pull a Jyhad card, it's going to be Deflection. Yes, you will also draw some Deckmaster Deflections - but being able to look at your hand, see you have a copy of On The Qui Vive in it, and know with absolute certainty that the top card of your deck is a Deflection (because it has a Jyhad back) isn't a bad advantage to have.
But yes, sleeves are a good thing to have - especially in an environment where random people you may not know will need to pick up your cards to read them, Temptation them, or whatever.
Plenty of sleeves are transparent. Plenty of opaque sleeves suck.
Of course, I'm willing to play all Jyhad decks and all 3e decks, so I guess all BC decks are possible, too.
Traveller Card Game
> ICL wrote:
> Plenty of sleeves are transparent. Plenty of opaque sleeves suck.
>
> Of course, I'm willing to play all Jyhad decks and all 3e decks, so I guess all BC decks are possible, too.
>
After three days of no word from The Powers That Be, my plan was to log in and post something like, "All these responses of 'Just use sleeves tho!' are understandable, if all too predictable," but ICL's response is so much better than that.
That said, I'd love to see some response to this subject from the people who actually have some influence over it. I think Mr Ripoll is in charge of the tournament rules, as well as the rulebook/unsanctioned rules?
> ICL wrote:
> Plenty of sleeves are transparent. Plenty of opaque sleeves suck.
>
My (friendly) suggestion to this would be (kinda obviously) to use the less sucky opaque ones.
Finnish Politics!
"Paging Dr Ripoll. Dr Ripoll, please report to the Rules Questions forum."
(I'm attending a tournament in a little over a week, so it'd be very handy to have an official answer to this question before then.)
Distinct backs should be equally distributed, with a maximum variation of 10%.
Also, for each distinct back, the type of the front card should also have the same ratio than the whole deck: for instance, you can't have only Jyhad combat cards while the rest of the deck uses a different back. If your deck contains 40% of combat cards, then 40% of the Jyhad cards should be combat cards (+/- 10%).
Since this is quite complicated to achieve, I strongly recommand using opaque sleeves, or not mixing card backs.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Distinct backs should be equally distributed, with a maximum variation of 10%.
> Also, for each distinct back, the type of the front card should also have the same ratio than the whole deck: for instance, you can't have only Jyhad combat cards while the rest of the deck uses a different back. If your deck contains 40% of combat cards, then 40% of the Jyhad cards should be combat cards (+/- 10%).
>
This is still problematic:
- A Twister deck could have all its burn option cards, which exist in pretty much every card type except Events, have a distinctive back.
- This doesn't explain how to account for dual-type cards. Is a combat/action modifier (e.g. Swallowed by the Night) account for in the percentages of combat cards, action modifier cards, or a separate class of combat/action modifier cards?
- There are at least four easily distinguishable card backs(*): Jyhad (says Jyhad), WotC V:TES (says V:TES and Deckmaster), later/WW V:TES (says V:TES and Deckmaster with a trade mark symbol), and Black Chantry V:TES (doesn't say Deckmaster). So that's 25% of the deck each. Does a 10% variation mean I can go as low as 15% on one back type? In a 60 card deck (which is legal), that's as low as 9 cards for one of those types. If, say, 6 of those 9 are Villein and I have, say, 6 non-blood gain masters with a different back, I have a much better chance of knowing that my next draw is likely to be a Villein.
(*) Not including differences in printing quality / vibrancy, which some players are alert to.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > Distinct backs should be equally distributed, with a maximum variation of 10%.
> > Also, for each distinct back, the type of the front card should also have the same ratio than the whole deck: for instance, you can't have only Jyhad combat cards while the rest of the deck uses a different back. If your deck contains 40% of combat cards, then 40% of the Jyhad cards should be combat cards (+/- 10%).
> >
> This is still problematic:
>
> - A Twister deck could have all its burn option cards, which exist in pretty much every card type except Events, have a distinctive back.
> - This doesn't explain how to account for dual-type cards. Is a combat/action modifier (e.g. Swallowed by the Night) account for in the percentages of combat cards, action modifier cards, or a separate class of combat/action modifier cards?
>
> - There are at least four easily distinguishable card backs(*): Jyhad (says Jyhad), WotC V:TES (says V:TES and Deckmaster), later/WW V:TES (says V:TES and Deckmaster with a trade mark symbol), and Black Chantry V:TES (doesn't say Deckmaster). So that's 25% of the deck each. Does a 10% variation mean I can go as low as 15% on one back type? In a 60 card deck (which is legal), that's as low as 9 cards for one of those types. If, say, 6 of those 9 are Villein and I have, say, 6 non-blood gain masters with a different back, I have a much better chance of knowing that my next draw is likely to be a Villein.
>
> (*) Not including differences in printing quality / vibrancy, which some players are alert to.
>
These are general guidelines
"sufficiently mixed" is still left at the discretion of the judge. Anyone who plans to use the rules to cheat should be disqualified of course.
Or use opaque sleeves if you want to avoid any problem.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> These are general guidelines
>
I'm pretty certain that when you state maximums with percentage variations, people will treat those as rules to be followed, not guidelines.
If the situation is that you can follow the specific percentages that have been laid down and still have to argue with a judge about it, then I'm pretty sure the actual answer to the question that has been asked is "Whatever your judge thinks is reasonable", and that any faffing around with percentages is ineffectual window dressing which makes the problem worse by giving people the false belief that they know their deck will be allowed.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > These are general guidelines
> >
> I'm pretty certain that when you state maximums with percentage variations, people will treat those as rules to be followed, not guidelines.
>
> If the situation is that you can follow the specific percentages that have been laid down and still have to argue with a judge about it, then I'm pretty sure the actual answer to the question that has been asked is "Whatever your judge thinks is reasonable", and that any faffing around with percentages is ineffectual window dressing which makes the problem worse by giving people the false belief that they know their deck will be allowed.
>
Probably indeed. I'm editing my answer so there will be no confusion.
The reasonable choice would be to avoid mixing backs in fact. Either you play cards from the same edition and there's no issue, or you use opaque sleeves.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Timo wrote:
> Quick question :
>
> Why is it not simply forbidden to come in any tournament with different backs except with opaque sleeves ?
>
You may want to buy a deck and play it without sleeving it.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Or to answer Ankha's concern :
"If your deck contains different sort of backs for your cards, you must use opaque sleeves"
So you can come to a tournament with a just opened starter deck and still play it without needing to sleeve it.
> Ankha wrote:
> Distinct backs should be equally distributed, with a maximum variation of 10%.
> Also, for each distinct back, the type of the front card should also have the same ratio than the whole deck: for instance, you can't have only Jyhad combat cards while the rest of the deck uses a different back. If your deck contains 40% of combat cards, then 40% of the Jyhad cards should be combat cards (+/- 10%).
>
> Since this is quite complicated to achieve, I strongly recommand using opaque sleeves, or not mixing card backs.
>
Thanks for the answer. Since it's still pretty ambiguous - tournament rules should be rules, not recommendations - I strongly suggest that you update the tournament rules to reflect this ruling.
There has to be a way to solve this problem that doesn't involve: use sleeves. While I sleeve my decks not all players like to do so. I frankly find the idea that we're forcing sleeves on players troublesome.
Can we allow players to keep their library in a tuck box? This way no one knows what the back of the top cards is?
> kschaefer wrote:
> There has to be a way to solve this problem that doesn't involve: use sleeves. While I sleeve my decks not all players like to do so. I frankly find the idea that we're forcing sleeves on players troublesome.
>
> Can we allow players to keep their library in a tuck box? This way no one knows what the back of the top cards is?
>
What if you need to count the cards without reshuffling?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Or we could just stop micromanaging this particular point. There are a thousand other ways to play with marked cards, voluntarily or not. Cards will wear and tear, so will sleeves. Even new, some sleeves have very unequal quality and can be recognized. Since the back of the card is not symmetric, one can even just turn some cards upside down to mark them. The focus on one particular mark while overlooking others does not seem rational to me.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Or we could just stop micromanaging this particular point.
>
That's pretty much my position. Either we should tell people that opaque sleeves are mandatory, or we should tell people that it's up to judges' discretion as to what "sufficiently mixed" means and so they should be completely prepared to sleeve anyway.
What's really bad is telling people: here are a bunch of highly specific 'guidelines' you have to follow but you may still have to sleeve anyway. What's the point of the highly specific guidelines if they don't actually achieve any clarity? We wouldn't tell people that they should bring about 12 vampires in their crypt, but some judges might let them use the deck with 10, or a library with 93 cards or 58, and then have to manically sort things out in the few minutes before round one.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> That's pretty much my position. Either we should tell people that opaque sleeves are mandatory, or we should tell people that it's up to judges' discretion as to what "sufficiently mixed" means and so they should be completely prepared to sleeve anyway.
>
I'm fine with the tournament rules saying "judge's discretion", but, if the VEKN is not going to mandate opaque sleeves, then the judge's guide should actually provide guidance here. The various ways people can gain advantage from mixing backs aren't immediately obvious, even to experienced players (see this thread), so examples of how this can be manipulated and ideas of things to check there are required. There's a bit buried in the discussion around marked cards, but that really needs to be elobrated on.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
I'm surprised what kinds of hoops some are prepared to jump through just to avoid having to purchase 1-2 packs of sleeves costing all in all some $10 to 15 or so...
Sure it is an expense but come on now, think of all the amount of money you've already put to the game and compare this sum to it. Miniscule? Insignificant?
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> I'm surprised what kinds of hoops some are prepared to jump through just to avoid having to purchase 1-2 packs of sleeves costing all in all some $10 to 15 or so...
>
> Sure it is an expense but come on now, think of all the amount of money you've already put to the game and compare this sum to it. Miniscule? Insignificant?
>
Correct, so consider the possibility that the availability and/or cost of sleeves isn't the reason for not wanting to use sleeves.
> drnlmza wrote:
> I'm fine with the tournament rules saying "judge's discretion", but, if the VEKN is not going to mandate opaque sleeves, then the judge's guide should actually provide guidance here. The various ways people can gain advantage from mixing backs aren't immediately obvious, even to experienced players (see this thread),
>
Examples of bad things that can happen is sensible - like with have with various other areas of the judges' guide. Like, we give examples of bad sportsmanship, but it's still clear that adjudicating that is the judges' discretion - we don't have highly specific guidance that says that keeping your voice within 10 decibels of the ambient noise level (sampled over a 5 minute period, +/- 5%) qualifies as not shouting, but that judges can override that anyway if they think it is shouting.
> Kushiel wrote:
>
> > Lönkka wrote:
> > I'm surprised what kinds of hoops some are prepared to jump through just to avoid having to purchase 1-2 packs of sleeves costing all in all some $10 to 15 or so...
> >
> > Sure it is an expense but come on now, think of all the amount of money you've already put to the game and compare this sum to it. Miniscule? Insignificant?
> >
> Correct, so consider the possibility that the availability and/or cost of sleeves isn't the reason for not wanting to use sleeves.
>
Why should I be punished for the crappy print runs? Can't shuffle 90 cards with sleeves and I don't want to spend an hour sleeving cards.
> Mewcat wrote:
>
> Why should I be punished for the crappy print runs?
>
The short answer is that someone else ruined it for us and now we can't have nice things.
But what if there was a ruling that said "you don't have to sleeve your cards, but they must all have the same backs?"
I broke my left index finger last year and have trouble shuffling my sleeved decks from the diminished mobility. I've taken to spliting my deck into three piles, shuffling two of them, splitting that, and shuffling the remaining third, so i'm always shuffling two thirds of my deck instead of the full 90.
as for time spent sleeving cards, it might take me fifteen or twenty minutes. obviously your mileage might vary, but I know I would certainly be willing to help anyone sleeve their deck at a tournament if they asked.
I would argue that I should be able to use any cards without sleeves. I am playing with unaltered game materials. If they have different size, orientation, backing, etc that isn't my doing.
If you want to have a trade in program I will gladly send in cards to be replaced with uniform versions. At no cost to me, of course.