Hello, after picking up the game after almost decade of absence following question was raised in our group yesterday by new players and despite my pondering and then search I couldn't find clear cut answer to following situations.
> www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt wrote:
> Name: Repo Man
> [Anarchs:R]
> Cardtype: Ally
> Cost: 1 blood
> Unique ghoul with 1 life. 0 strength, 0 bleed.
> If the action to recruit Repo Man is successful, unlock the acting minion at the end of the turn. Repo Man can retrieve the first vehicle you find in your library as a +2 stealth action. You then place the vehicle on any ready minion you control who meets the requirements of the card (pay cost to equip as normal). If none of your ready minions meet the requirements of the card, the card is burned without cost. Shuffle afterward.
> Artist: Peter Bergting
>
When Repo Man performs his action to search retrieve for first vehicle from his controllers deck and the action succeeds does the controlling methuselah;
1) reveal cards one by one from the top of the library so that other methuselah gain knowledge of those cards as well as the first vehicle?
or
2) look at the cards from top of her library (without revealing to other methuselah) until she comes across first vehicle, shows that to other methusaleh as it's being placed on a minion?
or
3) something else, what?
In addition is there;
4) relevance how the search retrieve for the "first vehicle" starts, from the top, bottom, middle, at any random point in the library?
5) possibility that Repo man search retrieve fails to find anything even if there are vehicles in her library? (For example in situation where Repo man's controller first baits block with Repo Man to enable use of hidden lurker. And as that fails choosing not to find expensive pool cost vehicle that would result in her ousting due to being forced to pay it's cost.)
Thanks in advance for answers and clarifications.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
You start at the top of your (face down) library, and there is no obligation to show the entire library. Impractical way to traverse, but that’s the implication of the card text.
In a tournament context another player could demand a judge control the delve, but I doubt that’s actually ever happened, as most decks would have one type of vehicle.
Self oust is always dubious (play-to-win and all), but you would do exactly that.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> 1) reveal cards one by one from the top of the library so that other methuselah gain knowledge of those cards as well as the first vehicle?
> or
> 2) look at the cards from top of her library (without revealing to other methuselah) until she comes across first vehicle, shows that to other methusaleh as it's being placed on a minion?
> or
> 3) something else, what?
>
Showing cards that you are not permitted by game rules or card text to show is illegal. (The library is hidden to all players normally.) You must conduct the search without revealing the content of your library. As stated by Snodig, in a tournament, you can ask a judge to monitor the search if you believe that something dubious is going on.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> 4) relevance how the search for the "first vehicle" starts, from the top, bottom, middle, at any random point in the library?
>
Top.
> Kilrauko wrote:
> 5) possibility that Repo man search fails to find anything even if there are vehicles in her library? (For example in situation where Repo man's controller first baits block with Repo Man to enable use of hidden lurker. And as that fails choosing not to find expensive pool cost vehicle that would result in her ousting due to being forced to pay it's cost.)
>
You can choose to fail to find a vehicle.
I perhaps need to be clearer on some parts, due to my wrong use of terminology on the first post question 4 & 5 (now corrected in the OP with strikethrough left to show the original error wording). I naturally assumed this "retrieve" to behave, work and follow same rules as "search" does (to a degree where I used the wrong term when asking for help with it), for which we have plenty of ruling by LSJ and others. However Repo Man is only card in current VTES cardlist with that word used for that library manipulation and, well, yeah.
So to correct myself, with apologies to Snodig and kschaefer.
In addition is there;
4) relevance how the retrieve for the "first vehicle" starts, from the top, bottom, middle, at any random point in the library?
Mainly this is important as there are mechanics by other cards, for example
> http://www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt wrote:
> Name: Heart of Nizchetus
> [Third:R, KoT:R, Anthology:1, SP:DoF1]
> Cardtype: Equipment
> Cost: 1 pool
> Unique.
> If the bearer is ready during your unlock phase, you can draw up to 3 cards without discarding and then move the same number of cards from your hand to the bottom of your library.
> Artist: Patrick McEvoy
>
Along with other like Blackhorse Tanner etc etc.
> Name: Blackhorse Tanner
> [BH:U2]
> Cardtype: Vampire
> Clan: Ventrue antitribu
> Group: 3
> Capacity: 7
> Discipline: AUS DOM FOR
> Sabbat. Black Hand: Once each turn, when you draw a card from your library, you may place that card on the bottom of your library and draw a new card.
> Artist: Andrew Trabbold
>
that enable methuselah to manipulate her library order on the bottom, enabling perhaps meaningful choice on what the retrieved "first vehicle" happens to be depending on the starting position of such retrieve.
The "Retrieve" word and meaning also affects whether or not we can fall back to old LSJ "able to fail search for ally with The Summoning" that then applies to all searches and gives out to "fail" on search that would result in self-oust by being forced to pay too high pool cost.
In addition is there;
5) possibility that Repo man retrieve fails to find anything even if there are vehicles in her library? (For example in situation where Repo man's controller first baits block with Repo Man to enable use of hidden lurker. And as that fails choosing not to find expensive pool cost vehicle that would result in her ousting due to being forced to pay it's cost.)
Sorry for possible additional trouble and time spent on this, as "old" player I automatically thought start from the top, don't reveal, tournament official help if required -ruling but the new players from MTG got me into thinking closer to the card and how it works vs how I think it should work.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Kilrauko wrote:
> > 5) possibility that Repo man search fails to find anything even if there are vehicles in her library? (For example in situation where Repo man's controller first baits block with Repo Man to enable use of hidden lurker. And as that fails choosing not to find expensive pool cost vehicle that would result in her ousting due to being forced to pay it's cost.)
> >
> You can choose to fail to find a vehicle.
>
No, this is not a "search" effect. Repo Man retrieves the first vehicle found, even if it ousts you, or would contest etc. (Just like Vast Wealth.)
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/GsI1UyH54jU/x9LfDZX1vR4J
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.deckmaster/_6CXoKTSLnw/FdG67-3HEAQJ
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
You have to search your library from the top. You don't reveal the cards to your opponent's. You have to get the first vehicle you find, as Ankha wrote, and play it.
Hopefully all vtes cards who have this problem will be fixed. If I remember well, mistress fanchon, vast wealth also have this problem.
I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish
> Charles_Bronson wrote:
> Hopefully all vtes cards who have this problem will be fixed. If I remember well, mistress fanchon, vast wealth also have this problem.
>
> http://www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt wrote:
> Name: Mistress Fanchon
> [KoT:V/B2]
> Cardtype: Vampire
> Clan: Tremere
> Group: 4
> Capacity: 11
> Discipline: AUS CEL DOM OBF THA VIC
> Camarilla Tremere Inner Circle: Mistress Fanchon can search your library (shuffle afterward) for any minion card and move it to your hand as a +1 stealth action. +2 bleed.
> Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.
>
Mistress Fanchon performs a search on library (following the search rules.) To my knowledge Repo Man is the only card in the card list with "retrieve" as the word used (easy to check, just search the *.txt) but as it's ruled to behave it's "retrieve" in similar fashion as Vast Wealth works (after unblocked and succesful equip action via Vast Wealth) I have no problem understanding how it works. Top to bottom, no knowledge gained, forced to equip.
> http://www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt wrote:
> Name: Vast Wealth
> [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:PTo, Third:U, KoT:U]
> Cardtype: Master
> Master.
> Put this card on a ready minion you control. While you control this minion, he or she can equip with the first piece of equipment you find in your library (working down from the top) as a +1 stealth action (requirements and cost apply as normal). Shuffle afterward.
> Artist: Kaja Foglio; William O'Connor
>
In possible future printings or card text updates Repo Man could use additional clarification with "first vehicle in your library (working down from the top)." Or if there's wish to create multiple similar cards with separate deck manipulation perhaps "retrieve" could become it's own keyword in the fashion that search is on the "Wording templates" in the rulebook.
> http://www.vekn.net/rulebook wrote:
> "Search": Some effects have you search your library or cyrpt. Searching can result in not finding the card. If you search your library or crypt, you must shuffle it afterwards.
>
Difference between the two being that search enables one to fail in finding something (even if there are suitable cards) whereas retrieve forces one to take it. It could also be argued that unnecessarily complicates the already complicated game but I personally don't feel that way, as there's clear difference with pro's and con's, power and costs. Search is the safe but costly and limited, retrieve being possibly high risk-high reward. I trust minds less rusty on the overall state of the game then mine can ponder such questions as needed. I got my answer already and can clarify it to the group next time we play, thanks for all the clarifications and time spent explaining this for me.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
I think search and retrieve should be in the rulebook as key words with proper description how they work. Also in both cases they should include reveal mechanic.In case of Search you should reveal the card you take and in case of retrieve you should reveal every card until you will find the card you need. It would resolve a issue of "trust".
> Kilrauko wrote:
>
> > Charles_Bronson wrote:
> > Hopefully all vtes cards who have this problem will be fixed. If I remember well, mistress fanchon, vast wealth also have this problem.
> >
> > http://www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt wrote:
> > Name: Mistress Fanchon
> > [KoT:V/B2]
> > Cardtype: Vampire
> > Clan: Tremere
> > Group: 4
> > Capacity: 11
> > Discipline: AUS CEL DOM OBF THA VIC
> > Camarilla Tremere Inner Circle: Mistress Fanchon can search your library (shuffle afterward) for any minion card and move it to your hand as a +1 stealth action. +2 bleed.
> > Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.
> >
> Mistress Fanchon performs a search on library (following the search rules.) To my knowledge Repo Man is the only card in the card list with "retrieve" as the word used (easy to check, just search the *.txt) but as it's ruled to behave it's "retrieve" in similar fashion as Vast Wealth works (after unblocked and succesful equip action via Vast Wealth) I have no problem understanding how it works. Top to bottom, no knowledge gained, forced to equip.
>
> > http://www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/cardlist.txt wrote:
> > Name: Vast Wealth
> > [Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:PTo, Third:U, KoT:U]
> > Cardtype: Master
> > Master.
> > Put this card on a ready minion you control. While you control this minion, he or she can equip with the first piece of equipment you find in your library (working down from the top) as a +1 stealth action (requirements and cost apply as normal). Shuffle afterward.
> > Artist: Kaja Foglio; William O'Connor
> >
> In possible future printings or card text updates Repo Man could use additional clarification with "first vehicle in your library (working down from the top)." Or if there's wish to create multiple similar cards with separate deck manipulation perhaps "retrieve" could become it's own keyword in the fashion that search is on the "Wording templates" in the rulebook.
>
> > http://www.vekn.net/rulebook wrote:
> > "Search": Some effects have you search your library or cyrpt. Searching can result in not finding the card. If you search your library or crypt, you must shuffle it afterwards.
> >
> Difference between the two being that search enables one to fail in finding something (even if there are suitable cards) whereas retrieve forces one to take it. It could also be argued that unnecessarily complicates the already complicated game but I personally don't feel that way, as there's clear difference with pro's and con's, power and costs. Search is the safe but costly and limited, retrieve being possibly high risk-high reward. I trust minds less rusty on the overall state of the game then mine can ponder such questions as needed. I got my answer already and can clarify it to the group next time we play, thanks for all the clarifications and time spent explaining this for me.
>
Hi! Thanks for your considerations. I don't think I expressed myself well. The "problem" I was talking about was the need for a judge to be called to avoid bad behavior. Mistress fanchon controller does not show the card he chose to anyone - enabling him to get master or events cards (non minion cards). Also vast wealth have similar text from repo man.
This problem should not happen in any way by default on modern card games, except if there is absolutely no other way to do it by rules design. And there is a way - revealing the cards showed or fetched with fanchon - with a very minor disavantage in gameplay.
Hopefully those cards will be revised and fixed by black chantry.
I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish
> Charles_Bronson wrote:
> Mistress fanchon controller does not show the card he chose to anyone - enabling him to get master or events cards (non minion cards). Also vast wealth have similar text from repo man.
>
> This problem should not happen in any way by default on modern card games, except if there is absolutely no other way to do it by rules design. And there is a way - revealing the cards showed or fetched with fanchon - with a very minor disavantage in gameplay.
>
> Hopefully those cards will be revised and fixed by black chantry.
>
Shouldn't the first problem fixed be Govern the Unaligned at superior? If one never influences out the target card, there's no way to know if the vampire is younger. Bloat all day, no one would know.
> Snodig wrote:
> Not sure what sort of people you play with, but I have to believe my players won't actively cheat.
>
This comment is a work of art. It epitomizes the VTES player base in such a wonderful way. It made me laugh really hard.
First, I love how you refer to "my players," smugly identifying yourself as the leader of a group that plays a card game about fictional vampires. You are obviously very proud of your position among your playgroup. Next (and this is my favorite part), you managed to both insult my choice of other people to play VTES with and brag about the superiority of your ability to do this in the most passive-aggressively way possible. And all of this was couched in a seemingly inane, on-off response that had 0% of self-awareness associated with it. This was truly great work!
Okay, enough making fun of your comment. (Thanks for indulging me). With regard to Govern: In the history of human existence, there has never been an instance of one person taking advantage of another person's belief in them to not actively cheat?
Let's pretend there is a rare instance where someone I thought was trustworthy ended up misplaying Govern the Unaligned on purpose, and I found out after the fact. You're saying the problem is not that the game is flawed, but that I chose the wrong people to play with? Can't both things be true?
> Charles_Bronson wrote:
> Hi! Thanks for your considerations. I don't think I expressed myself well. The "problem" I was talking about was the need for a judge to be called to avoid bad behavior. Mistress fanchon controller does not show the card he chose to anyone - enabling him to get master or events cards (non minion cards). Also vast wealth have similar text from repo man.
>
I see now what you mean, my bad for missing it on your first post, I was fixated on the Repo Man's text and how it's unique.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
I never meant to insult you, and I really don’t appreciate you insulting me.
If you don’t like my attempts at being witty, I’d much prefer you just ignore them.
> Snodig wrote:
> Not sure what sort of people you play with, but I have to believe my players won't actively cheat.
>
And they never make mistakes either?
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Snodig wrote:
> > Not sure what sort of people you play with, but I have to believe my players won't actively cheat.
> >
> And they never make mistakes either?
>
They certainly do, but mistakes are much easier to forgive. One can only hope they don’t do it again.
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Okay, enough making fun of your comment. (Thanks for indulging me).
>
And thank you for never doing this again.
You have had a recurring trend of knee-jerk reacting in this manner, and never has it been appreciated.
> Forum wrote:
> Use the best of your manners, respect others and take a moment to think before you post.
>
> But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
>
> • Name-calling
> • Ad hominem attacks
> • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
> • Knee-jerk contradiction
>
These are all the parts you should re-evaluate in your posting when you decide on that tone.
The recurring nature of this sort of posting has now resulted in a warning.
Yours,
Moderation
You may now resume to the topic of card retrieval and possible issues.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Shouldn't the first problem fixed be Govern the Unaligned at superior? If one never influences out the target card, there's no way to know if the vampire is younger. Bloat all day, no one would know.
>
There is a similar issue in Magic the gathering and its worth nothing how it has been solved. Some magic cards have the ability "morph". This means that the card can be played face down for 3 generic mana, and is functionally a 2/2 colorless creature, which can be turned face-up by paying its morph cost.
Playing a card face down is only legal if the card actually has morph, but at a glance it might be possible to cheat by playing a non-morph card face down and never turn it up. How this is solved in magic rules is that players are required to show the un-turned morph card to the opponent after the game, to prove that they were not cheating and that the card actually has morph.
Perhaps same could be applied to VTES and superior governs (and similar action cards that require younger). Require players to show the vampire to opponent after the game to prove that it was in fact a younger vampire. This should be very simple and elegant solution. Many players might already do this, but you should add it to tournament rules imo.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
We've already got rules in place for this: if you think someone's cheating via hidden information, you can call a judge to have them check that they're not.
> Kushiel wrote:
> We've already got rules in place for this: if you think someone's cheating via hidden information, you can call a judge to have them check that they're not.
>
Well, I mean, that's a tournament rule. What if it happens in casual play? Granted, I've never had any cheating issues happen in VTES because I simply don't play it often, but I've come across cheating of this sort many times in other games. I'd really like to avoid a situation after the game where it's like "show me the card" and the person is like "no."
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> What if it happens in casual play?
>
If they've cheated, or refuse to show the card (or even the capacity hiding everything else under the palm/another card), you flip the table in a rage.
"We don't like THAT kind of game play around this neck of woods, pardner! So anyone caught red handed involved in foul play will be tarred and feathered" (aka. "Saunan takana on aina tilaa..." aka "kokeillaanpa Pohjalaasta issepuolustosmuotoa eli sakiinhivutusta")
Or you can just quit playing with such people who are causing such suspicions. Especially during _casual_ play...
Finnish Politics!
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
>
> > Kushiel wrote:
> > We've already got rules in place for this: if you think someone's cheating via hidden information, you can call a judge to have them check that they're not.
> >
> Well, I mean, that's a tournament rule. What if it happens in casual play? Granted, I've never had any cheating issues happen in VTES because I simply don't play it often, but I've come across cheating of this sort many times in other games. I'd really like to avoid a situation after the game where it's like "show me the card" and the person is like "no."
>
No amount of rules will be able to rein in people who willingly and outrageously would be willing to cheat between friends.
In tournament environments we already have rules. You could always ask kindly before the game if everyone would agree to first of all respect the rules printed, and if necessary, abide by tournament rules as well.
For the record, I do whole heartedly understand why duel games require you to show cards that are fetched that have restrictions. It could be reinforced in VtES as well. It could. But it isn't, and we have a solution in place that requires a bit of investment from a judge.
It is not an ideal solution, but it is a solution. Just to make everything flow smoothly, I think it is absolutely something to take pride in that we don't, even at highest levels of playing, need to resort to judges checking fetches.
Still, you have the option to call for a judge.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> Kraus wrote:
> No amount of rules will be able to rein in people who willingly and outrageously would be willing to cheat between friends.
>
I disagree. If one could see, for instance, that the target of Govern is a younger vampire, that would likely stop the other person from cheating because they won't be able to get away with it in the moment.
Everything else you said refers to tournaments, which I do not participate in. So I'm coming at this from a different viewpoint than you. Instead of going to a judge, the only option is to confront the player afterward if cheating is suspected. But that's unlikely because if someone did cheat in this way, how would one ever suspect it?
And, I said this before in a dick-ish way, but I'll try to say it nicer this time: saying things like "No amount of rules will be able to rein in people who willingly and outrageously would be willing to cheat between friends" is kind of snobbish and insulting to the people who were playing with someone who did end up cheating. It kind of assumes that person is at fault for not playing with the right people instead of blaming a glaring issue with one of the most often used cards in the game. People are going to cheat if given the opportunity, friends or not. It's human nature, and that's why there are rules.
> And, I said this before in a dick-ish way, but I'll try to say it nicer this time: saying things like "No amount of rules will be able to rein in people who willingly and outrageously would be willing to cheat between friends" is kind of snobbish and insulting to the people who were playing with someone who did end up cheating. It kind of assumes that person is at fault for not playing with the right people instead of blaming a glaring issue with one of the most often used cards in the game. People are going to cheat if given the opportunity, friends or not. It's human nature, and that's why there are rules.
>
Thank you for the decent tone. I would like to address here, however, that no matter how I am trying to look at this from different perspectives, including yours, I cannot see how this is insulting you as a player. The cheater is the cheater, not the player that plays against them.
Let it here be made absolutely clear that this is not the intent - on the contrary, the people who cheat are here at fault, not people who play with them.
And if you have constant experience with playing with people that constantly attempt to cheat, I sincerely feel sorry for you. And any who has to bear with that. This is not snobbish to say, and I find it hard to understand how it would be taken in such a way - I would hope for everyone, everywhere, to experience a healthy and safe space to hobby in.
Having to play with cheaters is not one.
I do get it that not all people get to choose their company as well as others. All the more I feel sorry. It's a tough place.
This all being said, I from my whole heart, have to disagree with the last statement that people are always inclined to cheat. This is not the environment I have gamed, have learned to game, to live, to breath in - and will not choose to spend my time, hobby or otherwise, in such company. I have met people in some hobbies and gaming where there has been deliberate attempts to cheat, and I have forever decided to shun away from that company.
Thankfully I have had the luxury of choice.
Still, we have a healthy community of 60+ players (a rough estimate) in Finland that attend both events and casual games across 3+ cities. There might be some oddities in in the mix of players, of course, but I can from the bottom of my heart say that I have not yet met a player (that remains active) in Finland that I would accuse, ever, of deliberate cheating. Not in my 15 years of playing this game. I grew to treat others with respect, and have had the luxury of people paying me back with similar respect.
With all respect I argue that your view of people's inherent dishonesty is false. And if that is really a world in which you live, I hope things get better.
Let's articulate this at the conclusion as clearly as I can: this is in no way meant to be snobbish or anything of sort. And from here on, you can, at all points in time, have faith in that at least I never intend to insult a person with my posts. All the best. People, by default, do not mean to insult. I hope that is clear now and in the future.
> Everything else you said refers to tournaments, which I do not participate in.
>
I would urge you to. A lot of decent people in events.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> TwoRazorReign wrote:
> Well, I mean, that's a tournament rule. What if it happens in casual play? Granted, I've never had any cheating issues happen in VTES because I simply don't play it often, but I've come across cheating of this sort many times in other games. I'd really like to avoid a situation after the game where it's like "show me the card" and the person is like "no."
>
The Manipulative aspects inherit in "play to win" rule end when the methuselah is ousted and the game ends. If players have difficulty to understand the difference between social interaction that happens during the game versus one that happens outside it, one might wish to ponder whether or not that's a healthy situation to be in and continue to be in. Not just for this hobby but for any situation involving competitive nature. That's not meant as an insult, but as well meant advice for life. I have few hothead friends who take it very personally and can be quite intimidating during competitive situations but I've never had to fear for them to not understand the difference between social situations. Usually they're also apologetic if they've raised their voice, stood up, made accusations etc. as with age they've come to realize how the heat of the moment can take them. I also remember from over decade back it was customary for a ousted methuselah in casual games to reveal their unrevealed crypt and hand after they leave the game. Not to mention allowing people freedom to check, discuss and play their decks. It could be used as solution for governs (but not for already mentioned fetches in the topic.) For that there was always possibility to get someone outside the current table to weight in on the matter, to give "neutral" viewpoint. Those might have been just the social norms fostered under the prince of Tampere and maintained by the group playing there. I personally had no trouble fitting in as that culture was similar to one we already were following with bunch of friends loaning and passing cards and decks around pre 2001. Those are also the customs we've taken in to this 2019 started group as it enhances player experience and insight on the last moments of the game. Not to mention helps new players on their deck building prospects and tactical thinking.
That casual group of friends playing Jyhad back in 1999-2000, the "official" Tampere prince group between 2001-2009 along with other city groups visited during that timeframe or the current one where the questions in the OP stemmed from all were "cheater free" from my experience, mainly because "we're bunch of sensible likeminded people, let's play VTES" mentality. I can see how games with total strangers in local gamestore could feel different to a player especially if there is no social norms advocated and maintained by event hosts in clear manner. Social norms meaning here things that are outside the realm of what rulebook can or should provide in great detail. They could be included but that would also mean writing "101 on how to be sensible person" to the rulebook of a collectible card game. Tournament rules are very open on those aspects with few examples for a reason as the cases can be as many as there are human players.
There might also be groups whose social norms and preferences do not match those "new" rules. There could be groups out there who enjoy cheating while playing the game, taking the whole "subterfuge" and "play to win" aspects past live-action roleplaying levels. For all we know there are still groups playing for ante and using original wording in the monocle to gain leverages long since ruled to be outside the rules. While hosting official event they would need to abide by the tournament norms set by the game and community at large to be recognized, but outside of that, what right do we have to claim their way as wrong one for them if they honestly enjoy it? They have the cards and are hopefully harming no-one with them, and while we might not agree with their norms neither can we really affect it. We can distance ourself from some aspects of theirs as anybody can and that's also what I've personally been doing with this post about cheaters and what I feel others in this topic have made with theirs. In the end it's matter of choice and freedom to make decisions where one spends their time. I hope everyone gets as good deal on it as I've personally been granted. Or at least makes the best out of what they've been granted. Among the worst cases for player is that the local event host/prince is the one breaking the rules and social norms and in that situation it should be in the community's best interest to take the matter to national coordinator. For non-VEKN affiliated friend group it's quagmire of social contracts, expectations and so forth.
In that sense it's a massive effort for payoff that's uncertain to try to provide in great detail and cover each and every possible way a player can cheat during game to be part of casual game rules. Because it wouldn't be just cards, it would require checking for sleight of hand with counter manipulation, to a degree where each methuselah keeps somehow tally on each counter and card in play, the order they've played, the actions taken and the wording on each card in current legal playlist(as with pdf expansions and proxys becoming common, nothing prevents "tweaking" a card text a little to fit the cheater's need.) Overall the situation would remain same, where due to other player actions and the social norms they maintain, the cheater either chooses not to cheat, cheats and gets caught (with punishment or not depending on social norms) or cheats and won't be caught. People already do that, even if they won't constantly know it by maintaining and fostering certain behaviour and customs in the group. I personally feel the closer those are to tournament rules and practises along with open and respectful behaviour the less incentives cheaters have to cheat in the first place. It's why I try to foster such behaviour as "norm" and why I openly say "I might be wrong on this, let's play it like this but I'll check elsewhere to confirm" and then own the mistake if I'm wrong.
In the OP the matter was not over "cheating" but over knowledge gained on deck contents during the game (not before or after it) along with how the retrieve is performed as without clear card text or official ruling on it, other cards could be used to manipulate it for benefit. It's not really my priviledge to make decisions but I feel the discussion over social aspect of cheating could be separated to its own thread with link to this one as one reason for it along with link in this one pointing to that. Might be just the inner categorizer in me that wishes it and that can be ignored if others feel discussion of it is fine here as is. Gameplay and game rules discussion relating to whether or not there needs to be clarifications, card text changes and so forth on Repo Man could continue here or in other thread (for overall situation with it and cards like it) if such is felt as better serving the community in the long run.
I think there are two completely different subjects and while they overlapped here I feel they also have inherently different origins and eventual conclusions. Both stand to benefit from further discussion and viewpoints.
Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
> Kraus wrote:
> Thank you for the decent tone. I would like to address here, however, that no matter how I am trying to look at this from different perspectives, including yours, I cannot see how this is insulting you as a player.
>
It wasn't insulting to me as a player. It was just generally insulting, but in a funny way. I'll clarify.
My original comment was “Shouldn't the first problem fixed be Govern the Unaligned at superior? If one never influences out the target card, there's no way to know if the vampire is younger. Bloat all day, no one would know.”
Snodig replied “Not sure what sort of people you play with, but I have to believe my players won't actively cheat.”
You saw my (admittedly uncalled for) reply to Snodig. I think I’ve mentioned after this exchange that I’ve never experienced cheating in VTES because I don’t play it often. Heck, I only really pay attention to this forum because I find it fun to try and fix the rulebook. I was making a statement about Govern the Unaligned and how it enables one to cheat easily if one was so inclined. That’s it.
When a comment like “hey, this card enables cheating and maybe should be fixed” is met with “who are you playing with? I don’t play with people who cheat”, It’s the weird narcissism and tinge of judgy-ness in the comment that’s “insulting” (insulting is in quotes because this isn’t really about me feeling insulted, I rather found the comment very funny. It’s more about there was no awareness that the comment may be seen as self-serving and judgy (and hence, “insulting”). This was the object of my [again, admittedly uncalled for] ridicule).
Your comment “No amount of rules will be able to rein in people who willingly and outrageously would be willing to cheat between friends” is “insulting” because, again, it’s not replying to the observation made about Govern, rather it’s introducing a commentary on how you feel about people who “willingly and outrageously” cheat their friends. The comment is all about you. Then your post goes on to say how you “feel sorry for me” for problems I didn’t even know I had. (I also found this hilarious). I mean, do you really not see the humor in any of this? Do you care to have a discussion about the card I mentioned that enables cheating instead of yourself, there, Mr. bottom of your heart?
I tacitly state that a game should require no outside observer and as little book keeping as possible to function. With this is mind I claim that that govern and other cards are sloppily made. Is this the biggest problem in vtes? Not even close but it is symptomatic of a larger problem, rigid thinking or no thought.
> BenPeal wrote:
>
> > I said this before in a dick-ish way, but I'll try to say it nicer this time...
> >
> Just a friendly reminder to you all to say it nicer all the time.
>
How can I be nice when someone peed in my cheerios?
> Kraus wrote:
>
> > TwoRazorReign wrote:
> >
> > > Kushiel wrote:
> > > We've already got rules in place for this: if you think someone's cheating via hidden information, you can call a judge to have them check that they're not.
> > >
> > Well, I mean, that's a tournament rule. What if it happens in casual play? Granted, I've never had any cheating issues happen in VTES because I simply don't play it often, but I've come across cheating of this sort many times in other games. I'd really like to avoid a situation after the game where it's like "show me the card" and the person is like "no."
> >
> No amount of rules will be able to rein in people who willingly and outrageously would be willing to cheat between friends.
>
> In tournament environments we already have rules. You could always ask kindly before the game if everyone would agree to first of all respect the rules printed, and if necessary, abide by tournament rules as well.
>
> For the record, I do whole heartedly understand why duel games require you to show cards that are fetched that have restrictions. It could be reinforced in VtES as well. It could. But it isn't, and we have a solution in place that requires a bit of investment from a judge.
> It is not an ideal solution, but it is a solution. Just to make everything flow smoothly, I think it is absolutely something to take pride in that we don't, even at highest levels of playing, need to resort to judges checking fetches.
> Still, you have the option to call for a judge.
>
I have some observations about the point being made about “trying to make a rule to stop cheaters” and the point that “you have the option to call for a judge”. And about the LSJ answer that he gave me when I asked "how the hell do I know if my prey got a minion card with mistress fanchon" - he answered me saying "You do not play with cheaters."
We aren't trying to stop cheaters. The philosophy is fixing a design flaw to help players maintain a safe game state (without errors). How many of us saw people governing or even influencing the wrong vampire, or mistakenly playing a card when he cannot? I'm one of those for sure, and I play this game for almost 20 years.
Now, we think about of what could happen. Let's imagine the following situations:
1. A player doesn't know the concept of "minion" cards and mistakes it for any library card (or any non crypt card). He plays several games along months and no one will ever notice the error unless someone is watching or call a judge.
2. The same as 1, but during many rounds in a tournament.
How do you solve this? Was him cheating? Surely it is up to the judge to make a call, but the whole situation could be avoided with minimal rules changes. The objective is not to make the game cheater-proof, but to make the entire gamestate safe and trackeable by everyone without needing to call a judge.
The 1 situation happened with in my playgroup (the player did not knew the rules). Lucky thing I was ousted and started to watch him.
About the point I Always hear that Vampire is a Mature Game: I've seen cheating in VTES with my own eyes several times. Not in my playgroup, but many others, when I traveled to play. I've witnessed a player - that today is a prince - getting his just played eyes of chaos from his ash heap, putting in his hand and discarding other card on his discard phase. I've seen people abusing cards by the lack of knowledge in english language in the translation of a card (That happened for several months, when the deck won at least two major tournaments. And yes, it was me who stopped it, after arguing for almost half an hour on the FAQ/ERRATA wording with several people who used to judge). I've seen people shuffling again their crypts after they drawed them pretending to still be shuffling them. I've seen people who were on the final table discussing final table dynamics and doing hidden table talk before it started. I've seen people pretending to be shuffling their deck, when all their cards are ordered. And finally, yes, I've catched at the end of table people bloating with govern on older vampires intentionally. Everything during tournaments.
I'm happy that none of those shady stuffs ever happened on my playgroup. But I know they exist out there, and I find annoying that the hard coded rules in the game forces us to trust in a stranger on a tournament match to get sure they are playing right. It may be a good rule on a small playgroup or on a casual game, but no serious competitive game asks predicts that you have to call the judge to avoid this. All of the serious games have their rules designed so anyone - a player or a observer - can know everything about the game state and know if it is right or wrong.
And why I think calling a judge is not a good solution? First, calling a judge will generate unnecessary friction in the eyes of all table, which goes against the sportmanship and social aspect of the game. I can be on my right, but In fact 99% of the time I will be annoying everyone, specially the judge on a multijudge system tournament.
Second, there are very few cards who can abused, and all of them can be easily fixed. About crypt cards: why not make a rule that oblige a player to show a crypt card to everyone when its leaves the uncontrolled region or/and when the game ends? This is so easily fixable that I humbly fail to understand the resistance to recognize this is a problem. Many game designers know it is and avoid at all costs. See Star Wars rebellion (duel) or the new netrunner game from FFG (that one have some very tight and nice rules about showing cards)
If VTES wants to be recognized as a major competitive game, don't make me travel 1500 km to blindly trust 50+ people in a tournament or be making several unnecessary judge calls.
Final words: Why it makes so hard to recognize a problem and apply the solution? I remember when almost everyone here in brazil were posting about a toxic player and posting their testimonials over their times they were harassed and bullyed, and we were promised a VEKN code of conduct. This happend more than an year ago and still the tournament rules are a mess, and no code of conduct on the horizon. Not even a discussion.
It is my belief that this game can't grow while ignoring those problems like they don’t exist.
PS. sorry for my horrible english.
I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish
> Charles_Bronson wrote:
> And why I think calling a judge is not a good solution? First, calling a judge will generate unnecessary friction in the eyes of all table, which goes against the sportmanship and social aspect of the game. I can be on my right, but In fact 99% of the time I will be annoying everyone, specially the judge on a multijudge system tournament.
>
Asking a judge to stop players cheating is, in your world, going against sportsmanship?
No, no, and many times no. No matter what mechanical fixes might be reasonable to stop certain things happening (e.g. revealing a card so everyone knows you obeyed the restriction on what card you can fetch), there are things that no amount of mechanical tinkering will ever fix. Like, for example, a player taking a card out of their ash heap for no reason. You have to call a judge. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. No nonsense about this somehow being unsportsmanlike. You have to call a judge. The concept of sportsmanship requires you to report infractions like that. If anyone is causing annoyance and friction, it is the players who are cheating.
Please dispense totally with this frankly bizarre notion that letting players cheat is sporting. It isn't.
> Charles_Bronson wrote:
> Final words: Why it makes so hard to recognize a problem and apply the solution? I remember when almost everyone here in brazil were posting about a toxic player and posting their testimonials over their times they were harassed and bullyed, and we were promised a VEKN code of conduct. This happend more than an year ago and still the tournament rules are a mess, and no code of conduct on the horizon. Not even a discussion.
>
I agree.
There was initially some discussion but it kinda withered down. Which is a shame as misuse of power and influence, especially on the highest levels is something that NEEDS to be addressed.
FYI: Code of conduct/ethics is currently being reviewed by the National Coordinators.
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> FYI: Code of conduct/ethics is currently being reviewed by the National Coordinators.
>
I'm super happy to learn this! I wonder if it will include community guidelines as well.
First, defining sportmanship: Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.
If everytime anyone calls for a judge to check every crypt card for everyone in every table who is bloating with govern/scouting/enchant kindred....The sense of fellowship, respect and the social suffers. People will get annoyed. It is on his right to call, sure, but it's annoying anyway.
Calling a judge when you suspect something shady...no. That's is completly fine, and i've done it several times, like all the times I witnessed something wrong.
I did not endorse letting cheaters go by the way in any moment. Maybe I was lost in translation, and I ask sorry for that. I am ready to explain better my points next time. Thanks
I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish