Results - Swedish ECQ, 2009
_angst_
----------------------------------------
Date: 11/4 - 09
Number of players: 37
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Winner: Erik Torstensson
----------------------------------------
TWD:
Getting a total of 3 GW and 10.5 VPs during the course of the
tournament.
Deck Name : Hotellet (Chelsea Hotel #3)
Author : Erik Torstensson
Description : "I'm only playing the funny location deck" - Larvo
Kantarell
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 3 max: 9 average: 7
------------------------------------------------------------
5x Guillaume Giovanni 9 CEL DOM NEC POT obt Giovanni:4
1x Baldesar Rossellin 8 DOM POT aus for nec Giovanni:4
1x Don Michael Antoni 7 DOM NEC POT 2 votes Giovanni:4
1x Gualtiero Ghiberti 7 DOM NEC cel pot tha Giovanni:4
1x Raphaela Giovanni 6 DOM NEC pot pre Giovanni:4
1x Prejudice 4 aus dom nec Nagaraja:4
1x Primo Giovanni 4 dom nec pot Giovanni:4
1x Lia Milliner 3 dom nec Giovanni:3
Library [84 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [14]
2x Chair of Hades
1x Far Mastery
9x Govern the Unaligned
2x Sudario Refraction
Action Modifier [12]
3x Bonding
5x Call of the Hungry Dead
4x Conditioning
Action Modifier/Reaction [4]
4x Spectral Divination
Combat [6]
6x Spiritual Intervention
Event [1]
1x Anthelios, The Red Star
Master [36]
2x Anarch Troublemaker
1x Barrens, The
1x Coven, The
1x Direct Intervention
1x Dis Pater
1x Dummy Corporation
1x Filchware's Pawn Shop
1x Giant's Blood
1x Information Highway
1x Jake Washington (Hunter)
1x Metro Underground
2x Misdirection
1x Monastery of Shadows
1x Morgue Hunting Ground
6x Parthenon, The
1x Pentex(TM) Subversion
1x Powerbase: Cape Verde
1x Powerbase: Savannah
1x Secure Haven
8x Storage Annex
1x Sudden Reversal
1x Wash
Reaction [11]
6x Deflection
2x Delaying Tactics
2x On the Qui Vive
1x Redirection
----------------------------------------
Decks of the rest of the finalists:
Deck Name :
Author : Henrik Klippström
Description : Credit should go to Tuomas Nyberg who's deck I based
this on
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3.41667
------------------------------------------------------------
1x Dr. Julius Sutphen 5 POT dom obt bishop Lasombra:3
1x Dr. Julius Sutphen Adv 5 POT dom obt Lasombra:3
1x Wah Chun-Yuen 5 POT cel dom pre !Brujah:3
1x Earl 4 dom for pot Ventrue:3
1x Francesca Giovanni 4 dom nec pot Giovanni:2
1x Jimmy Dunn 4 CEL POT for Pander:2
1x Shane Grimald 4 ani dom pot !Gangrel:2
1x Cameron 3 dom pot Lasombra:2
1x Arnold Simpson 2 pot Brujah:3
1x Mitchell, The Head 2 obt pot Pander:2
1x Paul DiCarlo, The 2 pot Giovanni:2
1x Eddie Gaines 1 dem pot Caitiff:3
Library [90 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [14]
14x Computer Hacking
Action Modifier [6]
4x Conditioning
2x Leverage
Ally [3]
1x Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter)
1x Gregory Winter
1x Ossian
Combat [29]
2x High Ground
7x Increased Strength
2x Mighty Grapple
4x Target Vitals
14x Thrown Gate
Equipment [4]
1x Ivory Bow
1x Laptop Computer
1x Leather Jacket
1x Sport Bike
Master [15]
1x Direct Intervention
1x Dominate
1x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x Effective Management
1x Pentex(TM) Subversion
5x Potence
4x Vessel
1x WMRH Talk Radio
Reaction [17]
7x Deflection
2x Delaying Tactics
3x On the Qui Vive
1x Touch of Pain
4x Wake with Evening's Freshness
Retainer [2]
1x J. S. Simmons, Esq.
1x Mr. Winthrop
---
Deck Name : Bara en Eagle's Sight
Author : Adam Esbjörnsson
Description :
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 4 max: 7 average: 5.66667
------------------------------------------------------------
2x Carna, The Princes 7 AUS DOM THA primogen Tremere:3
2x Sennadurek 6 AUS NEC dom Nagaraja:4
2x Andrew Stuart 5 AUS DOM THA Tremere:4
2x Neighbor John 5 AUS dom for !Ventrue:4
1x Charice Fontaigne 6 AUS DOM for pot !Ventrue:3
1x Jefferson Foster 6 AUS DOM for tha bishop !Ventrue:4
1x Valois Sang, The W 6 AUS DOM nec tha Tremere:3
1x Maldavis 4 AUS for pre Caitiff:3
Library [78 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [10]
8x Govern the Unaligned
2x Magic of the Smith
Action Modifier [5]
2x Conditioning
3x Freak Drive
Ally [1]
1x Ponticulus
Combat [4]
4x Concealed Weapon
Equipment [9]
5x .44 Magnum
2x Bowl of Convergence
1x Ivory Bow
1x Sport Bike
Event [1]
1x Dragonbound
Master [15]
2x Anarch Troublemaker
1x Direct Intervention
2x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x Erciyes Fragments, The
1x Fame
1x Misdirection
2x Powerbase: Mexico City
1x Rack, The
2x Vessel
2x Wash
Reaction [32]
1x Delaying Tactics
6x Eagle's Sight
3x Enhanced Senses
15x Eyes of Argus
2x My Enemy's Enemy
2x On the Qui Vive
3x Telepathic Misdirection
Retainer [1]
1x Mr. Winthrop
---
Deck Name : Gentlemen twirling their sticks in Sweden
Author : Hugh Angseesing
Description :
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 3 max: 8 average: 5.91667
------------------------------------------------------------
2x Owain Evans, The W 8 AUS DOM FOR cel pre !Ventrue:3
2x Blackhorse Tanner 7 AUS DOM FOR !Ventrue:3
2x Neighbor John 5 AUS dom for !Ventrue:4
1x Victorine Lafourca 8 DOM FOR PRE tha prince Ventrue:3
1x Joseph O'Grady 7 DOM FOR aus cel !Ventrue:3
1x Jephta Hester 5 DOM FOR aus !Ventrue:4
1x Louis de Maisonneu 5 FOR aus dom obf !Ventrue:4
1x Lana Butcher 3 dom for Ventrue:3
1x Ulrike Rothbart 3 dom for !Ventrue:4
Library [80 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [11]
1x Abbot
10x Govern the Unaligned
Action Modifier [6]
6x Conditioning
Combat [18]
5x Hidden Strength
5x Indomitability
2x Rolling with the Punches
1x Taste of Vitae
5x Weighted Walking Stick
Equipment [2]
1x Bowl of Convergence
1x Ivory Bow
Event [1]
1x Uncoiling, The
Master [15]
2x Anarch Troublemaker
3x Blood Doll
1x Channel 10
2x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x KRCG News Radio
1x Pentex(TM) Subversion
1x Powerbase: Montreal
3x Vessel
1x Wall Street Night, Financial Newspaper
Reaction [27]
9x Deflection
2x Delaying Tactics
2x Eagle's Sight
2x Enhanced Senses
2x Forced Awakening
2x My Enemy's Enemy
4x On the Qui Vive
1x Telepathic Misdirection
3x Wake with Evening's Freshness
---
Deck Name : FortiDom
Author : Ola Hansson
Description :
Crypt [15 vampires] Capacity min: 2 max: 7 average: 4.33333
------------------------------------------------------------
1x Edward Neally 7 DOM FOR aus pre !Ventrue:3
1x Joseph O'Grady 7 DOM FOR aus cel !Ventrue:3
1x Catherine du Bois 5 DOM for obf pre Ventrue:3
1x Esoara 5 DOM aus for pot !Tremere:4
1x Jephta Hester 5 DOM FOR aus !Ventrue:4
1x Joao Bile 5 DOM FOR pre Ventrue:4
1x Neighbor John 5 AUS dom for !Ventrue:4
1x Earl 4 dom for pot Ventrue:3
1x Katherine Stoddard 4 dom for !Ventrue:3
1x Randel, The Coward 4 dom for obt !Ventrue:4
1x Keith Moody 3 DOM !Tremere:4
1x Lana Butcher 3 dom for Ventrue:3
1x Rosemarie 3 FOR mel Daughter :4
1x Ulrike Rothbart 3 dom for !Ventrue:4
1x Jackson Asher 2 dom Ventrue:4
Library [90 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [11]
11x Govern the Unaligned
Action Modifier [13]
10x Conditioning
3x Foreshadowing Destruction
Combat [29]
3x Armor of Vitality
2x Hidden Strength
2x Indomitability
3x Rolling with the Punches
3x Soak
5x Trap
5x Undead Persistence
6x Weighted Walking Stick
Equipment [3]
2x Camera Phone
1x Ivory Bow
Master [16]
1x Barrens, The
1x Corporate Hunting Ground
1x Coven, The
1x Dominate
2x Dreams of the Sphinx
4x Effective Management
1x Mob Connections
2x Perfectionist
1x Uptown Hunting Ground
2x Wash
Reaction [18]
8x Deflection
3x Delaying Tactics
1x On the Qui Vive
6x Wake with Evening's Freshness
----------------------------------------
Qualified players:
Final rank, Name, Pre GWs, Pre VPs, Final VPs, TPs
1, Erik Torstensson, 2, 6.5, 4, 148
2, Henrik Klippström, 1, 6, 1, 150
2, Adam Esbjörnsson, 2, 5.5, 0, 148
2, Hugh Angseesing, 1, 7, 0, 150
2, Ola Hansson, 1, 6, 0, 156
6, Robert Doktorow, 1, 6, 144
7, Tom Lindberg, 1, 5, 144
8, Caroline Hyll, 1, 5, 136
9, Daniel Teige, 1, 5, 114
10, Roger Carhult, 1, 4, 126
10, Michael Holmström, 1, 4, 126
--, Sten Düring, Head Judge
----------------------------------------
Complete standings:
Final rank, Name, Pre GWs, Pre VPs, Final VPs, TPs
1, Erik Torstensson, 2, 6.5, 4, 148
2, Henrik Klippström, 1, 6, 1, 150
2, Adam Esbjörnsson, 2, 5.5, 0, 148
2, Hugh Angseesing, 1, 7, 0, 150
2, Ola Hansson, 1, 6, 0, 156
6, Robert Doktorow, 1, 6, 144
7, Tom Lindberg, 1, 5, 144
8, Caroline Hyll, 1, 5, 136
9, Daniel Teige, 1, 5, 114
10, Roger Carhult, 1, 4, 126
10, Michael Holmström, 1, 4, 126
12, Daniel Talmid, 1, 4, 102
13, Martin Erdes, 1, 3.5, 120
14, Marko Lindroos, 1, 3.5, 114
15, Ida Olsson, 1, 3, 112
16, Mattias Olsson, 1, 3, 106
17, Henrik Wallgren, 1, 3, 102
17, Felicia Svilling, 1, 3, 102
19, Alex Båskman, 0, 3, 138
20, Jonathan Sjöberg, 0, 3, 126
21, Karl Gustavsson, 0, 2, 120
22, Mattias Thörnkvist, 0, 2, 100
23, Martin Anderdal, 0, 2, 84
24, Stefan Karlsson, 0, 1.5, 106
25, Alex Ek, 0, 1.5, 102
26, Magnus Wendel, 0, 1.5, 96
27, Samuel Eriksson, 0, 1.5, 90
28, Anders Löf, 0, 1, 106
29, Bea Düring, 0, 1, 90
29, Erik Cardell, 0, 1, 90
31, Torbjörn Olsson, 0, 0.5, 82
32, P-O Nilsson, 0, 0.5, 66
33, Martin Svenneryd, 0, 0, 66
33, Archie Zimonyi, 0, 0, 66
35, Andreas Stjernfelt, 0, 0, 60
36, Isak Bjärmark Esbjörnsson, 0, 0, 54
36, Matti Palomäki, 0, 0, 54
----------------------------------------
Regards
Alex Ek
Swedish NC
Johannes Walch
> Results - Swedish ECQ, 2009
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Date: 11/4 - 09
> Number of players: 37
> Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
> Winner: Erik Torstensson
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> TWD:
>
> Getting a total of 3 GW and 10.5 VPs during the course of the
> tournament.
>
> Deck Name : Hotellet (Chelsea Hotel #3)
> Author : Erik Torstensson
> Description : "I'm only playing the funny location deck" - Larvo
> Kantarell
Finally the deck gets its well deserved win. Kudos Erik!
Makes me really sorry I couldnt be there this year.
--
If playing against Cock all you need to
remember is: Don´t get caught by Cock.
Blooded Sand
> Regards
> Alex Ek
> Swedish NC
Okay, maybe i am thick as mud, but how does this actually oust?
I see the bleeds, but how do you get the through?
_angst_
First you should consider these cards:
2x Anarch Troublemaker
3x Bonding
5x Call of the Hungry Dead
4x Conditioning
6x Deflection
1x Dis Pater
9x Govern the Unaligned
1x Monastary of Shadows
2x Misdirection
1x Pentex Subversion
1x Redirection
4x Spectral Divination
Then you should consider these cards:
1x Anthelios, The Red Star
2x Sudario Refraction
Then you should consider a permanent hand size that almost always is
above 12 cards.
Then I think it all will become pretty clear.
Regards
Alex
coincoi...@hotmail.com
but it spoils the deck I was going to play at ECQ Paris :(
Oko
> Congrats Erik
> but it spoils the deck I was going to play at ECQ Paris :(
Are you afraid someone might play against you with Jericho Founding? :)
tupausm...@gmail.com
> Okay, maybe i am thick as mud, but how does this actually oust?
It's tap bleed with light stealth and block denial. I find it hard to
believe that it wins too. Especially considering that the Tremere deck
was packing fifteen Eyes of Argus.
The Euro metagame is just different, dude. It very hard to understand
from the outside looking in.
It would be very interesting to see a good player bring something like
this to the Aus nats this year, just to see how it would do. I suspect
it would get destroyed, but one can only hope time will tell :)
jase
_angst_
Adam (the aus deck) had some inaccurate scouting to go on when
choosing his seat for the finals. He choose to be hunted by Henrik
(the pot deck) thinking that Henrik played close range combat. As you
can see he didn't and Adam was the first one to get ousted.
Also, being first seed and working from accurate scouting Erik could
seat himself as the aus decks prey and try to get 2 or 3 vps before
having to try to oust Adam and thus ensuring him the tournament win.
And, when it comes to comparing meta, I just can't see what kind of
deck that would destroy a deck like this. It's really quite solid and
can handle most opposition.
Regards
Alex
jason...@iinet.net.au
> And, when it comes to comparing meta, I just can't see what kind of
> deck that would destroy a deck like this. It's really quite solid and
> can handle most opposition.
Well, I guess the first vulnerability is that it's a star vamp deck,
relying heavily on Guillaume for your ultra combo, so it's vulnerable
to all the usual things a star vamp deck is vulnerable to
(Banishments, Mind Rapes, Rotchrecks, Retributions you know all the
little things that can go wrong with a star vamp and ruin your day). 1
Secure Haven tends not to cut it.
Secondly, it is utterly reliant upon the pathenon (as many Euro decks
posted here tend to be) What do you do when your Parthenon gets
contested or stolen?
It has 6 S:CE and no manuevers. A good combat deck is going to bury
Guillaume and empty your hand. Interesting to note than none of the
finalists have any way of reliably getting into combat (even the POT
deck - not a single rush card or Haven Uncovered?)
It can reliably muster 1 (at an outside chance 2) stealth on it's
actions and can deny a total of 5 blocks. A decent intercept deck is
going to beat that, block the Sudarios and shut down your recursion.
This is the weakness of Eyes of Argus, and probably a good cautionary
example why people shouldn't pack 15 of them :) I get the notion of
Sudario recurring your various defenses, but even casual intercept is
going to be hard to overcome. It would be interesting to read a full
report and see what shape the !Ventrue deck was in by the time this
deck was it's predator.
It has 2 Delaying Tactics and no intercept of its own. Did it preyed
upon by many vote decks on the day?
A deck packing a lot of Bleed redirect will throw a party if this deck
is preying on it.
I'm not knocking the deck, it obviously works well in the Euro meta,
and props to the winner. It just seems really "squishy" to me. I
really hope someone net-poaches it and brings it to Sydney.
Traditionally, Euro-winning decks that get poached down here tend to
get rolled.
jase
librarian
> Adam (the aus deck) had some inaccurate scouting to go on when
> choosing his seat for the finals. He choose to be hunted by Henrik
> (the pot deck) thinking that Henrik played close range combat. As you
> can see he didn't and Adam was the first one to get ousted.
>
> Also, being first seed and working from accurate scouting Erik could
> seat himself as the aus decks prey and try to get 2 or 3 vps before
> having to try to oust Adam and thus ensuring him the tournament win.
>
I have a problem with scouting. while I know it's almost impossible to
prevent, and also *no fun* to deny people the opportunity to watch
games, it very much seems to give certain types of decks (i.e. fast) an
huge advantage, especially when going into the finals. And in mid-size
to larger tournaments this advantage only increases, as the opportunity
to play other finalist decks decreases. I have been in finals where
others knew what my deck did (by watching it), and I didn't know what
theirs did (because my game timed out, or came close to the finish, etc).
That seems to be an out of game advantage.
best -
chris
Kevin M.
> _angst_ wrote:
>> Adam (the aus deck) had some inaccurate scouting to go on when
>> choosing his seat for the finals. He choose to be hunted by Henrik
>> (the pot deck) thinking that Henrik played close range combat. As you
>> can see he didn't and Adam was the first one to get ousted.
>>
>> Also, being first seed and working from accurate scouting Erik could
>> seat himself as the aus decks prey and try to get 2 or 3 vps before
>> having to try to oust Adam and thus ensuring him the tournament win.
>
> I have a problem with scouting. while I know it's almost impossible
> to prevent, and also *no fun* to deny people the opportunity to watch
> games, it very much seems to give certain types of decks (i.e. fast)
> an huge advantage, especially when going into the finals.
If the deck was fast-good, everyone will know about it.
If the deck was fast-bad, then who cares?
Doesn't seem to be any advantage that I can see.
> And in mid-size to larger tournaments this advantage only increases,
> as the opportunity to play other finalist decks decreases. I have been
> in finals where others knew what my deck did (by watching it), and
> I didn't know what theirs did (because my game timed out, or came
> close to the finish, etc).
>
> That seems to be an out of game advantage.
It is a very minor part of the game, which I tend to doubt can be shown
to have a substantial influence in winning percentage, versus the total
chaos and bad feelings that ensue when you try to outlaw 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! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
jason...@iinet.net.au
> It is a very minor part of the game, which I tend to doubt can be shown
> to have a substantial influence in winning percentage, versus the total
> chaos and bad feelings that ensue when you try to outlaw it.
I disagree that seating plays a minor role in the outcome of finals.
By its nature VTES is a game of rock/paper/scissors, in which certain
archetypes trump others. Having the ability to choose your seating,
and knowing which decks trump/are trumped by your own before you do so
is an advantage that can't be underestimated.
While it's probably impossible to show this advantage mathematically
(unless you find a group of people who are willing to determine finals
seating randomly and use them as a sample group for comparison) the
very fact that finals seating is chosen based on seeding rather than
randomly should be some indication that it's seen as advantageous to
choose where you sit.
That said, I agree that it would be virtually impossible to police a
"no scouting" policy. The best folks can do is to make sure either
they or their friends are scouting as well as the other players. :P
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
Case in point is your sig:
> "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
> you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
jase
librarian
I actually would rather have a different policy - if a person is in the
finals, before he chooses position, he can ask the judge for as much
information about the other person's deck as the judge deems
"reasonable". Actually, I think the other player should give that info
voluntarily - but I have seen people not give that info, and that gave
bad feelings to those involved.
best -
chris
jason...@iinet.net.au
> I actually would rather have a different policy - if a person is in the
> finals, before he chooses position, he can ask the judge for as much
> information about the other person's deck as the judge deems
> "reasonable". Actually, I think the other player should give that info
> voluntarily - but I have seen people not give that info, and that gave
> bad feelings to those involved.
I think that's a fantastic idea.
jase
_angst_
> > And, when it comes to comparing meta, I just can't see what kind of
> > deck that would destroy a deck like this. It's really quite solid and
> > can handle most opposition.
>
> Well, I guess the first vulnerability is that it's a star vamp deck,
> relying heavily on Guillaume for your ultra combo, so it's vulnerable
> to all the usual things a star vamp deck is vulnerable to
> (Banishments, Mind Rapes, Rotchrecks, Retributions you know all the
> little things that can go wrong with a star vamp and ruin your day). 1
> Secure Haven tends not to cut it.
>
Actually. I've seen the deck not draw Guillaume in several games and
it does quite OK. If you don't draw him then you still run a rather ok
mid- to lowcap tap and deny and bleed deck. Sure, it's not as good and
you don't get as much from the locations, but still it's preetty
decent.
> Secondly, it is utterly reliant upon the pathenon (as many Euro decks
> posted here tend to be) What do you do when your Parthenon gets
> contested or stolen?
>
I've seen this happen alot too and you will have to do. You only get
to play 1 master each turn but considering Guillaume's special you can
cycle some cards and do OK. Then, if you're lucky, you can oust the
one who's contesting The Parthenon :)
> It has 6 S:CE and no manuevers. A good combat deck is going to bury
> Guillaume and empty your hand. Interesting to note than none of the
> finalists have any way of reliably getting into combat (even the POT
> deck - not a single rush card or Haven Uncovered?)
>
Fair enough. But firstly a good combat deck is a really rare thing
since it requires a player who's a good deckbuilder and a good player.
It also requires that this player decides to play a deck in a big
tourney that is more than a little iffy. Me personally doesnät find it
that hard to handle combat. You can always block with a nerd or jake.
You can DI that immortal grapple. And you can always talk since most
players at a table will probably want the combat deck that can
actually do real damage to die since it will screw up their game.
> It can reliably muster 1 (at an outside chance 2) stealth on it's
> actions and can deny a total of 5 blocks. A decent intercept deck is
> going to beat that, block the Sudarios and shut down your recursion.
> This is the weakness of Eyes of Argus, and probably a good cautionary
> example why people shouldn't pack 15 of them :) I get the notion of
> Sudario recurring your various defenses, but even casual intercept is
> going to be hard to overcome. It would be interesting to read a full
> report and see what shape the !Ventrue deck was in by the time this
> deck was it's predator.
>
It's a waiting game. You try to act when you're given the option to do
so. You try to strike when other players make mistakes or you can read
that they are jamming. It's a sniping deck, not an all out assault
deny and bleed deck. But sure, blocking is a pain, that's why you run
cards like AT, Misdirection and Pentex in combination with the stealth
and deny cards you already pack.
> It has 2 Delaying Tactics and no intercept of its own. Did it preyed
> upon by many vote decks on the day?
>
Sadly I don't know. But considering handsize, recursions and 3
potential anti-vote cards (DI included) it does ok. If you get the
sudarios and a DT you have a permanent DT. That's very strong.
> A deck packing a lot of Bleed redirect will throw a party if this deck
> is preying on it.
>
That's why you play Misdirection or AT :)
> I'm not knocking the deck, it obviously works well in the Euro meta,
> and props to the winner. It just seems really "squishy" to me. I
> really hope someone net-poaches it and brings it to Sydney.
> Traditionally, Euro-winning decks that get poached down here tend to
> get rolled.
>
I know you aren't :)
But you have to consider one more thing. And that's which player is
actually playing the deck. Erik is one of the best players in the
world and he really shines when he plays stuff like this. He doesn't
make mistakes and he moves when it's the right time to move. He also
seats himself at the correct spot before the finals and then he just
waits for the table to collapse.
Regards
Alex
_angst_
I don't agree. I've played slow decks in tournaments and thus haven't
been able to scout properly. Also in big tourneys it's almost
impossible to keep track on all the decks. You'll have to rely on
friends and/or friendly people. Just ask around before the finals and
try to gather as much info as you can get. It's a part of the game,
knowing your opponent is quite important for the outcome of the game
as Sun Tzu said, and I like that it's a part of the game since I
basically like the diversity of things you have to master before
you're a good VtES player in every aspect of the game.
Regards
Alex
_angst_
I don't agree. If you take the time to do the legwork then you should
be able to harvest the fruits of your work. It's quite simple to scout
since you usually have a few people you can ask if you haven't been
able to study your opponent yourself and that should give you enough
info to atleast make the proper seating choice. If you don't care to
ask around and try to do the work yourself then I don't think there
should be a lifeline helping you out.
I don't think this game should be about equal terms. I think it should
be about the best player in every aspect of the game getting the most
benefits from his or her work.
Regards
Alex
Archibald Zimonyi
>
> - Visa citerad text -
But Alex, a player with a large group of friends will also not need to
scout on his own, they might share their scouting. So then it isn't
the one player being best at everything.
On anther note, even though we might not have a winning deck there,
couldn't you mention the excellent turnout for the draft tournament.
Archie
_angst_
Fair enough, my point mostly being that if a player takes the time to
actually ask someone they should be able to get an advantage while a
player who doesn't bother with that should not have a lifeline in the
shape of a judge.
> On anther note, even though we might not have a winning deck there,
> couldn't you mention the excellent turnout for the draft tournament.
>
> Archie
Ofcourse I will :). It was an exellent draft event. I will post a
small report in this thread including Markos deck within a few days.
Regards
Alex
Shockwave
Where will this bleed stop?
The poor bugger with no DOM.
"Deflect to my prey."
librarian
Really? Scouting is part of the game? Not finding it in the rulebook...
But that aside, not everyone has friends at a tournament. Not everyone
wants to ask a bunch of people. And some people are going to be jerks
and not give information; or not feel it's appropriate to give that info
out - especially since at one point, scouting was *against* the rules
(probably a left over form the DCI tourney rules).
I don't think scouting should be discouraged, but that said, someone who
doesn't want or is unable to scout should have an avenue to find out
more about the other player's decks.
Haven't you ever been on the receiving end of someone not telling you
about their deck? I have. I would have liked to have recourse.
best -
chris
Blooded Sand
Some people who might be trying to assist someone might even give
disinformation on purpose
> chris
librarian
Exactly, which is why I suggested asking a judge.
best -
chris
_angst_
There are many things that aren't in the rulebook. Like all tournament
rules...
> But that aside, not everyone has friends at a tournament. Not everyone
> wants to ask a bunch of people. And some people are going to be jerks
> and not give information; or not feel it's appropriate to give that info
> out - especially since at one point, scouting was *against* the rules
> (probably a left over form the DCI tourney rules).
>
Yes, which is also part of it all. You can only gather info to a
certain point. And you can't protect yourself from people lying to
you.
> I don't think scouting should be discouraged, but that said, someone who
> doesn't want or is unable to scout should have an avenue to find out
> more about the other player's decks.
>
How would doesnät want to ever be a valid reason?
I don't think you should get anything for free. If you want info you
should have to work for it.
> Haven't you ever been on the receiving end of someone not telling you
> about their deck? I have. I would have liked to have recourse.
>
Yes, I got inaccurate information. I lost the 2006 NAC day 1 finals
thanks to it. Whcih ofcourse is part of it all...
Regards
Alex
librarian
I think we are coming at this from two different philosophical points of
view. I dont' feel like that's "part of it all". I think that equal
information outside of the game should be available. Just like
standings in the tournament should not effect whether you play to win; I
think that scouting is an external aspect of the game that does impact
how the game is played and how decisions are made; and as such should
not be "part of the game".
best -
chris
Kevin M.
> KevinM wrote:
>> It is a very minor part of the game, which I tend to doubt can be
>> shown to have a substantial influence in winning percentage, versus
>> the total chaos and bad feelings that ensue when you try to outlaw
>> it.
>
> I disagree that seating plays a minor role in the outcome of finals.
I wasn't discussing seating in any way. Perhaps you misread "scouting"?
[remainder of irrelevant post snipped]
henrik
> > I disagree that seating plays a minor role in the outcome of finals.
>
> I wasn't discussing seating in any way. Perhaps you misread "scouting"?
>
> [remainder of irrelevant post snipped]
Scouting gives you an upper hand when it comes to determine seating in
the final (if you're top 3). So the two are kinda related.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> I wasn't discussing seating in any way. Perhaps you misread "scouting"?
Successful scouting leads to an advantage when choosing seating.
Don't be obtuse.
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> I think we are coming at this from two different philosophical points of
> view. I dont' feel like that's "part of it all". I think that equal
> information outside of the game should be available. Just like
> standings in the tournament should not effect whether you play to win; I
> think that scouting is an external aspect of the game that does impact
> how the game is played and how decisions are made; and as such should
> not be "part of the game".
I agree 100%.
This game is played in 2 hour blocks and involves the use of cards.
People having to dash about between rounds trying to find out what is
being played and by whom, people decieving each other about what is
being played, or refusing to answer honest questions might be seen as
a game to some, but it's name is certainly not Vampire: The Eternal
Struggle.
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Actually. I've seen the deck not draw Guillaume in several games and
> it does quite OK. If you don't draw him then you still run a rather ok
> mid- to lowcap tap and deny and bleed deck. Sure, it's not as good and
> you don't get as much from the locations, but still it's preetty
> decent.
Don't you hate that? Playing 5 copies and still not managing to draw
the vamp you want. It drives me crazy :)
Yeah I totally get what you're saying, there are counters to every
situation, and Erik is doubtless a very talented player. Again I'm not
knocking the deck; it obviously does very well, and Sudario Refraction
is simply a superb card if the people around you allow it to happen
every turn. I just think it will be really interesting to see if the
deck migrates to other metagames, and track how well it does there.
jase