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
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
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
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
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
> 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
> > 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
> Okay, maybe i am thick as mud, but how does this actually oust? > I see the bleeds, but how do you get the through?- Hide quoted text -
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 :)
On 15 Apr, 01:50, tupausmarket...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Okay, maybe i am thick as mud, but how does this actually oust? > > I see the bleeds, but how do you get the through?- Hide quoted text -
> 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
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.
> 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.
_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. 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).
librarian wrote: > _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/
> 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
Kevin M. wrote: > librarian wrote: >> _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.
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 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.
> > 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.
> _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. 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
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.
> Kevin M. wrote: > > librarian wrote: > >> _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.
> 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
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.
> On 15 Apr, 06:28, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> > Kevin M. wrote: > > > librarian wrote: > > >> _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.
> > 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
> 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- Dölj citerad text -
> - 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.
> On 15 Apr, 12:43, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> > On 15 Apr, 06:28, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> > > Kevin M. wrote: > > > > librarian wrote: > > > >> _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.
> > > 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
> > 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- Dölj citerad text -
> > - 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.
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.
_angst_ wrote: > On 15 Apr, 04:15, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> _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. 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
> 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.
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.
> _angst_ wrote: > > On 15 Apr, 04:15, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > >> _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. 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
> > 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.
> 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).
Some people who might be trying to assist someone might even give disinformation on purpose
Blooded Sand wrote: > On Apr 15, 5:39 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> _angst_ wrote: >>> On 15 Apr, 04:15, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >>>> _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. 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 >>> 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. >> 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).
> Some people who might be trying to assist someone might even give > disinformation on purpose
> _angst_ wrote: > > On 15 Apr, 04:15, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > >> _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. 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
> > 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.
> Really? Scouting is part of the game? Not finding it in the rulebook...
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...
|
