Tournament rules for 2007
LSJ
Orpheus
CLAP ! CLAP !! CLAP !!!
--
Orpheus
Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!
Powermonger
Regards,
Ben Swainbank
LSJ wrote:
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Oooh! Lots of good stuff here. Check out the new limited format rules!
... and check out...
4.8. Play to Win
....
Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no
longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were
play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both
Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard
to any deals.
Thank you LSJ.
-Ben Swainbank
Jozxyqk
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Hooray for Sanctioned Internal Recursion Draft!
Rehlow
On Dec 1, 1:44 pm, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRulesOooh! Lots of good stuff here. Check out the new limited format rules!
>
> ... and check out...
>
> 4.8. Play to Win
> ....
>
> Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no
> longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were
> play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both
> Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard
> to any deals.
So the closest thing you can make to a table split is now - we both
play as partners until heads up and then each try to kill each other?
(I guess you could set yourself up to lose the heads up as part of the
deal before you got to 1v1)
I always hated deals, even if recently I started to use the necessary
evil, I am glad to see them go, or at least nurfed.
Later,
~Rehlow
echia...@yahoo.com
I'm actually a little worried that this can be abused with an excessive
number of tournaments. With deck minimums listed for 1 booster, what's
to keep people from having half a dozen limited tournaments (with 1
booster pack) all in the course of a single night?
The Lasombra
<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>With deck minimums listed for 1 booster, what's to keep people from having half a dozen limited tournaments (with 1 booster pack) all in the course of a single night?
Boredom.
No greater discouragement is required.
librarian
Ben Swainbank wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> ... and check out...
>
> 4.8. Play to Win
> ....
>
> Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no
> longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were
> play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both
> Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard
> to any deals.
>
This is the first time deal-making has been explicity mentioned in the
rules, I think. I am not sure that is a path to start to tread down.
Of course, I could be wrong (usually am).
best -
chris
LSJ
Logistics. Laws of physics. etc.
You still have to play cards and get through 30 pool per oust.
Jozxyqk
> > Hooray for Sanctioned Internal Recursion Draft!
> I'm actually a little worried that this can be abused with an excessive
> number of tournaments. With deck minimums listed for 1 booster, what's
> to keep people from having half a dozen limited tournaments (with 1
> booster pack) all in the course of a single night?
Try 1-pack, 30-pool, limited-transfers, 3-round draft, and see if you
ever want to try it again.
Long live unsanctioned Duffin Draft!
Bram Vink
LSJ
> This is the first time deal-making has been explicity mentioned in the
> rules, I think. I am not sure that is a path to start to tread down.
> Of course, I could be wrong (usually am).
The rules now just echo the official ruling that has been explicitly stated for
many years. Not a new path at all.
echia...@yahoo.com
either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
either needed or will be especially helpful,
IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such
effects. Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when
it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player
will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective
opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to
A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B
concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring
his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's
down to
2 players then A will almost certainly win,)
Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to
table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to
just table split cross-table instead. Even then, you can still table
split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead (if you think you're
going to get 0, 0.5 is still better than nothing). Alternatively,
instead of 4-1 VP splits, it may be more common to see 3-2 VP splits
instead.
One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it
becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table.
Wtih an imperfect Archon (in that it has problems with adds and drops),
I imagine there are going to be significantly more complaints when some
players end up at 4-player tables while others are only at 5-player
tables.
I am willing to give the changes a chance, and look forward to
seeing how they impact the tournament environment in 2007. I am
hesitant about their efficacy however, and if they do not significantly
address the problems that they were intended to solve, I hope that
the ineffective portions are rescinded in 2008.
LSJ
> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
> either needed or will be especially helpful,
That's why I had invited discussion.
> IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such
> effects.
Yes.
> Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when
> it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player
> will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective
> opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to
> A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B
> concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring
> his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's
> down to
> 2 players then A will almost certainly win,)
Much riskier (or much harder to do without being riskier).
> Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to
> table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to
> just table split cross-table instead.
OK. As stated this is a step. If there is a better step out there, I welcome it.
> Even then, you can still table
> split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead (if you think you're
> going to get 0, 0.5 is still better than nothing). Alternatively,
> instead of 4-1 VP splits, it may be more common to see 3-2 VP splits
> instead.
OK. It's still a reduction of deals and an increase in the underlying game.
> One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it
> becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table.
Not true, except in an elimination of the withdraw-instead-of-time-out cases,
which is a plus, not a minus.
> Wtih an imperfect Archon (in that it has problems with adds and drops),
It has no problems with adds and drops.
The organizer is free to enter in the optimal seating for the new/absent player
situation.
Not automating what is impossible to automate while still allowing it to be done
manually is not properly labeled "having a problem").
> I imagine there are going to be significantly more complaints when some
> players end up at 4-player tables while others are only at 5-player
> tables.
That would be a fault of the organizer, if it was avoidable, or a simple fact of
life unrelated to the Archon or the new rules, if unavoidable.
The table sizes should be as balanced as possible.
Ben Swainbank
echia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such
> effects. Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when
> it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player
> will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective
> opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to
> A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B
> concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring
> his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's
> down to
> 2 players then A will almost certainly win,)
Eric, let's say you are A in in this little scenario. Let's say I'm C.
You're saying that you, my prey, are going to burn all your minions and
go down to 1 pool, BEFORE we oust B? Sure. I'll take that deal. I'm
sure that'll work out great. You try that :-)
> Even then, you can still table
> split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead
How? By withdrawing when there only 2 players left? Umm.. I think you
predator is going be ousting you seeing as you've exausted your library
and all.
> One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it
> becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table.
Harder how? You can't oust one prey and agree to mutually withdraw. And
that's a bad thing?
-Ben Swainbank
librarian
LSJ wrote:
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Nits:
2.4 sentence #1 reads: "A spectator of a game is defined as any person
other than a judge or an organizer who not playing in that game." I
think you mean "... organizer who IS not playing in that game."
4.8, second paragraph, sentence #2, towards the end reads: "even when
the normal play to win rule would indicate the a deal should be
broken." I bet you meant: "...would indicate THAT a deal should be
broken."
7.2.1 Didn't Ancient Hearts boosters have 11 cards?
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija
LSJ wrote:
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
I'm trying to figure out the intracacies of this one:
4.9. Infinite Loops
When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely
restored to a previous state and could be repeated without limit except
for the round's time limit), the activity cannot be begun again (until
and unless game state changes). This includes actions, sequences of
combats, rounds of combat, and everything else. Note that game state
includes all players' hands, ash heaps, and libraries, as well as
available maneuvers and presses from cards in play, and master:
out-of-turn plays.
Right. I have a minion with a Saturday Night Special and CEL. My
opponent has a minion with a Flak Jacket. Does playing Psyche! to start
combat over circumvent this "identical game state" situation, as it
changes the cards in my hand and the cards in my ash heap? So I can
continue to manuver to long, shoot for 1, do no damage, and Psyche! as
long as my Psyches hold out (presumably to cycle to find a ammo card ot
a Blur or something)?
Thanks,
-Peter
echia...@yahoo.com
No, that's not an infinite loop (because your hand and library are
changing).
An infinite loop might be Henry Taylor with PRO trying to do something
like hunt. When he gets blocked by a Magaji with No Secrets, he plays
Earth Meld to untap (and you have another in your hand). So you could
keep hunting getting blocked and Earth Melding infinitely.
echia...@yahoo.com
LSJ wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
> > either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
> > either needed or will be especially helpful,
>
> That's why I had invited discussion.
I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you
had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November
29th:
<<
While the withdrawal rules serve a purpose for the game in general (see
the link above for more on that), the time limit in tournament games
could be argued to address much of the same purpose.
So how's this for a fix (applied only to VEKN tournaments -- leaving
the basic gamne rules alone): award just 0.5 VPs for a withdrawal
rather than the full VP. "Last Methuselah Standing" would still get a
full VP, making "mutual withdrawal" not quite the same as going to
time.
Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante
was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995.
To allow for players to agree to a stalemate, treat a mutual agreement
of stalemate as going to the time limit: 0.5 VPs for all remaining
players.
Discuss.
>>
> > Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when
> > it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player
> > will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective
> > opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to
> > A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B
> > concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring
> > his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's
> > down to
> > 2 players then A will almost certainly win,)
>
> Much riskier (or much harder to do without being riskier).
Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible
under the proposed rules? I make a deal with my prey so he ousts the 3
other players. Now it's down to 2 players. Although the new rule
requires us each to "play to win" the game has already been won (by my
prey). He's already won so no matter how he plays (besides possibly
Gambit Accepted), he is already playing to win. So he should be able to
concede to me and let me have 2 VP then?
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
I like it, I honestly do.
I hope it can be changed still, I think for the intended effect you
want with the addition of the 'heads up - all deals are off, play to
win' rule, the added rulechange should be: If you have the gamewin, you
must play to maximize your victory points.
Which basically means: You have to play as well as you can, which I
think would be a beneficial thing to start with.
As the rules are, a 3/2 table split is perfectly legal between predator
and prey, as the prey goes into heads-up with the gamewin, he isn't
violating PTW when conceding.
Cheers,
Bram
Peter D Bakija
echia...@yahoo.com wrote:
> An infinite loop might be Henry Taylor with PRO trying to do something
> like hunt. When he gets blocked by a Magaji with No Secrets, he plays
> Earth Meld to untap (and you have another in your hand). So you could
> keep hunting getting blocked and Earth Melding infinitely.
But isn't that not actually an infinite loop, as you are exchanging
Earth Melds between your hand and the top of your deck? They are
different cards in some sense.
-Peter
crispyfloss
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > 4.9. Infinite Loops
>
> > Right. I have a minion with a Saturday Night Special and CEL. My
> > opponent has a minion with a Flak Jacket. Does playing Psyche! to start
> > combat over circumvent this "identical game state" situation, as it
> > changes the cards in my hand and the cards in my ash heap? So I can
> > continue to manuver to long, shoot for 1, do no damage, and Psyche! as
> > long as my Psyches hold out (presumably to cycle to find a ammo card ot
> > a Blur or something)?
>
> No, that's not an infinite loop (because your hand and library are
> changing).
>
I believe Eric means "Yes, that's not an infinite loop"
:-)
echia...@yahoo.com
You're right. I think the wording needs to be tightened up a bit.
Unless we're all missing something....
Marc Gabriele
Even if the copies of Earth Meld are distinct, it's still an
infinite loop. After the second time Henry acts, the first copy of Earth
Meld is back in your hand again. The loop just covers two iterations of
the action rather than one.
Marc G.
crispyfloss
The canonical example that seems to have prompted the rule in the first
place has Henry Taylor with no library and less than a full hand, so
that Earth Meld is instantly drawn back into hand, so it isn't actually
distinct.
Marc's concept also fits. It's not clear to me that distinct copies of
the card constitute a different "game state," but then it's
exponentially more difficult to find a situation where you could manage
two, three, or four iterations without getting back to the same
original copies of the cards in the same places anyway.
The use of the term "activity" in the rule is a little vague to me. Is
the "Activity" Henry hunting, or Magaji blocking, or the playing of the
Earth Meld, or the recycling of the Earth Meld? You're penalizing one
of the players (by making Henry be bloodless or by letting him hunt
when he could otherwise be blocked), and it's not clear to me which one
is "at fault."
If activity == "action," that's a fine bright-line although maybe it
will be unfair from time to time.
Logically I would consider the recycling of the card to be the
"activity" that restores the game state, since every step before that
each player can say - well, if he doesn't block it's not a loop; well,
if he doesn't play Earth Meld it's not a loop; well, as long as I don't
recycle it's not a loop.
It also prevents you from prospectively saying: you can't do this, even
if something else might happen so it turns out differently. You let
people play, and only at the ultimate step when the player says "now I
do this" do you say, "that will close the loop, so you can't."
It's certainly a queer stance to take, though, and I'd wager that
Taylor would prefer to be forbidden from hunting, and so be able to
stay up with Earth Meld in hand, then be forbidden from recycilng. But
that's not within his discretion.
Unless someone can think up of another example where this could happen,
I don't think it's worth any more thought.
Shade
LSJ wrote:
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Looks pretty good to me.
Now all I need is some donations to fly me back from Wellington to
Sweden and / or LA next year ;-)
Peter D Bakija
echia...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You're right. I think the wording needs to be tightened up a bit.
> Unless we're all missing something....
See, that's what I thought. The wording for this rule seems a tad
vague-er than the previously proposed "you can only do the same thing
20 times in a row" idea.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
Marc Gabriele wrote:
> Even if the copies of Earth Meld are distinct, it's still an
> infinite loop. After the second time Henry acts, the first copy of Earth
> Meld is back in your hand again. The loop just covers two iterations of
> the action rather than one.
Sure, but the rule as written doesn't necessarily prevent
this--assuming that each of the two Earth Melds constitute different
cards for purposes of "game state", the "no infinite loop" rule doesn't
care what happens in two iterations, just the next one.
I'm not here arguing that this is how the rule *should* work, mind you,
just that I think the rule needs a bit of tightening up.
-Peter
Bram Vink
echia...@yahoo.com schreef:
You are, the loop is 2 actions until gamestate is exactly the same.
it's a loop nonetheless.
ira...@gmail.com
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Overall, looks great! New draft rules are especially exciting!
I'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related
rules but gave such little time to respond. Of course, there's no
reason why you have to listen to us at all. :) Since you previously
expressed interest in feedback, I'd like to provide it now.
What problem are we trying to address with the 0.5 VPs for Withdrawl
and no-deals-heads-up rule? It seems like the problem is table
splitting deals, primarily the 3-2 deals.
A->B->C->D->E
I (player A) can still make a table split deal with my prey (B) no
problem. I help him oust two preys (or one prey if he's already ousted
C), and then he dies to me and I kill E. This deal doesn't happen very
much, because it's hard to trust that B will roll-over, and E might
self-oust anyway out of spite. Nonetheless, the point is that the new
rules don't stop this type of table split at all.
I can still make a table split deal with my grand-prey (C). I say to
my grand-prey, "I help you oust your two preys, and then you concede to
me." Everyone else at the table cries, "No, that's not legal!" I say,
"I realize, according to the tournament rules, the deal won't bind us
once we're heads up, but will you agree to the deal?" And C says sure.
Then, when we get to heads up, C manages to lose to me. Perhaps some
people in C's position wouldn't abide by the deal due to the tournament
rules, but I think quite a lot of people would manage to lose in C's
position.
Proving that C wasn't PTW when he lost will be difficult, though the
most obvious cases can be stopped. LSJ, I assume this is a reversal of
your previous comment to me that, as a judge, you would never stop a
player from conceding?
I can still make a table split deal with my grand-predator (D), though
I only get 2.5 VPs. When it gets heads up, D lets me withdraw, I get
the GW at 2.5 VPs, and he gets 2 VPs. Based on risk analysis, the
guaranteed 1 VP will almost always allow D to grant the withdrawl.
Given the difference of only 0.5 VPs, I think the current amount of
table splits may actually GO UP for splits with grand-predators.
I can still make a table split deal with my predator (E). I oust three
preys, and then concede since I've already gotten the GW (conceding is
PTW if I already have the GW.)
As far as I can tell, these rules don't stop table splits at all. It's
a little fishy when dealing with your grand-prey, but anyone who wants
to lose a game can lose a game.
In addition, the 0.5 VP Withdrawl rule hurts the situations where you
have no hope to oust your prey, and only want to get the 1 VP from
withdrawing at the end. Now, it's only 0.5 VPs. Therefore, you have
an incentive to stall the game. And what's 0.5 VP anyway? You might
as well kamikazi into your prey and then self-oust, so that maybe your
prey doesn't get the GW.
I'm willing to try it, but my predicition is that:
1) The number of table splits with your grand-prey won't decrease
significantly
2) Table splits with your grand-predator will actually increase
(because accepting the losing end of 2.5 - 2 is more appealing than
3-2.)
3) More people will stall, kamikazi, or self-oust in the situation
where they can't oust their prey, instead of waiting around as a wall
and hoping for a pity VP.
#1 is good, if it actually reduces the table splits significantly. #2
and #3 are bad.
Ira
Shade
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip analysis]
> I'm willing to try it, but my predicition is that:
> 1) The number of table splits with your grand-prey won't decrease
> significantly
> 2) Table splits with your grand-predator will actually increase
> (because accepting the losing end of 2.5 - 2 is more appealing than
> 3-2.)
> 3) More people will stall, kamikazi, or self-oust in the situation
> where they can't oust their prey, instead of waiting around as a wall
> and hoping for a pity VP.
>
> #1 is good, if it actually reduces the table splits significantly. #2
> and #3 are bad.
We'll find out I guess but I would disagree a little bit with 3
because;
- I don't like being ousted so I'll fight for a 1/2 as much as I would
fight for a mutual withdrawl at the end and I'm sure a lot of other
players will do the same. I like it that if I've fought till the end I
know get as many VPs as people that stalled / played cautiously and
then withdrew.
- People can die how they choose once they think they're going to be
ousted so if they won't fight till the end and oust themselves better
sooner rather than later as it moves the game along.
I also like the fact that if you oust your prey you get more VPs than
someone that withdraws at the end which has always been something that
annoyed me personally.
But let's give it a try and see what happens :-)
Simon
Blooded Sand
LSJ: You are da man!!! Thanks for the withdrawal modification, it is
definitely a big leap in the right direction
To all else: If a table is being dealed to a 3-2 split, then logically
it means there are 3 players being excluded from this deal, yes? So
what is stopping those players from actively, vehemently and with all
force available ousting the deal makers first? if I am on a table,
where my prey and grandprey are table splitting, i would rather end the
game with 1 or even zero VP's than allow them to get their deal
through. And to all who are going to go"But that's not PTW". Yes, it
is. If am already being excluded from any possible VP's due to a table
split, I could quite easily argue that I have already lost the game,
and as such am free to take any action I deem necessary to promote my
standings in the game. if that means annihilating the dealmakers, so as
to allow a free standing game after the are ousted, great
Remember, this game has the built in mechanic of pred player prey for
ver good reason, very few, if any (excluding prince nergally madness)
can withstand a continous and combined assault from 3 other decks. So
essentially you could oust the deal makers, or even just one of them,
then get on with (gotto love Ankur)
Play.
The.
Game!!!
Tetragrammaton
news:45707D5...@white-wolf.com...
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
I really appreciate the effort -
My question are:
Considering the new rule:
"ls. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When
only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on
game state, without regard to any deals."
Question #1 : with the new text about deal above , is a 3/2 table split deal
to be considered
illegal, to be honored, from the start ?
Question #2: in respect of the text above, it's legal at the beginning of a
round say, for two players,
to have a 2/1 deals so that they try to end up fighting for the last 2 VPS
in a given round?
(something like : "....ok, i help you to make 2 VP, you help me to make 1
VP, then when we're two left at the table we fight for the last VPS....").
thanks in advance and keep up the good work.
Emiliano , v:ekn Prince of Rome
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>>
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> Nits:
>
> 2.4 sentence #1 reads: "A spectator of a game is defined as any person
> other than a judge or an organizer who not playing in that game." I
> think you mean "... organizer who IS not playing in that game."
>
> 4.8, second paragraph, sentence #2, towards the end reads: "even when
> the normal play to win rule would indicate the a deal should be
> broken." I bet you meant: "...would indicate THAT a deal should be
> broken."
Thanks.
> 7.2.1 Didn't Ancient Hearts boosters have 11 cards?
My records indicate 12.
olivier...@gmail.com
it's allready better than nothing.
LSJ
The game state is the same: same cards in hand and same cards (in same order) in
deck. The two Earth Melds are not different cards in that sense, but even if
they were, the loop would then just be expanded to two swaps (swap out and swap
back).
LSJ
> The use of the term "activity" in the rule is a little vague to me. Is
> the "Activity" Henry hunting, or Magaji blocking, or the playing of the
> Earth Meld, or the recycling of the Earth Meld? You're penalizing one
> of the players (by making Henry be bloodless or by letting him hunt
> when he could otherwise be blocked), and it's not clear to me which one
> is "at fault."
The activity is the first thing that happens after game state is restored.
The event, if you prefer.
No fault is assigned.
For Henry's case, it is abundantly clear which comes first, the hunt or the
block attempt.
In other cases, it should be clear as well.
> If activity == "action," that's a fine bright-line although maybe it
> will be unfair from time to time.
activity = any event; a fine bright-line.
> Logically I would consider the recycling of the card to be the
> "activity" that restores the game state, since every step before that
> each player can say - well, if he doesn't block it's not a loop; well,
> if he doesn't play Earth Meld it's not a loop; well, as long as I don't
> recycle it's not a loop.
But the rule doesn't prohibit the restoration of game state. It only prevents
the same event after game state is restored.
> It also prevents you from prospectively saying: you can't do this, even
> if something else might happen so it turns out differently. You let
> people play, and only at the ultimate step when the player says "now I
> do this" do you say, "that will close the loop, so you can't."
You allow that ultimate step (to close the loop), then when the player says "now
I do this" where "this" is the same "this" from the loop, then you say "that
will continue the loop, so you can't".
> It's certainly a queer stance to take, though, and I'd wager that
> Taylor would prefer to be forbidden from hunting, and so be able to
> stay up with Earth Meld in hand, then be forbidden from recycilng. But
> that's not within his discretion.
No discretion, no. That is simply what the rule effects.
> Unless someone can think up of another example where this could happen,
> I don't think it's worth any more thought.
Certainly no more now than the what it should have received when first proposed. :-)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
>>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
>>> either needed or will be especially helpful,
>> That's why I had invited discussion.
>
>
> I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you
> had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November
> 29th:
Correct.
> Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible
> under the proposed rules? I make a deal with my prey so he ousts the 3
> other players. Now it's down to 2 players. Although the new rule
> requires us each to "play to win" the game has already been won (by my
> prey). He's already won so no matter how he plays (besides possibly
> Gambit Accepted), he is already playing to win. So he should be able to
> concede to me and let me have 2 VP then?
Yes.
LSJ
> LSJ schreef:
>
>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>>
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> I like it, I honestly do.
>
> I hope it can be changed still, I think for the intended effect you
> want with the addition of the 'heads up - all deals are off, play to
> win' rule, the added rulechange should be: If you have the gamewin, you
> must play to maximize your victory points.
Why?
> Which basically means: You have to play as well as you can, which I
> think would be a beneficial thing to start with.
>
> As the rules are, a 3/2 table split is perfectly legal between predator
> and prey, as the prey goes into heads-up with the gamewin, he isn't
> violating PTW when conceding.
Correct.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> Overall, looks great! New draft rules are especially exciting!
>
> I'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related
> rules but gave such little time to respond.
Because I don't control when Dec. 1 comes.
2007 tournament rules are to be posted by Dec. 1
> Of course, there's no
> reason why you have to listen to us at all. :) Since you previously
> expressed interest in feedback, I'd like to provide it now.
With the understanding that the next window is the mid-term update on July 1, OK.
> What problem are we trying to address with the 0.5 VPs for Withdrawl
> and no-deals-heads-up rule? It seems like the problem is table
> splitting deals, primarily the 3-2 deals.
>
> A->B->C->D->E
>
> I (player A) can still make a table split deal with my prey (B) no
> problem. I help him oust two preys (or one prey if he's already ousted
> C), and then he dies to me and I kill E. This deal doesn't happen very
> much, because it's hard to trust that B will roll-over, and E might
> self-oust anyway out of spite. Nonetheless, the point is that the new
> rules don't stop this type of table split at all.
Correct, it doesn't stop every split. It allows some of the ones that were
allowable before, but stops some others.
> I'm willing to try it, but my predicition is that:
> 1) The number of table splits with your grand-prey won't decrease
> significantly
> 2) Table splits with your grand-predator will actually increase
> (because accepting the losing end of 2.5 - 2 is more appealing than
> 3-2.)
> 3) More people will stall, kamikazi, or self-oust in the situation
> where they can't oust their prey, instead of waiting around as a wall
> and hoping for a pity VP.
>
> #1 is good, if it actually reduces the table splits significantly. #2
> and #3 are bad.
#1 is bad, you mean it would be good if #1 weren't true (that, instead, the rule
actually reduces the table splits significantly).
Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if the
situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go to time" help
from his grand predator)?
Bram Vink
LSJ schreef:
> Bram Vink wrote:
> > LSJ schreef:
> >
> >> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
> >>
> >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
> >
> > I like it, I honestly do.
> >
> > I hope it can be changed still, I think for the intended effect you
> > want with the addition of the 'heads up - all deals are off, play to
> > win' rule, the added rulechange should be: If you have the gamewin, you
> > must play to maximize your victory points.
>
> Why?
I think, since I believe the intention is to let deals govern a smaller
bit of the outcome of the game than they do now, carving up tables et
al, this change would improve upon the intention I see behind the
"deals cannot be kept heads-up if the residual effect is against
PTW"-rules change, as it would (when incorporating the proposed change)
then translate to: in the last heads up match, you have to try to oust
the other. Instead of: if you do not have the game win, and can within
reasonable limits expect to be able to oust your opponent, you have to
try.
> > Which basically means: You have to play as well as you can, which I
> > think would be a beneficial thing to start with.
> >
> > As the rules are, a 3/2 table split is perfectly legal between predator
> > and prey, as the prey goes into heads-up with the gamewin, he isn't
> > violating PTW when conceding.
>
> Correct.
I thought the intention of the ruleschange with regards to deals with 2
players left in the game, was to reduce those kinds of deals, mostly.
Cheers,
B
Bram Vink
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:45707D5...@white-wolf.com...
> > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
> >
> > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> I really appreciate the effort -
> My question are:
>
> Considering the new rule:
> "ls. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When
> only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on
> game state, without regard to any deals."
>
> Question #1 : with the new text about deal above , is a 3/2 table split deal
> to be considered
> illegal, to be honored, from the start ?
Hey Emiliano,
Depends. If the deal is means going into the heads-up match with:
3 versus 0 victory points, honoring the 3/2 split is not against play
to win.
If you go into the heads-up match with:
1 versus 2 victory points, both people must attempt to play to win. -
so the person going into the final matchup has to break his deal if it
meant him rolling over.
> Question #2: in respect of the text above, it's legal at the beginning of a
> round say, for two players,
> to have a 2/1 deals so that they try to end up fighting for the last 2 VPS
> in a given round?
> (something like : "....ok, i help you to make 2 VP, you help me to make 1
> VP, then when we're two left at the table we fight for the last VPS....").
Sounds good to me
> thanks in advance and keep up the good work.
>
> Emiliano , v:ekn Prince of Rome
B
Pat
news:FXech.2943$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Interesting... so the "pity VP" remains available.
Aka the "meat shield" VP, where you have the GW and allow your VP-less
original predator to withdraw for a single VP at the end of the game, in
return for not self-ousting in an otherwise hopeless situation.
That's a good thing, I think, because it encourages that player to stay
alive as long as possible and not self-oust out of boredom, frustration,
etc.
- Pat
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FXech.2943$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
>>>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
>>>> either needed or will be especially helpful,
>>> That's why I had invited discussion.
>>
>> I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you
>> had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November
>> 29th:
>
> Correct.
It would be nice, in the future, to get a little more time to discuss a
thing before it comes up against a deadline where action must be taken (or
not). Anyone not able to participate between Nov. 29th and Dec. 1st for
whatever reasons (on vacation away from the net, computer's down, work
project overwhelming, kidnapped by wiener dogs, etc.) has been muzzled.
More importantly, sometimes discussion takes a turn only after the first
few days and someone points out something that wasn't apparent about a
proposed change only after some more thought.
Just a suggestion. Doesn't look to me like anything bad has come from the
rule changes in this case. The discussion that did happen looked like it
was pretty good.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> librarian wrote:
>> 7.2.1 Didn't Ancient Hearts boosters have 11 cards?
>
> My records indicate 12.
Ancient Hearts boosters had 12 cards:
2 slots, rare and uncommon cards
4 slots, overwhelmingly vampire cards
6 slots common cards.
Fred
Johannes Walch
> echia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
>> either needed or will be especially helpful,
>
> That's why I had invited discussion.
Are you talking of this thread? A statement of new rules that go into
effect at 01.01.2007 is not exactly what a call discussion.
Or are you talking of the hugely confusing "Fixing Day1 of NAC" thread
that was very hard to follow when you haven´t got several spare hours
per week to read the newsgroup.
And did you ask in the french, italian, spanish, german ... forum? Don´t
these people have a voice and opinion? Are they excluded because a lot
of them can´t write english so well that they can participate here? I
don´t think the newsgroup+ww forum are very representative of the broad
player base.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
> either needed or will be especially helpful,
>
> effects. Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when
> it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player
> will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective
> opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to
> A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B
> concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring
> his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's
> down to
> 2 players then A will almost certainly win,)
>
> Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to
> table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to
> just table split cross-table instead. Even then, you can still table
> split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead (if you think you're
> going to get 0, 0.5 is still better than nothing). Alternatively,
> instead of 4-1 VP splits, it may be more common to see 3-2 VP splits
> instead.
>
> One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it
> becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table.
> Wtih an imperfect Archon (in that it has problems with adds and drops),
> I imagine there are going to be significantly more complaints when some
> players end up at 4-player tables while others are only at 5-player
> tables.
Very good points you make here Eric, basically showing that the new set
of ruling (allready sure to go into effect) aren´t refined to the point
they need to be.
I have one more concern: Who is going to check that the people are going
to follow through if the "You have to break your deal in 1-1"
situations? Like Eric said one can just loose by "accident" or if the
other 2-3 people go away from the table after being ousted (a common
practice) they can just seal it w/o playing.
Regular and valid now being severely hampered that encourages now
collusion where you still can get the same results "unter the table".
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> ira...@gmail.com wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up:
>>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>>
>> Overall, looks great! New draft rules are especially exciting!
>>
>> I'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related
>> rules but gave such little time to respond.
>
> Because I don't control when Dec. 1 comes.
>
> 2007 tournament rules are to be posted by Dec. 1
But there was no need to change this for 01.01.2007. It could have been
changed at the mid of the year or something. If you felt that this
needed a change for 2007 you should have started the discussion earlier.
Jump starts are not a good idea for such important changes.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> Depends. If the deal is means going into the heads-up match with:
>
> 3 versus 0 victory points, honoring the 3/2 split is not against play
> to win.
>
> If you go into the heads-up match with:
>
> 1 versus 2 victory points, both people must attempt to play to win. -
> so the person going into the final matchup has to break his deal if it
> meant him rolling over.
Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
--
johannes walch
Matthew T. Morgan
> Interesting... so the "pity VP" remains available.
If you mean 2 VPs, yes.
> Aka the "meat shield" VP, where you have the GW and allow your VP-less
> original predator to withdraw for a single VP at the end of the game, in
> return for not self-ousting in an otherwise hopeless situation.
No, withdrawal is worth .5 VPs now.
The winning player could withdraw herself to give her meatshield predator
a full VP for last man standing. Although this means the winning player
is only getting 2.5 or 3.5 VPs rather than 3 or 4. That might matter to
some people. Eric's example was that the winning player ousts 3 people,
then self-ousts (or concedes) to give her predator 2 VPs. That's a lot of
pity. :)
> That's a good thing, I think, because it encourages that player to stay
> alive as long as possible and not self-oust out of boredom, frustration,
> etc.
This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing more
kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP withdrawal,
self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from the dominant player
to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the game.
To give kind of a stupid example, imagine if Stefan had said to himself
"well, I'm never going to get Pat" at this year's NAC and self-ousted.
His predator probably would've wound up the NAC champ, despite never
having actually made any good progress against his prey. It's stupid
example because Stefan would've been denying himself second place and
that's probably not his play style anyway, but I think you can still find
the point in there.
Time will tell, I suppose.
Matt Morgan
James Coupe
<johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
>fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just
fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling.
When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those
and fix the other things later?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Tetragrammaton
news:zfODNrLB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>>Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
>>fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
>
> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just
> fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling.
>
> When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those
> and fix the other things later?
>
To me another great step would be the self-oust (actively self-transfer out
of pool)
banned altogether from tournament play.
Emiliano
tigernat1
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
> >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
> >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
>
> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just
> fine.
And creates new ones...like proving play-to-win at the 2 player level.
There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from
doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how
they HAVE to play? "NO, you CAN'T tap out hunting when you are down to
1 pool cause that is not playing to win."
> When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those
> and fix the other things later?
I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games
I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals
and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be
played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES
obviously isn't a game they can handle.
As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they
were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to
prove their worth in words.
Vegas gNat
Pat
news:2006120211...@fnord.io.com...
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Pat wrote:
>
>> Interesting... so the "pity VP" remains available.
>
> If you mean 2 VPs, yes.
>
>> Aka the "meat shield" VP, where you have the GW and allow your VP-less
>> original predator to withdraw for a single VP at the end of the game, in
>> return for not self-ousting in an otherwise hopeless situation.
>
> No, withdrawal is worth .5 VPs now.
>
> The winning player could withdraw herself to give her meatshield predator
> a full VP for last man standing. Although this means the winning player
> is only getting 2.5 or 3.5 VPs rather than 3 or 4. That might matter to
> some people. Eric's example was that the winning player ousts 3 people,
> then self-ousts (or concedes) to give her predator 2 VPs. That's a lot of
> pity. :)
>
I realized after I posted that the winning player would have to be the one
who withdraws, so it'd be 2.5 VP & GW (in a four player, or in a 5-player
where somebody else got a VP) or 3.5 VP & GW, but giving up the 0.5 VP would
be worth it to ensure that the GW is preserved.
I can't think of a real-life example where this has occurred, but in a JOL
game [*] where my Sens Dep'ing grand-prey destabilized the table, I gave Wes
a meatshield VP. Under the new rules, I would have been glad to take 3.5
instead of 4, to ensure that he didn't self-oust from frustration. (I was
playing Ben Swainbank's Demdemeh deck and had beaten him up pretty badly, so
it could be argued that frustrating me would have been a reasonable action
on his part.)
I wasn't responding to Eric's specific 3-2 scenario so much as I was to
LSJ's confirmation that once a player has sealed the GW, he is free to allow
the other guy to achieve a VP.
>> That's a good thing, I think, because it encourages that player to stay
>> alive as long as possible and not self-oust out of boredom, frustration,
>> etc.
>
> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing more
> kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP withdrawal,
> self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from the dominant player
> to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the game.
>
> To give kind of a stupid example, imagine if Stefan had said to himself
> "well, I'm never going to get Pat" at this year's NAC and self-ousted. His
> predator probably would've wound up the NAC champ, despite never having
> actually made any good progress against his prey. It's stupid example
> because Stefan would've been denying himself second place and that's
> probably not his play style anyway, but I think you can still find the
> point in there.
>
I'd have certainly been sad. :) But leaving that aside, yeah, I get your
point.
- Pat
[*] http://deckserver.net/jol3/league274, for what it's worth
Jeroen Rombouts
"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
news:1bjch.7696$P04....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
no offence, but what would that achieve? Instead of transfering out, you
transfer to 1 and tap out. For practical game-play, the only thing that
changes is that it happens in your predator's turn.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht
news:eks917$kgq$1...@news01.versatel.de...
Because no-one can offer that deal.
I mean: "you help me get 3, then you get the last 2" doesn' t mean much
when, at the moment he got his 3 VP, he has to play to win.
The only viable alternative is dealing cross table, which is more in the
spirit of the game and makes deals more of a gamble. The new standard deal
will probably be with you grandpredator (in a 5 player game) "i take 2, you
take 1 and we duke it out"
Me likes :-)
Tetragrammaton
"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:aukch.216307$lP1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
It's a big difference imho - that is, you can't blackmail another player
with self-oust threatening, and that, in a way or in another, your predator
(or someone for him/her) must actively do something to take your
last pool out - sometimes an action more or less can make big difference
in this game to achieve the victory.
Emiliano
Jeroen Rombouts
"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> schreef in bericht
news:Yzkch.216318$%L6.33...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
> The funny thing is: no-one will accept a 3-2 split anymore with his prey.
> Because no-one can offer that deal.
read some more, seems i'm mistaken... so I'll reply to my own post.
>
> I mean: "you help me get 3, then you get the last 2" doesn' t mean much
> when, at the moment he got his 3 VP, he has to play to win.
seems it does. But that means that everything blows right open when he
misses a VP down the line. Don't tell me that never happens....
Bram Vink
Jeroen Rombouts schreef:
He has already won, and can honor his deal. PTW doesn't enforce him in
any way to strive for the last VPs.
> The only viable alternative is dealing cross table, which is more in the
> spirit of the game and makes deals more of a gamble. The new standard deal
> will probably be with you grandpredator (in a 5 player game) "i take 2, you
> take 1 and we duke it out"
>
> Me likes :-)
Or just the regular 3/2 split.
joha...@scram.de
> I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games
> I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals
> and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be
> played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES
> obviously isn't a game they can handle.
You got balls, man. That was what I was thinking. I found it a bit to
arrogant to write it that open, but that´s the point. imho the whole
meddling with rules is just a way of some people to get around the fact
that they are not willing/able to develop some table talk skills. The
game works fine as it is (tournament rules wise) and there were some
complaints, but instead of complaining everybody should sit down and
think of better decks and try to work on his skills.
> As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they
> were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to
> prove their worth in words.
Right to the point. I hope we can have some more supporters in this
direction.
--
johannes walch
Jeroen Rombouts
"Bram Vink" <jja....@hccnet.nl> schreef in bericht
news:1165090492.2...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
.
>
> I mean: "you help me get 3, then you get the last 2" doesn' t mean much
> when, at the moment he got his 3 VP, he has to play to win.
He has already won, and can honor his deal. PTW doesn't enforce him in
any way to strive for the last VPs.
Yeah, i noticed. See my self-reply.
> The only viable alternative is dealing cross table, which is more in the
> spirit of the game and makes deals more of a gamble. The new standard deal
> will probably be with you grandpredator (in a 5 player game) "i take 2,
> you
> take 1 and we duke it out"
>
> Me likes :-)
Or just the regular 3/2 split.
It's kind of hard for a combat deck to get 3VP in a regular way without the
las man standing VP (in time limit, I mean) That's why I prefere the other
option.
Jeroen Rombouts
>
> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:aukch.216307$lP1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:1bjch.7696$P04....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> It's a big difference imho - that is, you can't blackmail another player
> with self-oust threatening, and that, in a way or in another, your
> predator
> (or someone for him/her) must actively do something to take your
> last pool out - sometimes an action more or less can make big difference
> in this game to achieve the victory.
>
But threatening with self oust is IME a good deterent against 3-2 splits.
Tetragrammaton
you
in an effective lost position, for allowing you a self-oust state/try
however -
and at that point it will make not difference if you threaten someone with a
self oust:
you will be out anyway.
I see self oust as a mean to just borrow a vpoint or an half vpoint from a
total
losing position, yet some kind of position where you can still hurt someone
by transferring you out, and blackmailing him/her with this.
Tetragrammaton
"Bram Vink" <jja....@hccnet.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1165068652.2...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Ok, thanks x the answer, altough i hope lsj will clear my mind about the 2
questions
above. ;-)
Kevin M.
> Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if
> the situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go
> to time" help from his grand predator)?
Play in L.A. for a while, Scott, and ask those particular players who have
fostered play-to-self-oust as a personal philosophy. Maybe they can tell
you. :P
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
Kevin M.
> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing
> more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP
> withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from
> the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the
> game.
Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from
self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win.
islando...@aol.com
> doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how
> they HAVE to play?
A judge already has the power to tell someone they have to play to win.
How is enforcing this in a 2-player game any harder than enforcing it
in a 3+ player game? I personally think it's easier, if anything.
This new rule won't need to be enforced--its existence will stop the
split deal from being offered in the first place. After Jan 1st, if a
player offers me a deal where I give them VPs and then they self-oust,
I will not take the deal in the first place. I know that if they are a
fair player, they will not be able to carry it out, and if they are
not--if they are willing to break the V:EKN tournament rules--then I'm
not sure I trust them anyway.
> I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games
> I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals
> and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be
> played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES
> obviously isn't a game they can handle.
Jyhad was "intended to be played" as a game where the players didn't
win because of the cards alone, or because of their table talk alone,
but because of both interacting. Ask Richard Garfield. He said he
didn't want victory to be entirely about either one of these. And
there was a time in Jyhad's past when table-splitting deals were so
rampant, that Game Wins were introduced in order to curb how much
stronger talking was than playing cards.
It seems we may have gotten to a point when that's true again, and
these measures are taken to ensure things are balanced again. If you
tell me you are against both this new rule and the GW rule, then I will
wonder whether your playgroup knows how to use deals to their full
potential, since without these rules, table deals are very strong,
maybe overwhelmingly strong in many cases. But if you tell me you
support the Game Win rule, I will ask you, "Why?" And, "Don't you
think these reasons are enough to act now, as well?"
> As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they
> were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to
> prove their worth in words.
I do agree that this happened in a blur. However, as LSJ said, this
was a step--I don't doubt for a minute that if it proves to be a bit
much, or too little, things will be changed appropriately in six
months.
In the meanwhile, I haven't played an endgame in a tournament, outside
of a finals game, for years. Long live the endgame!
-- Brian
Frederick Scott
news:KZrch.4275$B42...@newsfe12.phx...
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if
>> the situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go
>> to time" help from his grand predator)?
>
> Play in L.A. for a while, Scott, and ask those particular players who have
> fostered play-to-self-oust as a personal philosophy. Maybe they can tell
> you. :P
"If my non-negotiable demands are not immediately met, I'm going to totally
take out Paul Johnson!!! I'm not kidding!!!"
"Shut up, Paul. We're not impressed."
Jeroen
Tetragrammaton schreef:
That's what I meant. If cross table 2 people are agreeing on a 3-2
split, and you can see that they're probably going to make it. Why not
threaten with self ousting? If you let them play out the 3-2 split:
you have nothing, if you self oust: you still have nothing either their
deal is gone, or they are going for the 2-2-1 split, in which no-one
has a GW. And a lost game without another player winning a GW is better
than a lost game with someone winning a GW.
Please note that I'm referring to tournament play, otherwise the GW
doesn't really matter.
joha...@scram.de
> > There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from
> > doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how
> > they HAVE to play?
>
> A judge already has the power to tell someone they have to play to win.
> How is enforcing this in a 2-player game any harder than enforcing it
> in a 3+ player game? I personally think it's easier, if anything.
The difference is that until now people were usually playing to win,
because they WANT to win. Not there may be situations where they don´t
want to win, because they stick to their deal. They "try" to break but
don´t manage pitty. I can make up a lot of examples where it is almost
impossible for the judge to step in.
"Forgot to take the pool for the edge"
"Taste. Press. Shit, should have pressed first"
...
And you have to consider the fact the judge intervention should be
reduced to a minimum AND there are usually not many (enough) judges at
hand.
> This new rule won't need to be enforced--its existence will stop the
> split deal from being offered in the first place. After Jan 1st, if a
> player offers me a deal where I give them VPs and then they self-oust,
> I will not take the deal in the first place. I know that if they are a
> fair player, they will not be able to carry it out, and if they are
> not--if they are willing to break the V:EKN tournament rules--then I'm
> not sure I trust them anyway.
Perhaps you are doing this. But a lot of other people don´t. Or do it
like this: "Lets do a 4-1, oh wait it´s forbidden now". And then they
just play like it.
> > I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games
> > I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals
> > and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be
> > played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES
> > obviously isn't a game they can handle.
>
> Jyhad was "intended to be played" as a game where the players didn't
> win because of the cards alone, or because of their table talk alone,
> but because of both interacting. Ask Richard Garfield. He said he
> didn't want victory to be entirely about either one of these. And
> there was a time in Jyhad's past when table-splitting deals were so
> rampant, that Game Wins were introduced in order to curb how much
> stronger talking was than playing cards.
>
> It seems we may have gotten to a point when that's true again, and
> these measures are taken to ensure things are balanced again. If you
> tell me you are against both this new rule and the GW rule, then I will
> wonder whether your playgroup knows how to use deals to their full
> potential, since without these rules, table deals are very strong,
> maybe overwhelmingly strong in many cases. But if you tell me you
> support the Game Win rule, I will ask you, "Why?" And, "Don't you
> think these reasons are enough to act now, as well?"
That we have gotten to that point is IMHO a huge assumption. There has
been no real "survey" if players really feel that this is the case. The
only "data" that was acquired was a little whining in the newsgroup and
probably WW forums (which I dont read) plus some personal experience of
LSJ. Not nearly enough to justify I think.
> > As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they
> > were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to
> > prove their worth in words.
>
> I do agree that this happened in a blur. However, as LSJ said, this
> was a step--I don't doubt for a minute that if it proves to be a bit
> much, or too little, things will be changed appropriately in six
> months.
Why then wasn´t it thought out more thoroughly and then changed in 6
month? The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since
people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell. I am
really not against a change and I think the 0,5 for withdrawal is
probably a good idea. But I think the "have to break in 1-1" is
illogical and unenforceable.
--
johannes walch
joha...@scram.de
James Coupe schrieb:
> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
> >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
> >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
>
> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just
> fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling.
>
> When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those
> and fix the other things later?
Because it doesn´t really fix anything. It creates a practically
unenforceable rule that encourages collusion (in my opinion), so
instead of fixing anything it just makes things worse. The 0.5 for
withdraw is fine with me, by the way. Just the other one were you have
to go against your ally in a heads up doesn´t make any sense to me.
--
johannes walch
Ankur Gupta
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Small thing:
4.8. "allowble" is misspelled.
Otherwise, I love it. I'm totally ready to Play. The. Game.
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
Petri Wessman
> Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to
> table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to
> just table split cross-table instead.
Which is a good thing. Cross-table table splits bolster the normal flow of
the game, in which cross-table players are your allies (or at least
neutral) and you actively fight against your prey and predator.
Prey-predator VP deals go against this, and I see them as much worse than
cross-table ones for that very reason-
//Petri
Pat
> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote:
>> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing
>> more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP
>> withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from
>> the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the
>> game.
>
> Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from
> self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win.
>
It's correct, isn't it, that a player with no hope of getting a VP is
allowed to die in a manner he chooses? So that if these individuals were in
a hopeless position, self-ousting would have been allowed.
Since you disallowed the self-oust, you must have felt they were not in
hopeless position. Could you give us a brief description of game state that
caused you to reach this conclusion? (No names needed, I'm just curious
about your interpretation of game state vs that of the players'.)
Thx,
Pat
Petri Wessman
> Solid move, LSJ
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Orpheus wrote:
>> 3.7.2 (Formerly 3.8.2) Reduce VP award for withdrawal to a half VP.
>>
>> CLAP ! CLAP !! CLAP !!!
>>
>> --
>> Orpheus
I'll just add a few more "clap clap"'s here :)
Even though the new changes will naturally need time to see what the
implications are, and even though they naturally won't solve everything, I
see this as a big step in the right direction. More small, temporary deals
and more cross-table deals + help, more concentrating on prey (and
predator), and generally more Playing The Game. One hopes, at least.
//Petri
LSJ
> James Coupe wrote:
>> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
>> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>>> Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
>>> fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
>> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just
>> fine.
>
> And creates new ones...like proving play-to-win at the 2 player level.
> There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from
> doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how
> they HAVE to play? "NO, you CAN'T tap out hunting when you are down to
> 1 pool cause that is not playing to win."
This. But it is nothing new. The judge has always had to step in whenever
illegal play is being deliberately attempted.
LSJ
> imho the whole
> meddling with rules is just a way of some people to get around the fact
> that they are not willing/able to develop some table talk skills.
It's an affirmation that a bigger emphasis on the game itself rather is desired
by the V:EKN rules makers, instead of an emphasis on talking to subvert the
underlying game.
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FXech.2943$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> echia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
>>>>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
>>>>> either needed or will be especially helpful,
>>> I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you
>>> had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November
>>> 29th:
>> Correct.
>
> It would be nice, in the future, to get a little more time to discuss a
> thing before it comes up against a deadline where action must be taken (or
> not).
Obviously.
Just as obviously, it is nicer to get what can be gotten in the 2007 rule into
the 2007 rules rather than wait for the 2008 rules.
LSJ
> LSJ schrieb:
>> echia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think
>>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was
>>> either needed or will be especially helpful,
>>
>> That's why I had invited discussion.
>
> effect at 01.01.2007 is not exactly what a call discussion.
I'm talking about the posts in which the proposal was made that ended with an
invitation for discussion.
> Or are you talking of the hugely confusing "Fixing Day1 of NAC" thread
> that was very hard to follow when you haven´t got several spare hours
> per week to read the newsgroup.
Leave the hyperbole out please.
> And did you ask in the french, italian, spanish, german ... forum? Don´t
> these people have a voice and opinion? Are they excluded because a lot
> of them can´t write english so well that they can participate here? I
> don´t think the newsgroup+ww forum are very representative of the broad
> player base.
Time constraints being what they were, the best forum for rapid discussion was used.
But, if you want to get picky, no set of web fourms is very representative of
the broad player base.
Frederick Scott
Well, the obvious suggestion was what I think Johannes said elsewhere: some of
these possibly could have waited another six months in order to get more complete
discussion. If they couldn't, then perhaps more frequent updates of the tournament
rules than every six months should be considered.
Granted, these are all judgment calls.
Fred
James Coupe
tigernat1 <tige...@gmail.com> writes:
>I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games
>I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals
>and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be
>played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES
>obviously isn't a game they can handle.
Actually, Richard Garfield has been quite explicit that one of his
desires for V:TES was that each player should have distinct and
conflicting goals - that's what the predator-prey relationship is all
about. This works pretty well when your emphasis is the current game.
When there's only one game to win, there's only one game to win.
When you have multiple rounds, the predator-prey/VP goal conflict
between players doesn't work so well. Players can afford to throw away
details for the greater good - both of them reaching the finals. Once
one player has slipped sufficiently that he doesn't think he can win,
his goals become the same as another player's goals - let that player
win, and let me get the scraps.
Having two players have the same goals is NOT what Garfield intended.
While it would be great to find a rules change that stepped away from
the requirement for judges to intervene, we don't have that. So instead
we have a situation where certain play is illegal.
Players having the same goal is not the way Jyhad was meant to be
played. It's where we are, and it's where we're trying to head away
from.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
joha...@scram.de
I was looking on the (WW/V:EKN) website for a specification of the
group of people that are the "V:EKN rules makers" but I didn´t find
anything. Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this? Is
there a formal procedure how such a rule change is conducted and
approved in this group?
Thank you.
--
johannes walch
islando...@aol.com
> > these measures are taken to ensure things are balanced again. If you
> > tell me you are against both this new rule and the GW rule, then I will
> > wonder whether your playgroup knows how to use deals to their full
> > potential, since without these rules, table deals are very strong,
> > maybe overwhelmingly strong in many cases. But if you tell me you
> > support the Game Win rule, I will ask you, "Why?" And, "Don't you
> > think these reasons are enough to act now, as well?"
>
> That we have gotten to that point is IMHO a huge assumption. There has
> been no real "survey" if players really feel that this is the case. The
> only "data" that was acquired was a little whining in the newsgroup and
> probably WW forums (which I dont read) plus some personal experience of
> LSJ. Not nearly enough to justify I think.
Most of the games I played this year ended with either a table split or
a mutual withdrawal deal (offered in the last 4 minutes). I don't
think my experience is too unusual.
Even if this weren't the case, day 1 of the NAC this year was the
really big problem that needed addressing. The NAC was a terrific
event, of course, but day 1 produced some of the worst games of Jyhad
that I've ever played. People didn't need more than like 3VP to
advance to day 2, so they all offered the table split deal as soon as
they thought they could carry it out.
You were there, and I thought you agreed that the 2-day format was
terrible for the Americans, due to only having 60-some players? If the
rules issued here a few days ago were in place, I don't think it would
have happened like that--it would have been nearly impossible.
> > I do agree that this happened in a blur. However, as LSJ said, this
> > was a step--I don't doubt for a minute that if it proves to be a bit
> > much, or too little, things will be changed appropriately in six
> > months.
>
> Why then wasn´t it thought out more thoroughly and then changed in 6
> month?
LSJ had to make a decision by December 1st. He could either let us
play some (probably better) games with a so-so fix, and then ask us for
feedback in six months, or he could leave everything alone--which I can
pretty much guarantee wouldn't have made any game any better, or taught
us anything.
> The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since
> people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell.
Not at the NAC day 1, they didn't. Again, I thought you agreed with
this.
> I am
> really not against a change and I think the 0,5 for withdrawal is
> probably a good idea. But I think the "have to break in 1-1" is
> illogical and unenforceable.
I think this could be a good discussion.
Let's pretend that we both agree that something should be done about
table splits, but that the current rule hasn't been issued yet. What
would you have the new rule say? You could say "no offering deals
which involve the final state of VPs", or "no ousting yourself (or
intentionally weakening yourself) as part of a deal", but I don't think
either one of those would be as good as "no honoring a losing deal once
the game is 2 players".
Any suggestions? I'll give it some thought tomorrow when I wake up.
I'm looking forward to this.
-- Brian
joha...@scram.de
> Time constraints being what they were, the best forum for rapid discussion was used.
But these time constraints were only imposed if we assume an immediate
need for a rules change. I can´t see that the situation was so bad
that we didn´t have time for another 6 month to refine the changes and
get them into the mid-2007 update.
--
johannes walch
joha...@scram.de
>
> Even if this weren't the case, day 1 of the NAC this year was the
> really big problem that needed addressing. The NAC was a terrific
> event, of course, but day 1 produced some of the worst games of Jyhad
> that I've ever played. People didn't need more than like 3VP to
> advance to day 2, so they all offered the table split deal as soon as
> they thought they could carry it out.
>
> You were there, and I thought you agreed that the 2-day format was
> terrible for the Americans, due to only having 60-some players? If the
> rules issued here a few days ago were in place, I don't think it would
> have happened like that--it would have been nearly impossible.
Yes I agreed on the fact that the 2-day format didn´t work out so well
for the NAC, basically because the numbers weren´t right. Stéphane
and I worked out that proposal under the assumption of a larger
player-base on Day-1 (100+ like in the EC). It worked pretty well for
the EC, though, you had to have a GW except for a lucky player with 0/5
but you couldn´t count on that so pretty much everyone HAD to play for
the GW. And I didn´t see anybody giving a GW away after they had their
first, because going to the final of a 100+ player tournament IS a big
incentive.
> LSJ had to make a decision by December 1st. He could either let us
> play some (probably better) games with a so-so fix, and then ask us for
> feedback in six months, or he could leave everything alone--which I can
> pretty much guarantee wouldn't have made any game any better, or taught
> us anything.
Well there could have been a partial fix through the 0,5 VP for a
withdrawal. Test that and then see if it is good enough. I am really
only not-so-happy about the other rule where you have to break the deal
(it´s really wicked that you can make the deal, though) in a 1-1.
> > The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since
> > people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell.
>
> Not at the NAC day 1, they didn't. Again, I thought you agreed with
> this.
Yes I did. But the NAC is not till next October so no need for a hasty
change. And it could have been easily fixed by decreasing the number of
players for Day-2 (which would automatically increase the fun of those
that don´t make it, because they are a good number of players for that
side events)
> > I am
> > really not against a change and I think the 0,5 for withdrawal is
> > probably a good idea. But I think the "have to break in 1-1" is
> > illogical and unenforceable.
>
> I think this could be a good discussion.
>
> Let's pretend that we both agree that something should be done about
> table splits, but that the current rule hasn't been issued yet. What
> would you have the new rule say? You could say "no offering deals
> which involve the final state of VPs", or "no ousting yourself (or
> intentionally weakening yourself) as part of a deal", but I don't think
> either one of those would be as good as "no honoring a losing deal once
> the game is 2 players".
>
> Any suggestions? I'll give it some thought tomorrow when I wake up.
> I'm looking forward to this.
Basically I would have sticked to the 0.5 for withdrawal first, because
the 3/2 split would have been 2.5 / 1.5 or (3-1-1, 2.5 - 0.5 -0.5)
which IS a disadvantage in tournaments because those 0.5 (or more VPs
if you do it in several rounds) can really place you in 6th instead of
the final.
I am also not really of the opinion that there should be done anything
about table splits in general, I rather think that we should fix the
certain circumstances under which people make "stupid" table splits
(like the 1st day NAC).
A much bigger problems than table splits are time-outs IMHO. I had a
lot more frustration from time-outs this year than I had of table
splits going wrong. So if I were in the position to enforce new rules I
would have tried to create rules that speed up the game. Funnily
table-splits DO speed up the game because after the split everything
falls apart quickly AND it´s better than a time-out. Instead of table
splits we will see a lot more (than allready) time outs now, I fear. I
time-outed game is much worse (in my personal experience) than a game
that ended in a split, no matter if I was part of it or not.
--
johannes walch
Kevin M.
Pat, one got 1VP fairly easily and almost got 2. One got a *GAME WIN*.
In my opinion, both were colluding and rolling-over, and I had only come
over to the two tables due to other players at the tables asking for a
judge and claiming that the players were not playing-to-win.
Now, they always could have just scooped, and there wouldn't have been
anything I could have done about it, except informed WW, I guess, but the
fact that the didn't and then went on to play the game tells me a lot.
Pat
> Pat <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote:
>>>> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing
>>>> more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP
>>>> withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from
>>>> the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the
>>>> game.
>>>
>>> Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from
>>> self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win.
>>
>> It's correct, isn't it, that a player with no hope of getting a VP is
>> allowed to die in a manner he chooses? So that if these individuals
>> were in a hopeless position, self-ousting would have been allowed.
>>
>> Since you disallowed the self-oust, you must have felt they were not
>> in hopeless position. Could you give us a brief description of game
>> state that caused you to reach this conclusion? (No names needed, I'm
>> just curious about your interpretation of game state vs that of the
>> players'.)
>
> Pat, one got 1VP fairly easily and almost got 2. One got a *GAME WIN*.
> In my opinion, both were colluding and rolling-over, and I had only come
> over to the two tables due to other players at the tables asking for a
> judge and claiming that the players were not playing-to-win.
>
Wow... don't think I've ever seen that happen. Thanks for the info.
- Pat
James Coupe
joha...@scram.de writes:
>
>James Coupe schrieb:
>
>> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
>> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>> >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to
>> >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless.
>>
>> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just
>> fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling.
>>
>> When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those
>> and fix the other things later?
>
>Because it doesn´t really fix anything.
This is simply not true. By stopping a large number (though far from
all) of unhelpful deals, it forces players to play the game in a number
of circumstances where they currently don't - instead, they play the
other players.
This is a bonus for the game. Newbies can turn up and not get shafted
by the fact that two players who trust each other implicitly are sat
next to them, for example.
> It creates a practically
>unenforceable rule that encourages collusion (in my opinion), so
>instead of fixing anything it just makes things worse.
Judges still have to adjudicate collusion anyway. This is nothing new.
>The 0.5 for
>withdraw is fine with me, by the way. Just the other one were you have
>to go against your ally in a heads up doesn´t make any sense to me.
That's because, as you've said elsewhere[0], it's an "obscure problem"
that "only some people seem to have." It is far from an obscure problem
limited to only some people.
That you think otherwise suggests you don't have enough experience of
this to comment with any accuracy. It is not only happening in obscure
deals in a backwater playgroup - other people have been bringing up many
examples from high profile tournaments.
You seem to be in denial about the facts of the matter. Why this is,
I'm not sure. However, when you are better able to understand that this
isn't an obscure problem occurring only for some people, you may be able
to make headway in your arguments. Because it is quite the reverse,
action over this sort of thing has been requested by players on many,
many occasions, and many would say this action is long overdue.
Will it fix everything? No. But it'll fix a hell of a lot more than
sitting on our hands and doing nothing about a real problem for many
people.
[0] Message-ID: <1165089348.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
agzocgud
gets an optimal draw and ousts B in a couple of rounds. He also damages
the whole table with a couple of nasty votes, so all others are pretty
weak. I have no chance of ousting D, who has cards in play that are
nearly impossible for me to bypass (say tons of votes, demonstration,
Quentin and I play a vote deck), but are trumphed by the deck of A.
I´m a deck duck, but D has a small chance to oust E if he is given a
few turns. In my influence phase, I have 3 pool, no untapped minions
and zero untaps in my deck. My predator (A) has many minions with
plenty of bleed in play.
Isn´t smarter to selfoust here to make sure that A gets a clean sweep?
In that case, I´m at an even level with more players and have
maximized the number of tournament points that I can get from this
table (30 instead of 24 (5-0 compared to 4-1))
Is tournament points a factor when you play to maximize your sucess?
LSJ
> LSJ schrieb:
>
>> joha...@scram.de wrote:
>>> imho the whole
>>> meddling with rules is just a way of some people to get around the fact
>>> that they are not willing/able to develop some table talk skills.
>> It's an affirmation that a bigger emphasis on the game itself rather is desired
>> by the V:EKN rules makers, instead of an emphasis on talking to subvert the
>> underlying game.
>
> I was looking on the (WW/V:EKN) website for a specification of the
> group of people that are the "V:EKN rules makers" but I didn´t find
> anything. Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this?
I am.
> Is
> there a formal procedure how such a rule change is conducted and
> approved in this group?
Not outside of what the VTES-players see, no.
Issues are brought up and analyzed, occasionally leading to changes in the rules.
LSJ
> Even if this weren't the case, day 1 of the NAC this year was the
> really big problem that needed addressing. The NAC was a terrific
> event, of course, but day 1 produced some of the worst games of Jyhad
> that I've ever played. People didn't need more than like 3VP to
> advance to day 2, so they all offered the table split deal as soon as
> they thought they could carry it out.
>
> You were there, and I thought you agreed that the 2-day format was
> terrible for the Americans, due to only having 60-some players? If the
> rules issued here a few days ago were in place, I don't think it would
> have happened like that--it would have been nearly impossible.
It's not the 2-day format inherently; it's the too-large cut point in th 2-day
format that lead to the problems in the NAC.
Damnans
joha...@scram.de wrote:
> islando...@aol.com schrieb:
[...]
> A much bigger problems than table splits are time-outs IMHO. I had a
> lot more frustration from time-outs this year than I had of table
> splits going wrong. So if I were in the position to enforce new rules I
> would have tried to create rules that speed up the game. Funnily
> table-splits DO speed up the game because after the split everything
> falls apart quickly AND it´s better than a time-out. Instead of table
> splits we will see a lot more (than allready) time outs now, I fear. I
> time-outed game is much worse (in my personal experience) than a game
> that ended in a split, no matter if I was part of it or not.
Time outs are generally due to bad play (i.e., no players willing to
break a misunderstood "game balance" by not letting other players die).
The fewer the players at a table, the more time the remaining players
will have available to play to win; and the lower the chances will be
for the game to time out.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Salem
> I am really
> only not-so-happy about the other rule where you have to break the deal
That's no different to previously. It has never ever been illegal to
make any deal at all. The only things that were illegal were _honouring_
(ie: going through with) deals that weren't "play to win" deals.
The new rule just sort of extends/remodels what is to be considered
'playing to win'.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Slytherin
LSJ wrote:
> crispyfloss wrote:
> > The use of the term "activity" in the rule is a little vague to me. Is
> > the "Activity" Henry hunting, or Magaji blocking, or the playing of the
> > Earth Meld, or the recycling of the Earth Meld? You're penalizing one
> > of the players (by making Henry be bloodless or by letting him hunt
> > when he could otherwise be blocked), and it's not clear to me which one
> > is "at fault."
>
> The activity is the first thing that happens after game state is restored.
> The event, if you prefer.
>
> No fault is assigned.
>
> For Henry's case, it is abundantly clear which comes first, the hunt or the
> block attempt.
>
> In other cases, it should be clear as well.
>
> > If activity == "action," that's a fine bright-line although maybe it
> > will be unfair from time to time.
>
> activity = any event; a fine bright-line.
>
> > Logically I would consider the recycling of the card to be the
> > "activity" that restores the game state, since every step before that
> > each player can say - well, if he doesn't block it's not a loop; well,
> > if he doesn't play Earth Meld it's not a loop; well, as long as I don't
> > recycle it's not a loop.
>
> But the rule doesn't prohibit the restoration of game state. It only prevents
> the same event after game state is restored.
>
> > It also prevents you from prospectively saying: you can't do this, even
> > if something else might happen so it turns out differently. You let
> > people play, and only at the ultimate step when the player says "now I
> > do this" do you say, "that will close the loop, so you can't."
>
> You allow that ultimate step (to close the loop), then when the player says "now
> I do this" where "this" is the same "this" from the loop, then you say "that
> will continue the loop, so you can't".
>
> > It's certainly a queer stance to take, though, and I'd wager that
> > Taylor would prefer to be forbidden from hunting, and so be able to
> > stay up with Earth Meld in hand, then be forbidden from recycilng. But
> > that's not within his discretion.
>
> No discretion, no. That is simply what the rule effects.
>
> > Unless someone can think up of another example where this could happen,
> > I don't think it's worth any more thought.
>
> Certainly no more now than the what it should have received when first proposed. :-)
That is OK, but what happens if Henry has to hunt as a Mandatory action
(i.e. is empty). Unless you have another mandatory action which could
be done which might cause a stop in that (someone else must rush the
Majagi with No Secrets), the game rules themselves hit an impass (as I
am not going to let Henry take a dirt nap if I can Earth Meld). The
only exception I can think of is that if you must do this activity, and
the outcome is going to be the same, you forfeit your Minion Phase
until something else has happened, which kills the game for Henry's
Methuselah.
Or did I miss the answer to this?
Just a thought
Andy
VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
Slytherin
Blooded Sand wrote:
> LSJ: You are da man!!! Thanks for the withdrawal modification, it is
> definitely a big leap in the right direction
>
> To all else: If a table is being dealed to a 3-2 split, then logically
> it means there are 3 players being excluded from this deal, yes? So
> what is stopping those players from actively, vehemently and with all
> force available ousting the deal makers first? if I am on a table,
> where my prey and grandprey are table splitting, i would rather end the
> game with 1 or even zero VP's than allow them to get their deal
> through. And to all who are going to go"But that's not PTW". Yes, it
> is. If am already being excluded from any possible VP's due to a table
> split, I could quite easily argue that I have already lost the game,
> and as such am free to take any action I deem necessary to promote my
> standings in the game. if that means annihilating the dealmakers, so as
> to allow a free standing game after the are ousted, great
>
> Remember, this game has the built in mechanic of pred player prey for
> ver good reason, very few, if any (excluding prince nergally madness)
> can withstand a continous and combined assault from 3 other decks. So
> essentially you could oust the deal makers, or even just one of them,
> then get on with (gotto love Ankur)
> Play.
> The.
> Game!!!
Agreed. In my second ever tournament, (no GW at this time). My pred
makes a deal with his pred - let me get 2 vps, I'll roll over and let
you get 3vps.
His pred agreed, but got ousted by a weenie swarm, so he offered the
same deal to his new pred, who agreed.
I made a deal with my prey based on this in that this guy has no
pressure on him, so let me rush backwards and stuff up his game, just
don't do anything to me as the deal he's made wipes you out as well. My
Prey agreed with me and just walled up (as he couldn't do much about
the weenie swarm).
My predator actually had a go at me for not allowing him to get through
his deal, and at 15 mintes before tie, his predator (who by this time
had about 30+ minions) told him if he didn't hurry up, he'd have to
break the deal.
It's great making deals, but it is so much better forcing the situation
where others deals are going to have to be broken if anyone is to get
anything from the game.
Andy
VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
P.S. I got ousted, but the weenie swarm had to go for the jugular in
order to actually get anything more the 1.5 and so then swept. In the
end, my strategy of losing but breaking the deal made worked.
LSJ
> That is OK, but what happens if Henry has to hunt as a Mandatory action
> (i.e. is empty). Unless you have another mandatory action which could
> be done which might cause a stop in that (someone else must rush the
> Majagi with No Secrets), the game rules themselves hit an impass (as I
> am not going to let Henry take a dirt nap if I can Earth Meld).
Much like an empty vampire carrying a Talbot's Chainsaw.
The vampire with the mandatory but prohibited action is stuck and cannot perform
any action, but that's as "stuck" as it gets -- the other minions controlled by
that Methuselah are free to take actions or the Methuselah can end her minion
phase as normal.
Slytherin
Cool, as long as it just freezes the minion, and allows you to continue
with rest of Minion phase as normal.
Johannes Walch
Absolutely correct! But, how can it be fixed?
Should we include a paragraph in the rules that forbids bad play and if
somebody plays bad we just disqualify him? Probably not a good solution :)
Seriously: Do you have any idea how this could be addressed, because I
think it´s really annyoing.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> That's because, as you've said elsewhere[0], it's an "obscure problem"
> that "only some people seem to have." It is far from an obscure problem
> limited to only some people.
Can you point out the post to me where I said that it is an "obscure
problem"?
And I never said only some people are experiencing this. I said only
some people see this as a sufficiently big problem to justify a rules
change. And that is certainly true, as there are some people that did
back up my point.
> That you think otherwise suggests you don't have enough experience of
> this to comment with any accuracy. It is not only happening in obscure
> deals in a backwater playgroup - other people have been bringing up many
> examples from high profile tournaments.
I bow to your superior experience that makes you more accurate in
commenting on stuff I never actually said.
> You seem to be in denial about the facts of the matter. Why this is,
> I'm not sure. However, when you are better able to understand that this
> isn't an obscure problem occurring only for some people, you may be able
> to make headway in your arguments. Because it is quite the reverse,
> action over this sort of thing has been requested by players on many,
> many occasions, and many would say this action is long overdue.
>
> Will it fix everything? No. But it'll fix a hell of a lot more than
> sitting on our hands and doing nothing about a real problem for many
> people.
My main concern was that I thought the "fix" was done hastily and should
have been different (probably better). I was making the other points not
to say that this problem does not exist but that it isn´t so urgent that
it didn´t have another 6 month to come up with a refined solution. I am
not sure if you got my point.
And I was diagreeing with the way and time frame given for discussion of
a solution.
--
johannes walch