Rules Change (Attn: Los Angeles)
firstco...@aol.com
immediately. There is a thread right now which asks whether ending the
game "after the current action ends" would be better.
This spawned questions about judgment and "drawing lines in the sand",
such as "When has an action ended?" and "When has an action been
announced?" The first question is tough. However, I think strict
players can help answer the second question.
Why? Because one easy measure of whether an action has been declared
is whether or not a player can "take it back".
I've heard Darby say "It's been played", "You've declared it", and "The
card is on the table". To his credit, I've never seen anyone disagree
with him when he says it. My experience across other tournaments gives
the same results, making me think the issue of whether an action has
been declared is fairly easy to determine.
Please, if you are a player in LA (or another strict playgroup), could
you relate your experiences on this matter? Does "No, you played it"
usually hold, or is there often a bit of contention around this sort of
thing?
I would say that if players have had little to no trouble determining
when an action has been declared, and have experienced difficulty
determining when an action has ended...perhaps that speaks in favor of
the proposed change?
-- Brian
Known reasons to change:
Necessity (not necessary = keep old rule)
Ease of judgment (hard to call = keep old rule)
Other criteria...?
salem
>Please, if you are a player in LA (or another strict playgroup), could
>you relate your experiences on this matter? Does "No, you played it"
>usually hold, or is there often a bit of contention around this sort of
>thing?
we sometimes try a 'chess rule' that if you still have your hand
touching the minion, you can take it back. to an extent.
that sort of thing would need some hard lines draw around to get it to
a workable state, but usually 'nah! you took your hand off! it's
bleeding! the War Ghoul blocks...' convinces people an action is
declared. well, maybe without the war ghoul bit.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
henrik isaksson
news:1104140042.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't see the big deal. How is it any harder to call time after everyone
has declined to play more effects (Lifeboon, Extremis Boon, Delaying, Eagles
sight) than drawing it when someone has successfully declared an action? All
the above effects have well defined timing windows. With your proposal you
move the grey line back a few inches to "is the last action really fully
resolved" instead.
5 seconds left, prey with two pool and no minion, me with two minions. First
one bleed for one, second declared bleed for one. Crosstable guy: "Wait, I'm
still thinking about (insert table messing of your choice).
> -- Brian
>
> Known reasons to change:
> Necessity (not necessary = keep old rule)
> Ease of judgment (hard to call = keep old rule)
Good criterias. It's not necessary to change anything, as everything is
fine, and it really can't get any easier than it is now. When time is
called, there's no more time. The end.
/henrik isaksson
time out
Legendre
> The current rules state that when time is called, the game ends
> immediately. There is a thread right now which asks whether ending
the
> game "after the current action ends" would be better.
>
> This spawned questions about judgment and "drawing lines in the
sand",
> such as "When has an action ended?" and "When has an action been
> announced?" The first question is tough. However, I think strict
> players can help answer the second question.
(snip)
> Please, if you are a player in LA (or another strict playgroup),
could
> you relate your experiences on this matter? Does "No, you played it"
> usually hold, or is there often a bit of contention around this sort
of
> thing?
>
(snip)
Because of the existence of cardless actions, I've always drawn the
point of no return in my head at the physical tapping of the acting
minion -- if it turns, it's acting, or blocking, or deflecting, or
whatever. If it's shaking under your hand and you're moving it back
and forth trying to decide whether Arika or Smudge is the best
blocker... then it's still up in the air. But once it's horizontal,
it's committed.
I've never really had an argument about it, though, and I tend to tap
*before* I play a card, so everyone else I play with could be going off
of the playing of the card instead.
-Michael
Robert Goudie
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> The current rules state that when time is called, the game ends
> immediately. There is a thread right now which asks whether ending
the
> game "after the current action ends" would be better.
>
> This spawned questions about judgment and "drawing lines in the
sand",
> such as "When has an action ended?" and "When has an action been
> announced?" The first question is tough. However, I think strict
> players can help answer the second question.
>
> Why? Because one easy measure of whether an action has been declared
> is whether or not a player can "take it back".
This just begs the question, however. Sure you can't "take it back"
after its been declared. But that doesn't inform us about when it
becomes declared.
> I've heard Darby say "It's been played", "You've declared it", and
"The
> card is on the table". To his credit, I've never seen anyone
disagree
> with him when he says it. My experience across other tournaments
gives
> the same results, making me think the issue of whether an action has
> been declared is fairly easy to determine.
No one argues about whether or not its been declared or not because
time doesn't usually end in the middle of the declaration. :) There
have been disagreements about whether an action has been fully
declared, however, when a player tries to return a card to their hand.
> Please, if you are a player in LA (or another strict playgroup),
could
> you relate your experiences on this matter? Does "No, you played it"
> usually hold, or is there often a bit of contention around this sort
of
> thing?
Usually holds. But, as I said, time doesn't typically run out in the
middle of, just before, or just after the declaration (and it wouldn't
matter if it did).
> I would say that if players have had little to no trouble determining
> when an action has been declared, and have experienced difficulty
> determining when an action has ended...perhaps that speaks in favor
of
> the proposed change?
We normally don't have to split hairs over time ending during
declaration of or the ending of actions. Since we aren't in a time bind
when an action is announced, we just wait to respond until its been
undeniably announced...maybe when blocks are requested. In practice,
we have little to no trouble determining when an action has ended as
well. People play Freak Drive, pool is lost, card costs are paid, etc.
Nobody has trouble with either one until you try to break it down into
the exact millisecond that time is called and compare it to the exact
millisecond that something is announced or completed.
-Robert
***JediMike***
> Please, if you are a player in LA (or another strict playgroup),
could
> you relate your experiences on this matter? Does "No, you played it"
> usually hold, or is there often a bit of contention around this sort
of
> thing?
>
Typically we follow the guidline that if a minon is declared and the
action is fully announced ("Igo computer hack bleeds"), as well as a
card played if nessary, that a action has begun and therefore cannot
be taken back. Our playgroup has agreed to this in practice so we
follow it. We feel it makes us tighter players.
> I would say that if players have had little to no trouble determining
> when an action has been declared, and have experienced difficulty
> determining when an action has ended...perhaps that speaks in favor
of
> the proposed change?
AGREED! Derek Ray posted earlier that the simple task of "tapping" a
vampire could be all that is required to define the start of an action.
I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge, as well as easy
for the table to visulize. I'd really like to see this change made, the
abillity to finish an announced action if time is called during the
action would serve the better of the game. IMO.
***JediMike***
Robert Goudie
> AGREED! Derek Ray posted earlier that the simple task of "tapping" a
> vampire could be all that is required to define the start of an
action.
> I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge,
Really? It's easy to define but that's not the same thing. Let's
assume we're using the proposed rule (tapped=announced) for a second
and play your favorite football game, "You Make The Call"...
You are all further away than "just across the room" but it'll have to
do. :) We've just completed a game here at work. At the two hour
mark, someone made use of the company intercom and announced "time".
Before time, Justin had his prey, Elmer, on the ropes. I've now
switched on the webcam for your remote Head Judge's opinion. You see
the table and see Justin's got a fully tapped vampire and a Govern in
his hand. Justin claims that the vampire was fully tapped *before*
time was called. His prey, Elmer claims that Justin had not tapped the
vampire before time was called and that he tapped it after. None of the
other players were paying attention and have no opinion on the matter.
You make the call...
How'd you do?
Let's pick up from where we left off and play again. Instead of having
no opinion, the other players say the following:
Ben is another one of us nerdy programmer guys and chimes in that
Justin was somewhere around 32 degrees tapped when the judge began to
speak and that Justin was possibly about about 81 degrees tapped as the
judge pronounced the "m" sound. As usual, Sean is already ousted but
thinks that Justin may have reached 90 degrees tapped before the judge
was done saying "time" but that he hadn't started before the judge's
proclamation. The last player, Denver, thinks Justin did begin tapping
before the judge made a peep, but that he was only about 35 degrees
tapped as the judge's proclamation was completed. The judge on the
scene, me, is mumbling something about "It..it..happened so fast... I
was only taking a sip of my scotch...I missed it! How could I have
missed it!" Players keep replaying the tapping and "time" announcement
for you, each tapping their vampires and announcing "time" at various
points and saying "it was kinda like this
"tttt-tiiiii-taaaa--tttiiiimmmm-ttapppp" and then redoing it, no no, it
was more like this..." Of course, no one does it exactly the same way
during any of their suppossedly accurate recreations. You make the
call....
> I'd really like to see this change made, the
> abillity to finish an announced action if time is called during the
> action would serve the better of the game. IMO.
Sure, some players may prefer the proposed system (finish announced
actions) for aesthetic reasons or whatever. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm sure it could work just fine. I just don't seeing how this is
overall any easier to judge than what we have now (We could easily
carve up the ending of an action the same way...hands moving towards
pool or moving to pickup cards, etc).
-Robert
***JediMike***
> > I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge,
>
> Really?
Yes. There is only one item to judge (start of turn) instead of 10+
items to judge (end of turn)
> You make the call...
>
> How'd you do?
I never said that this proposed change would eliminate all tough
judging calls. I'm mearly stating that the ablity to finsh one's
action, if time is called during the stated action, would benifit the
better of the game.
>
> Let's pick up from where we left off and play again. Instead of
having
> no opinion, the other players say the following:
>
Yes, yes, any number of worst case senerios can be presented for any
side of this/any argument. The question that needs to be answered is
does allowing the announced action to complete, if time is called
during the stated action, make the game better that the current rules
of game ends when time end. I prefer the "completed action" senerio.
But hey, that's just me.
> I just don't seeing how this is
> overall any easier to judge than what we have now (We could easily
> carve up the ending of an action the same way...hands moving towards
> pool or moving to pickup cards, etc).
>
Was the minion tapped? Maybe it's just me again but that seems,
overall, pretty easy to judge. Can you think of anything easier?
***JediMike***
Morgan Vening
<Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote:
>
>> Please, if you are a player in LA (or another strict playgroup),
>could
>> you relate your experiences on this matter? Does "No, you played it"
>> usually hold, or is there often a bit of contention around this sort
>of
>> thing?
>>
>
>Typically we follow the guidline that if a minon is declared and the
>action is fully announced ("Igo computer hack bleeds"), as well as a
>card played if nessary, that a action has begun and therefore cannot
>be taken back. Our playgroup has agreed to this in practice so we
>follow it. We feel it makes us tighter players.
>
>> I would say that if players have had little to no trouble determining
>> when an action has been declared, and have experienced difficulty
>> determining when an action has ended...perhaps that speaks in favor
>of
>> the proposed change?
>
>AGREED! Derek Ray posted earlier that the simple task of "tapping" a
>vampire could be all that is required to define the start of an action.
>I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge, as well as easy
>for the table to visulize. I'd really like to see this change made, the
>abillity to finish an announced action if time is called during the
>action would serve the better of the game. IMO.
I think acknowledgement by the target (or Prey if undirected, as they
have first opportunity to block) is a requirement of a 'started'
action. To use the above example, and extrapolate...
"Igo computer hack bleeds. Blocking?"
Yes, no, maybe, hold on, wait, bounce, help. Any and all
acknowledgements from the target (in this case, the prey), indicating
that he understands, and that the action has begun, accompanied by an
audial cue, rather than watching the hands of the acting player.
Any stalling on the part of the target/Prey is already covered via the
rules, and can be dealt with that way.
Morgan Vening
Robert Goudie
> > > I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge,
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes. There is only one item to judge (start of turn) instead of 10+
> items to judge (end of turn)
Fewer does not equal easier. Having more things to look at may give
you more information and make your decision easier. At GenCon So Cal,
for example, I had an easy call because, instead of trying to figure
out what happend at one moment in time, I could review all of the game
state and see that no pool had been removed and all the votes had not
yet been cast and therefore the action was not yet complete and no oust
occurred before time. I could have also looked at players' hands and
browsed for a Delaying Tactics, etc.
> > You make the call...
> >
> > How'd you do?
>
> I never said that this proposed change would eliminate all tough
> judging calls. I'm mearly stating that the ablity to finsh one's
> action, if time is called during the stated action, would benifit the
> better of the game.
I understand. No problemo. People will prefer one method or the other.
NBA balling leaving the hand vs. NHL puck reaching goal. Personal
preference (or arbitrariness) in its purest form.
> > Let's pick up from where we left off and play again. Instead of
> having
> > no opinion, the other players say the following:
> >
> Yes, yes, any number of worst case senerios can be presented for any
> side of this/any argument. The question that needs to be answered is
> does allowing the announced action to complete, if time is called
> during the stated action, make the game better that the current rules
> of game ends when time end. I prefer the "completed action" senerio.
> But hey, that's just me.
I gotcha! :)
> > I just don't seeing how this is
> > overall any easier to judge than what we have now (We could easily
> > carve up the ending of an action the same way...hands moving
towards
> > pool or moving to pickup cards, etc).
>
> Was the minion tapped?
You make the call...
> Maybe it's just me again but that seems,
> overall, pretty easy to judge.
No. It is a line that is easily drawn but not easily judged. If,
instead of worst case scenarios we're talking about typical scenarios,
then both the existing and proposed solutions would almost never even
require a judge's opinion. Players routinely start and complete
actions and rarely are there questions.
>Can you think of anything easier?
Nope. Your tapping option is about as easy as it gets for *drawing* a
clear line. However, overall it is no easier to judge than the current
rule. Meaning, 99.99% of the time both rules are very easy to judge. To
this day, we've had to make no hard calls using the existing rules.
On xmas-eve you and I were talking about getting back whatever it is
that we measure. If we "reward" tapping, we'll see people tapping
before they've even figured out what action they intend to take. Maybe
they'll count the cards in their ash heap, and then decide what action
modifier they'll have the best odds of drawing. Then they'll decide
whether or not to call that vote or bleed. That kinda sucks too (IMO)
since the tapping is being offered as an indicator that the action is
underway--even though there's still no declaration or card played,
targets, etc.
Ultimately all of this sucks and is just another thing in a long list I
hope we never have to deal with as judges. Seems there's always
somebody upset when we have to make these judgement calls.
-Robert
salem
<Jedi...@rebelscum.net> scrawled:
[snip]
>Yes, yes, any number of worst case senerios can be presented for any
>side of this/any argument. The question that needs to be answered is
>does allowing the announced action to complete, if time is called
>during the stated action, make the game better that the current rules
>of game ends when time end. I prefer the "completed action" senerio.
>But hey, that's just me.
you still haven't answered the problem of what happens if that action
takes a long time to complete. 20+ minute actions are not unheard of.
***JediMike***
>
> you still haven't answered the problem of what happens if that action
> takes a long time to complete. 20+ minute actions are not unheard of.
>
remember (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong RG) a single minon
action taking 20+ min. A full Meth turn, sure, but not a single action.
99.95% of the time a minion action will take 3 to 5 min at most. Often
shorter.
***JediMike***
Robert Goudie
Most I'm personally aware of is a table switch vote that took maybe
10-15 minutes. Oh, and maybe one of Dennis' deck-depletion combats or
my Infernal Pursuit concealed everything deck might have done a
10-minute plus combat. 3-5 minutes sounds like a high estimate to me.
-Robert
James Coupe
> ***JediMike*** wrote:
In a system of "This action must complete", you have the possibility
of a KRC (or a Parity Shift, say) being called. Put it on the table,
tap the vampire. No-one is under any doubt that it's been played.
Now we call time.
Now we move to potential for cancellation, so there are a few players
possibly tapping an Elder Library or Fragment of the book of Nod, and
so on, to draw a Direct Intervention. (This assumes that under the
given ruling, a player can't stall the announcement of an action by
saying "Oh, I think I might have a Direct Intervention in this deck."
Ignore it if you decide that playing a KRC, but not having moved
through DI cancellation, is not sufficient to have started an action.
This argument might be worth considering when weighing up the balance
of a rules change, however.)
Now we move to blocking. This is the last action, so again, people
are looking at who I am going to allocate the pool to/from. In the
case of a KRC, I might use it to oust my prey (with thre damage going
to him), and I have one remaining damage. Do I send it to my
grand-prey, or my grand-predator? (Five people in at the end is
unusual, but far from unheard of, IME.) You see, if I send it there,
someone's going to intercept. If not, someone else intercepts. So
there's bitching and diplomacy going on all round the table.
Once we get the action called, we have the same argument *again*.
This time, it's about votes and vote cancellation. You have a Vox
Domini in your hand, so want to make this fail. Someone else has a
Sudden Reversal in hand, or a Bleeding the Vine in play. Someone else
has a prey on 1 pool. If you cross-table it, they can get 1 VP. But
if you cross-table it to someone else, so can they.
Lots and lots of arguments and bitching.
Then someone calls the judge over and says "Miss! Miss! He's making
an out-of-game consideration! Cos if Janet gets the VP instead of
Bob, Bob comes sixth overall and doesn't get into the final! Miss!
That's unfair Miss!"
For added corner-case action, assume that I've played Scorn of Adonis
and someone else on the table has an Astrid Thomas in play, and a
third player has Javier Montoya, and so I can oust so-and-so, if I
split it this way. And so on.
I could easily see the last action of a turn stretching on for quite
some time, if a finely balanced table was there with a contentious
action in play. (IME, this is how 5 player tables go to time, rather
than everyone being rubbish. All 5 people are trying their damnedest
to get a game win, and controlling as much of the table as possible to
do so. Hence, it's very hard to get a clear lead.)
Of course, if someone was playing Consanguineous Boon to cycle at the
time, I can see nothing of the sort happening.
Some of the more obvious contentious actions which could be called are
Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure, but the effect of them is
likely to be low when it's the last action, and they are (of course)
now dead.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though!
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.
James Coupe
> "Igo computer hack bleeds. Blocking?"
> Yes, no, maybe, hold on, wait, bounce, help. Any and all
> acknowledgements from the target (in this case, the prey), indicating
> that he understands, and that the action has begun, accompanied by an
> audial cue, rather than watching the hands of the acting player.
I'm not sure that a player should be told:
"If you pretend you didn't hear him, because you had something
in your ear, the action didn't start and so you get to stay in
the game and not lose that VP edge you had on so-and-so. Or
you get better TPs, for a tight tie-break splitting scenario."
If a change in the rules is needed - as far as I can tell, the
arguments amount to "It'd be nicer this way and it'd be easier to
judge, even though the moment of judgement would just be moved to a
different time" - it would be nice if the proposed solution didn't
just hand another "Here is how you can kill the action" carrot to a
player in a desperate situation.
In general, changing the rules should only be done if it makes things
better and I'm not sure that requiring an acknowledgement from someone
is any better than "Oh, but I think I might play Delaying Tactics, oh
shucks, has that gone to time?"
(For added corner-case value, assume I am hard of hearing.[0])
[0] This does not mean you need to reply in capital letters. Thanks
in advance.
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>> "Igo computer hack bleeds. Blocking?"
>> Yes, no, maybe, hold on, wait, bounce, help. Any and all
>> acknowledgements from the target (in this case, the prey), indicating
>> that he understands, and that the action has begun, accompanied by an
>> audial cue, rather than watching the hands of the acting player.
>
>I'm not sure that a player should be told:
>
> "If you pretend you didn't hear him, because you had something
> in your ear, the action didn't start and so you get to stay in
> the game and not lose that VP edge you had on so-and-so. Or
> you get better TPs, for a tight tie-break splitting scenario."
>
>If a change in the rules is needed - as far as I can tell, the
>arguments amount to "It'd be nicer this way and it'd be easier to
>judge, even though the moment of judgement would just be moved to a
>different time" - it would be nice if the proposed solution didn't
>just hand another "Here is how you can kill the action" carrot to a
>player in a desperate situation.
The problem is, however, as it stands, where does an action end. It's
as much of an issue as when does an action start, and adds the
complexities of an unknown factor of stalling.
Example, "ICHB. B?". The response to determine acknowledgment is
precise, and relatively unstallable without obviously stalling (as no
determination need be made, just an acknowledgement).
Whereas the current rules, if you have an Auspex minored deck, and you
went "ICHB.", I'd be well within my rights to seriously consider
intercept, if I have any. After considering, and then choosing not to,
I have the option of considering bounce. After considering this, and
choosing not to, I have the option of considering bleed reduction.
If I'm not allowed to give reasonable consideration to these in the
last 5 minutes of a game (whether I have them in my hand or not,
bluffing being a factor of the game), but I am allowed to in the
middle of a game, then there is a problem (being punished for not
playing faster than normal, to accomodate my own removal).
There's already been one example so far.
"I bleed for two."
"I don't block."
"I don't bounce."
"TIME!".
But because the opponent hadn't pushed his pool into the blood bank,
it didn't count for a VP. That's just a crock. I understand the issue
with regards Votes (though most non KRC/PS/CA are irrelevant, as they
won't oust in and of themselves), but with regards 'simple' actions, I
don't see the harm in allowing them to complete.
Personally the issue is fairly moot for my group. Our games tend to go
3, 4, even 5 hours, due to junky decks (two of any single rare is
unlikely, 10-12 is unheard of), a lot of random socialising (sport,
work, whatever), and a fairly inexperienced player base (irresponsible
bleeds, janky plays), and having 6-7 players at a table. So this isn't
going to bother me in it's execution, or lack thereof.
>In general, changing the rules should only be done if it makes things
>better and I'm not sure that requiring an acknowledgement from someone
>is any better than "Oh, but I think I might play Delaying Tactics, oh
>shucks, has that gone to time?"
>
>(For added corner-case value, assume I am hard of hearing.[0])
>
>[0] This does not mean you need to reply in capital letters. Thanks
>in advance.
No problem. I think the hard of hearing excuse is a bit of a cop out.
If you can't get a player to acknowledge your actions, or if you
yourself are unable to acknowledge someone's actions, how do you play?
Announcement of an action. 3-5 seconds.
Recognition of an action. 3-5 seconds.
Length of an action where stalling could be hidden easily to await
time. 3-5 minutes.
Not doing a cheesy Mastercard satire. Priceless.
D'oh!
So it's a window of less than 10 seconds, vs a window of 3-5 minutes,
for "TIME!" to be an issue. I consider that a valid reason for change.
Morgan Vening
LSJ
>>>I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge,
>>
>>Really?
>
>
> Yes. There is only one item to judge (start of turn) instead of 10+
> items to judge (end of turn)
Oh. I thought you were just doing "complete the current action",
not "current turn".
Sure -- have you begun to untap your minions? If yes, then you've started
your turn. If not, then you haven't.
>>You make the call...
>>
>>How'd you do?
>
> I never said that this proposed change would eliminate all tough
> judging calls. I'm mearly stating that the ablity to finsh one's
> action, if time is called during the stated action, would benifit the
> better of the game.
Now back to the action thing.
You've stated it would benefit the game, yes. My mileage varies.
Leaving it as it is would be better for the game (or at least,
no worse and therefore better under the "less change" function).
> I prefer the "completed action" senerio.
> But hey, that's just me.
Ah. You cover the YMMV clause here, I think. :-)
> Was the minion tapped? Maybe it's just me again but that seems,
> overall, pretty easy to judge. Can you think of anything easier?
It's no easier than "was the Methuselah ousted?".
See also Direct Intervention.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Daneel
> Now we call time.
>
> Now we move to potential for cancellation, so there are a few players
> possibly tapping an Elder Library or Fragment of the book of Nod, and
> so on, to draw a Direct Intervention.
I would like to point out that even if Elder Library could be tapped for
an effect it would still be unusable when a card is played.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> Leaving it as it is would be better for the game (or at least,
> no worse and therefore better under the "less change" function).
Interesting point. Leaving something as it is makes it at least not
worse than it currently is. Kind of circular, but very universal. ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
Not circular.
"Leaving it as is would be no worse than changing it by the proposed
change" is equivalent to "the proposed change is not an improvment".
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:37:26 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Leaving it as it is would be better for the game (or at least,
>>> no worse and therefore better under the "less change" function).
>>
>> Interesting point. Leaving something as it is makes it at least not
>> worse than it currently is. Kind of circular, but very universal. ;)
>
> Not circular.
>
> "Leaving it as is would be no worse than changing it by the proposed
> change" is equivalent to "the proposed change is not an improvement".
Judging what is "better" or "at least as good" is not an objective process.
I think I was just hairsplitting over the objective tone of the statement.
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:59:41 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:37:26 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Leaving it as it is would be better for the game (or at least,
>>>> no worse and therefore better under the "less change" function).
>>>
>>> Interesting point. Leaving something as it is makes it at least not
>>> worse than it currently is. Kind of circular, but very universal. ;)
>>
>> Not circular.
>>
>> "Leaving it as is would be no worse than changing it by the proposed
>> change" is equivalent to "the proposed change is not an improvement".
>
> Judging what is "better" or "at least as good" is not an objective process.
>
> I think I was just hairsplitting over the objective tone of the statement.
The subjectiveness was already covered. (See "YMMV" and other such
qualifiers in the post to which you chose to take exception.)
"Circular" doesn't come anywhere near addressing the tone or objectiveness
or subjectiveness of a post, BTW. Coupled with your idea that the
comparator was "it currently is" rather than "the proposed change", it
doesn't seem likely that you were hairsplitting rather than simply
misunderstanding what I wrote, in my objective assessment of what you
wrote.
James Coupe
> Example, "ICHB. B?". The response to determine acknowledgment is
> precise, and relatively unstallable without obviously stalling (as no
> determination need be made, just an acknowledgement).
I've certainly seen players acknowledge a bleed attempt by counting
off the pool they're about to throw away.
"I bleed you."
<counting of counters>
"TIME!"
Was that acknowledged? Was that a player counting how much pool he
has left? (Bear in mind that the way people acknowledge actions where
you play may be very different from where another group plays.)
You appear to think that determining when the end of an action has
taken place is difficult to the Nth degree, but that determining when
a player has acknowledged one is trivial. This is far from likely to
be the case, in the corner case of games we are referring to. Where
players are cheating (i.e. stalling), they are likely to be doing it
in manners which are convincing - certainly in the problematic cases.
You still haven't explained why allowing a player to blank you and
stall the game is preferable to a player being able to say "Well, I
think I have a Delaying Tactics" and stall the game.
It's just stalling in a different place. Indeed, if we allow for DI -
as the card is played but before the action is announced - then you're
in the same problem anyway. "Oh, I'm not thinking about playing a
Telepathic Counter later. I'm wondering if playing this direct
intervention now is better." Or: "No, wait, you hurried through to
the next action. I want to use my hand cycling abilities to see the
next card in case I've got a DI. Yes, that does mean you don't get to
declare the action."
> There's already been one example so far.
> "I bleed for two."
> "I don't block."
> "I don't bounce."
> "TIME!".
> But because the opponent hadn't pushed his pool into the blood bank,
> it didn't count for a VP. That's just a crock.
Why is it less of a crock if it gets to:
"I bleed for two."
<glazed look>
"TIME!"
?
> I understand the issue
> with regards Votes (though most non KRC/PS/CA are irrelevant, as they
> won't oust in and of themselves), but with regards 'simple' actions, I
> don't see the harm in allowing them to complete.
Consistency of application of the rules is a useful one. If it's a
problem for votes, handling it in a consistent way across multiple
different action types is useful.
(Bear in mind that this can be similarly problematic with other deck
types if, e.g., a Fame is in play. Who do I bounce this bleed to?
Can I get them to torporise that vampire? Will it get me that VP?)
> No problem. I think the hard of hearing excuse is a bit of a cop out.
Why? V:TES players are - in general - older than is typical.
However, there is little difference between "I didn't hear you" and
"Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard someone call me from over at the
bar."
No acknowledgement, and an entirely plausible reason why they didn't
hear you.
> If you can't get a player to acknowledge your actions, or if you
> yourself are unable to acknowledge someone's actions, how do you play?
You're missing the point.
The point is not whether a player is paying enough attention
throughout the rest of the game. Everyone, however, has momentary
lapses of concentration. Everyone can be called by someone from the
bar. Everyone can accidentally drop their hand in order to waste the
final ten seconds of a game.
However, in some circumstances, these will be entirely real. (We've
all thought someone has called us when they haven't, surely? This
goes doubly for busy pubs.)
> Announcement of an action. 3-5 seconds.
> Recognition of an action. 3-5 seconds.
> Length of an action where stalling could be hidden easily to await
> time. 3-5 minutes.
> Not doing a cheesy Mastercard satire. Priceless.
> D'oh!
>
> So it's a window of less than 10 seconds, vs a window of 3-5 minutes,
> for "TIME!" to be an issue. I consider that a valid reason for change.
"Any more effects? Next action?" Or even "Anything else?"
Wait 6-10 seconds, per your announcement/recognition split. Then move
on. Time for stalling - the same.
Also, it may be worth pointing out that I really have seen players
deliberate for a long time over a play of DI. Do I play it on this
card, or do I wait for the action modifier? And people sift through
ash heaps to try and work out which is being played more, and so on.
Playing of DI comes before the action is announced:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/475f27f517c4d7f6>
James Coupe
But if a player says they were hurried and didn't have chance to play
it first, this could certainly cause problems. (But that means you
couldn't have announced the action!)
You can also shuffle this step slightly further into the action for
people wanting to play it before the Dawn Operation is played (to
cancel *that* with a DI), or to draw a Delaying Tactics, or whatever.
The general point - that of the amount of time this can soak up - is
still largely in place, however.
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:59:41 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Daneel wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:37:26 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>>> Leaving it as it is would be better for the game (or at least,
>>>>> no worse and therefore better under the "less change" function).
>>>>
>>>> Interesting point. Leaving something as it is makes it at least not
>>>> worse than it currently is. Kind of circular, but very universal. ;)
>>>
>>> Not circular.
>>>
>>> "Leaving it as is would be no worse than changing it by the proposed
>>> change" is equivalent to "the proposed change is not an improvement".
>>
>> Judging what is "better" or "at least as good" is not an objective
>> process.
>>
>> I think I was just hairsplitting over the objective tone of the
>> statement.
>
> The subjectiveness was already covered. (See "YMMV" and other such
> qualifiers in the post to which you chose to take exception.)
The extent to which a given paragraph is integrated into the post varies.
Also, the role a certain piece of information plays in the post may vary
as well. The paragraph I quoted contained no external reference. Its
purpose - which seems to having been a conclusion of the previous
subjective statements - could have been different. Like, to present
further evidence in support of your opinion. At least the objective tone
hinted at that. Otherwise, a subjective conclusion might've contained
external references or subjectivity indicators.
> "Circular" doesn't come anywhere near addressing the tone or
> objectiveness or subjectiveness of a post, BTW.
In particular my "circular" referred to a self-supporting argument.
> Coupled with your idea that the
> comparator was "it currently is" rather than "the proposed change", it
> doesn't seem likely that you were hairsplitting rather than simply
> misunderstanding what I wrote, in my objective assessment of what you
> wrote.
It depends on how you define misunderstanding. Because observing your
earlier post a non-hairsplitting approach could have been to assume
that you are constantly subjective in your references, and understand
the post the way you meant it to be understood. However, a less lenient
approach could revoke the benefit of doubt and not assume that your
objective-sounding statement is a subjective conclusion.
This is what I referred to as possible "hairsplitting".
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes:
>
>> On 28 Dec 2004 09:40:06 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Now we call time.
>> >
>> > Now we move to potential for cancellation, so there are a few players
>> > possibly tapping an Elder Library or Fragment of the book of Nod, and
>> > so on, to draw a Direct Intervention.
>>
>> I would like to point out that even if Elder Library could be tapped for
>> an effect it would still be unusable when a card is played.
>
> But if a player says they were hurried and didn't have chance to play
> it first, this could certainly cause problems. (But that means you
> couldn't have announced the action!)
Play _what_ first? I assume that Elder Library is a Master Card. Meaning,
if any player just had the opportunity to play one, no other methuselah
can be acting. Even Madness Network kicks in only after the minion phase
of each Methuselah.
> You can also shuffle this step slightly further into the action for
> people wanting to play it before the Dawn Operation is played (to
> cancel *that* with a DI), or to draw a Delaying Tactics, or whatever.
That's another issue. You can cycle during an action. Not that it would
take that much time in practice (as you usually know what you are
looking for).
> The general point - that of the amount of time this can soak up - is
> still largely in place, however.
I think most of that has been addressed by the rules team ruling that
prohibited cycling while a card is being played.
--
Bye,
Daneel
LSJ
>> The subjectiveness was already covered. (See "YMMV" and other such
>> qualifiers in the post to which you chose to take exception.)
>
> The extent to which a given paragraph is integrated into the post varies.
> Also, the role a certain piece of information plays in the post may vary
> as well. The paragraph I quoted contained no external reference. Its
> purpose - which seems to having been a conclusion of the previous
> subjective statements - could have been different. Like, to present
> further evidence in support of your opinion. At least the objective tone
> hinted at that. Otherwise, a subjective conclusion might've contained
> external references or subjectivity indicators.
You say. You're welcome to your opinion, of course.
But this is moot, since the underlying premise, that it is circular,
is incorrect.
>> "Circular" doesn't come anywhere near addressing the tone or
>> objectiveness or subjectiveness of a post, BTW.
>
> In particular my "circular" referred to a self-supporting argument.
Yes. Which my statement was not. As I elaborated in the last post,
still quoted below:
>> Coupled with your idea that the
>> comparator was "it currently is" rather than "the proposed change", it
>> doesn't seem likely that you were hairsplitting rather than simply
>> misunderstanding what I wrote, in my objective assessment of what you
>> wrote.
>
> It depends on how you define misunderstanding. Because observing your
If there is another definition beyond flawed understanding, I
don't know it. Please enlighten me (references, too).
> earlier post a non-hairsplitting approach could have been to assume
> that you are constantly subjective in your references, and understand
> the post the way you meant it to be understood. However, a less lenient
> approach could revoke the benefit of doubt and not assume that your
> objective-sounding statement is a subjective conclusion.
It's not a matter of how I meant it to be understood.
It's a matter of what it said.
A: "This change would be better for the game"
B: "Leaving it as it is would be better for the game"
> This is what I referred to as possible "hairsplitting".
And that reference is what I refer to as misunderstanding.
***JediMike***
> > Yes. There is only one item to judge (start of turn) instead of 10+
> > items to judge (end of turn)
>
> Oh. I thought you were just doing "complete the current action",
> not "current turn".
>
"turn".
> > I prefer the "completed action" senerio.
> > But hey, that's just me.
>
> Ah. You cover the YMMV clause here, I think. :-)
>
Correct.
> > Was the minion tapped? Maybe it's just me again but that seems,
> > overall, pretty easy to judge. Can you think of anything easier?
>
> It's no easier than "was the Methuselah ousted?".
> See also Direct Intervention.
I think this is the point where we agree to disagree.
***JediMike***
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>>> The subjectiveness was already covered. (See "YMMV" and other such
>>> qualifiers in the post to which you chose to take exception.)
>>
>> The extent to which a given paragraph is integrated into the post
>> varies.
>> Also, the role a certain piece of information plays in the post may vary
>> as well. The paragraph I quoted contained no external reference. Its
>> purpose - which seems to having been a conclusion of the previous
>> subjective statements - could have been different. Like, to present
>> further evidence in support of your opinion. At least the objective tone
>> hinted at that. Otherwise, a subjective conclusion might've contained
>> external references or subjectivity indicators.
>
> You say. You're welcome to your opinion, of course.
As you are to yours.
> But this is moot, since the underlying premise, that it is circular,
> is incorrect.
Assessing the statement in itself or as an attempt to generate proof for
earlier points results in an impression that it is circular.
Assessing it as a conclusion to the previous subjective statements
provides different results.
>> It depends on how you define misunderstanding. Because observing your
>
> If there is another definition beyond flawed understanding, I
> don't know it. Please enlighten me (references, too).
A relevant definition can be "A failure to understand or interpret
correctly."
Nevertheless, it is a question of how you define definition. ;)
> It's not a matter of how I meant it to be understood.
> It's a matter of what it said.
The question is whether misunderstanding incorporates the issue when:
Stater states <fact A> which in his opinion unmistakable.
Interlocutor finds multiple interpretations for <fact A> based on
what he or she assumes when comprehending the statement.
Or better yet, even if we assume that there a misunderstanding, can
we derive that Interlocutor misunderstood Stater?
> A: "This change would be better for the game"
> B: "Leaving it as it is would be better for the game"
>
>> This is what I referred to as possible "hairsplitting".
>
> And that reference is what I refer to as misunderstanding.
I think you are either hairsplitting, or you misunderstand me. ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray
"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> mumbled something about:
>switched on the webcam for your remote Head Judge's opinion. You see
>the table and see Justin's got a fully tapped vampire and a Govern in
>his hand. Justin claims that the vampire was fully tapped *before*
>time was called. His prey, Elmer claims that Justin had not tapped the
>vampire before time was called and that he tapped it after. None of the
>other players were paying attention and have no opinion on the matter.
>You make the call...
Tie goes to the runner. Consider the vampire fully tapped.
Players are presumed to be honest unless demonstrated otherwise. In a
he-said-she-said situation, I'm generally going to go with "innocent
until proven guilty" unless I get some indication that Justin's lying.
This is a sterile situation, of course; Justin's and Elmer's facial
expressions and tone of voice should be enough to let me know which of
the two is lying.
>Let's pick up from where we left off and play again. Instead of having
>no opinion, the other players say the following:
>
>Ben is another one of us nerdy programmer guys and chimes in that
>Justin was somewhere around 32 degrees tapped when the judge began to
>speak and that Justin was possibly about about 81 degrees tapped as the
>judge pronounced the "m" sound. As usual, Sean is already ousted but
Consider the vampire fully tapped.
>thinks that Justin may have reached 90 degrees tapped before the judge
>was done saying "time" but that he hadn't started before the judge's
>proclamation. The last player, Denver, thinks Justin did begin tapping
>before the judge made a peep, but that he was only about 35 degrees
>tapped as the judge's proclamation was completed. The judge on the
That's three in favor of "tapped", from what I can see.
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable of all. None of these
players you've described actually knows what happened; they're trying to
frantically reconstruct, from fragmented memory, something they were
only partially paying attention to themselves.
In addition, say "time". Time yourself saying "time". Tenth of a
second or so, right? Either it was tapped before the "T-" sound, or he
reached for it after the "mm" sound. I'm OK with "tie goes to the
runner" in too-close-to-call situations. In non-too-close-to-call
situations, it should be obvious.
If your judge drawls too much and makes a three-second affair out of
"TIIIIIYYYYIIIMMMeee....", then suggest he talk faster. Or set the mark
at "when the judge begins speaking", if you must. All this is easy
enough to set down.
>scene, me, is mumbling something about "It..it..happened so fast... I
>was only taking a sip of my scotch...I missed it! How could I have
Judge needs to take BELTS of that stuff, not sips. ;)
>was more like this..." Of course, no one does it exactly the same way
>during any of their suppossedly accurate recreations. You make the
>call....
And this is why eyewitness testimony is unreliable; so I throw all three
of their opinions out, and stick with "tie goes to the runner".
I'd consider it reliable only if another player directly supported Elmer
in saying "No, you grabbed and tapped it in response to him saying
'time', I saw you." And even then I wouldn't like it, but if I wasn't
watching, I don't have much choice, do I? I can directly overrule TWO
players, but either it's collusion between Elmer and Ben, or it's one
guy trying to get away with one last action.
>> I'd really like to see this change made, the
>> abillity to finish an announced action if time is called during the
>> action would serve the better of the game. IMO.
>
>Sure, some players may prefer the proposed system (finish announced
>actions) for aesthetic reasons or whatever. Nothing wrong with that.
>I'm sure it could work just fine. I just don't seeing how this is
>overall any easier to judge than what we have now (We could easily
Because the need for cross-table reacters to remain unnoticed until the
prey begins picking up the pool (ie., nobody with a Life Boon wants to
play it unless they HAVE to) makes it harder to judge when _EVERYONE_ is
done, and adds the "motivation" thing into it.
I'm OK with it staying "time means now", but I'm also OK with the
suggested change. I'm not OK with "finish the action" unless we can
find something visually concrete to hang the start on.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
salem
scrawled:
>
>Playing of DI comes before the action is announced:
>
><http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/475f27f517c4d7f6>
from that post LSJ said:
""As the card is played" is, effectively, before the action is
announced.
The two events are effectively one and the same except for cases like
Direct Intervention."
does this mean, say, i have to play a DI before i know whether a
vampire is playing their Govern at basic or superior? i have to play
it as it's played, but before they announce it. if they haven't
announced it, i don't know what it's doing yet.
similarly, with a Bum's Rush. i don't get to know who they're
attacking before i play a DI?
LSJ
>><http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/475f27f517c4d7f6>
>
> from that post LSJ said:
> ""As the card is played" is, effectively, before the action is
> announced.
> The two events are effectively one and the same except for cases like
> Direct Intervention."
>
> does this mean, say, i have to play a DI before i know whether a
> vampire is playing their Govern at basic or superior? i have to play
No.
> it as it's played, but before they announce it. if they haven't
No. You play it when it is played, after it (the card play) is announced
(which includes stuff like the level of the Discipline, the target
if any, the minion who plays it, etc.) but before the action is
considered to be begun/announced.
> announced it, i don't know what it's doing yet.
> similarly, with a Bum's Rush. i don't get to know who they're
> attacking before i play a DI?
You get to know who the acting minion would be and who that
minion would be attacking.
Emmit Svenson
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> The current rules state that when time is called, the game ends
> immediately. There is a thread right now which asks whether ending
the
> game "after the current action ends" would be better.
Consider how long a single action can take if that action involves
combat or a referendum...or both, in some situations. It doesn't seem
fair for an entire tournament to have to wait for the Action that
Wouldn't End to end. I think the current state of affairs is best.
***JediMike***
I'm not OK with "finish the action" unless we can
> find something visually concrete to hang the start on.
>
Yes, it seems that would be a must.
***JediMike***
James Coupe
writes:
>On 28 Dec 2004 14:32:55 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes:
>>
>>> On 28 Dec 2004 09:40:06 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Now we call time.
>>> >
>>> > Now we move to potential for cancellation, so there are a few players
>>> > possibly tapping an Elder Library or Fragment of the book of Nod, and
>>> > so on, to draw a Direct Intervention.
>>>
>>> I would like to point out that even if Elder Library could be tapped for
>>> an effect it would still be unusable when a card is played.
>>
>> But if a player says they were hurried and didn't have chance to play
>> it first, this could certainly cause problems. (But that means you
>> couldn't have announced the action!)
>
>Play _what_ first?
Any effect they wanted to order in between the end of the action (or at
the very end of the action), and the commencement of the new action.
The canonical example of this leading to arguments is usually Heidelberg
- because once the action has started, you can't play the effect. This
could be extremely important if, e.g., you have a Trujah playing Rewind
Time or you need the blood on that vampire over there (the untapped one)
to play the Delaying Tactics you've just drawn.
Ditto this can be important when you want to play one of a multitude of
effects which will either explicitly or implicitly cycle your hand.
Frederick Scott
>
> ***JediMike*** wrote:
>> >
>> > you still haven't answered the problem of what happens if that
>> > action takes a long time to complete. 20+ minute actions are
>> > not unheard of.
>> >
>> I've been playing since the game first came out and I don't ever
>> remember (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong RG) a single minon
>> action taking 20+ min.
> Most I'm personally aware of is a table switch vote that took maybe
> 10-15 minutes.
Yea, Mike. How about one particular table switch vote that involved
a game with you, Paul, myself, and a certain player from Vegas
requiring an appeal to a judge. One would think you would remember
that turn. I'll bet everyone else involved does. :-P
Fred
***JediMike***
>
> Yea, Mike. How about one particular table switch vote that involved
> a game with you, Paul, myself, and a certain player from Vegas
> requiring an appeal to a judge. One would think you would remember
> that turn. I'll bet everyone else involved does. :-P
>
> Fred
Thanks Fred,
I had that memory purged from my mind, at last, now you made me
remember! DOH! OK that DID take a while. :)
***JediMike***
Robert Goudie
Hate to stir up bad memories but... That table had Succubus Club at
it---a non-issue now. :)
I wasn't at that table but, in the next round, as we first sat down
some guy at my table says "If anybody plays the Succubus Club I will
come and kill them!" Fortunately, he was my predator and it made little
difference when I played it. :)
-Robert
Curevei
>vampire could be all that is required to define the start of an action.
>I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge, as well as easy
>for the table to visulize. I'd really like to see this change made, the
>abillity to finish an announced action if time is called during the
>action would serve the better of the game. IMO.
I hate this standard a lot. To be clear since I think there's two things going
on in this discussion and I want to ignore the part about when time is called
and completing actions, I would very much never want to see the definition of
an action being initiated being the orientation change of a minion.
Even putting aside unlikely situations like "oops I spun my card around while
reaching for something", I don't see how moving a card necessarily defines
anything and defining what's going on is rather important*. Seems rather
obvious to me that an action should be initiated by declaring the terms of the
action.
* And, while I don't want to play games where every little thing is declared,
I find that a lot of players underdeclare what they are doing. Why contribute
to that?
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Curevei wrote:
|>AGREED! Derek Ray posted earlier that the simple task of "tapping" a
|>vampire could be all that is required to define the start of an action.
|>I like that standard alot. It's very simple to judge, as well as easy
|>for the table to visulize. I'd really like to see this change made, the
|>abillity to finish an announced action if time is called during the
|>action would serve the better of the game. IMO.
|
| I hate this standard a lot. To be clear since I think there's two
things going
| on in this discussion and I want to ignore the part about when time is
called
| and completing actions, I would very much never want to see the
definition of
| an action being initiated being the orientation change of a minion.
Why? It's the only thing you can easily identify as "done" or "not
done", as a judge, when you come over after having been called by a player.
It's a physical thing. It's a defined thing. It can't happen
accidentally (the situation you describe below is absurd on the face of
it, as are other situations involving "accidentally" turning a card 90
degrees, honestly.)
And, much like the touch-move rule in chess, it defines a concrete
beginning to what is now mandatory. If I say "Bishop to d4", while
instead moving it to e5, I am considered to have made a mistake in my
speech, and the move remains. If I put my hand on the Bishop and ponder
out loud, saying "d4? e5?" -- it doesn't matter, I have to move the
Bishop, and I am not constrained to where I move it.
It's really that simple, honestly. And if it works for chessplayers, it
should work no trouble for V:TES players.
| Even putting aside unlikely situations like "oops I spun my card
around while
| reaching for something", I don't see how moving a card necessarily defines
| anything and defining what's going on is rather important*. Seems rather
It defines intent, which is all we really need, now isn't it?
| obvious to me that an action should be initiated by declaring the
terms of the
| action.
Seems rather obvious to all the rest of us that a judge can't tell
whether an action was interrupted mid-declare or not unless he happened
to be standing there -- not to mention the play of action modifiers,
such as Seduction, that must be played "when announcing" the action.
This leads directly to arguments about "He had only said "Govern bleed,
he hadn't finished his sentence yet", which a judge will be unable to
properly rule on because all the evidence is transitive.
Why do you want to make the game hard on the judges?
| * And, while I don't want to play games where every little thing is
declared,
| I find that a lot of players underdeclare what they are doing. Why
contribute
| to that?
If a player underdeclares what they're doing, force them to declare it.
~ What's the problem?
Me: (taps Lazverinus, waits).
You: "What action is he taking?"
Me: "Bleeding."
You: "Plain old bleed for 1?"
Me: "OK, with this Govern."
You: "Anything else you'd like to do at the start of this action, since
you're being such a dick about telling me what you're doing?"
Me: "Fine, I play Seduction on Matthias."
You: "In that case, no block; I Deflect."
How hard is it, honestly? Just speak up and say "Hey, dude, you gotta
say what you're doing when you do it; and if you tap a guy, that guy has
to take an action."
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFB4YmjtQZlu3o7QpERApKmAJ9oQvwQNl8dPGls0GgfkDk3x5MnmwCgkFoV
RBBY34AaRN+VBbZvOMGPLYM=
=VqIZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Curevei
>around while
>| reaching for something", I don't see how moving a card necessarily defines
>| anything and defining what's going on is rather important*. Seems rather
>
>It defines intent, which is all we really need, now isn't it?
Intent to do what? Some as yet undefined action?
I think we need a little more than that, namely the intent to do something
definable. The declaration of the action handles that.
>Seems rather obvious to all the rest of us that a judge can't tell
>whether an action was interrupted mid-declare or not unless he happened
>to be standing there -- not to mention the play of action modifiers,
>such as Seduction, that must be played "when announcing" the action.
What is your concern with whether an action is interrupted?
That someone is trying to talk someone else out of initiating an action?
I would think that "as announced" action modifiers would support my position
since you have to leave a timing window to DI action cards before any of those
get played. Speaking of DI, if I tap a minion and intend to use an action
card, have the action card DIed, am I still required to take an action with my
minion because I tapped it? Does it untap?
>This leads directly to arguments about "He had only said "Govern bleed,
>he hadn't finished his sentence yet", which a judge will be unable to
>properly rule on because all the evidence is transitive.
How would the judge know that someone intended to Govern bleed by the tapping
of a minion? Couldn't it be a nonGovern bleed, a hunt, etc.?
How is tapping explaining anything about the game state besides that someone
was considering taking an action which maybe could have been only one specific
action or could have been any of a dozen different things?
Doesn't the initiation of an action problem parallel the resolution of an
action problem? Point being, if we can't prove an action is complete unless
the players agree or the judge uses best judgment, why should we be able to
prove an action has begun without player agreement or a judge's judgment?
>Why do you want to make the game hard on the judges?
Intent is an area that is always going to be a problem for a judge to rule on,
saying that someone's intent is clear because a minion gets tapped isn't going
to help that.
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Curevei wrote:
|>| Even putting aside unlikely situations like "oops I spun my card
|>around while
|>| reaching for something", I don't see how moving a card necessarily
defines
|>| anything and defining what's going on is rather important*. Seems
rather
|>
|>It defines intent, which is all we really need, now isn't it?
|
| Intent to do what? Some as yet undefined action?
Correct. Intent to take an action with that minion.
| I think we need a little more than that, namely the intent to do something
| definable. The declaration of the action handles that.
Of course. Definable as "take an action". There is a finite, easily
enumerable set of actions which can be taken with any minion at a given
point in time.
Verbal declarations of actions are open to interpretation, and as seen
in several other threads, are very difficult to determine specifics of
"when is an action declared" -- not to mention that the judge wasn't
necessarily there, so can't make an effective ruling on whether the
action was declared.
A tapped minion is not open to interpretation. Either it's tapped or
it's not. If you're playing with 45-degree people, tell them on turn 1
to "tap it 90 degrees, please", and you won't run into this problem; cf.
your complaint about people 'underdeclaring' actions. Fix it early,
man. Just speak up.
|>Seems rather obvious to all the rest of us that a judge can't tell
|>whether an action was interrupted mid-declare or not unless he happened
|>to be standing there -- not to mention the play of action modifiers,
|>such as Seduction, that must be played "when announcing" the action.
|
| What is your concern with whether an action is interrupted?
Gee, I dunno, the original topic of the thread was "how to handle when
'TIME' is called". Some posters have suggested changing the rules in a
certain fashion. I have offered an effective means to facilitate that
change, should the change need to be made.
| I would think that "as announced" action modifiers would support my
position
What exactly is your position? We are unclear.
I say tapping the minion is the only concrete definition of when an
action has begun. If the "TIME!" rules are to be modified a some
fashion to allow the action-in-progress to be completed, then there MUST
be a concrete, physical way to determine when the action has begun --
that a judge who was not present at the table can come to the table and
rule on. That way is whether or not the minion is tapped.
| since you have to leave a timing window to DI action cards before any
of those
| get played. Speaking of DI, if I tap a minion and intend to use an action
| card, have the action card DIed, am I still required to take an action
with my
| minion because I tapped it? Does it untap?
No. Yes.
Isn't this easy? Look at how easy it is for the judge to make rulings.
~ DI cancels the action, therefore it cancels everything about the
action. The acting Methuselah now should, in fairness, have the
opportunity to decide whether or not he wants to take an action with
that minion.
If this were to occur when "TIME" was called, then I would say the
action is canceled, Time has been called, and the game is over --
because the minion is now untapped and the NEXT action had not yet begun.
Isn't this EASY? Wow, it's so easy.
|>This leads directly to arguments about "He had only said "Govern bleed,
|>he hadn't finished his sentence yet", which a judge will be unable to
|>properly rule on because all the evidence is transitive.
|
| How would the judge know that someone intended to Govern bleed by the
tapping
| of a minion? Couldn't it be a nonGovern bleed, a hunt, etc.?
The judge doesn't need to know that. The minion is tapped, therefore an
action has begun and the acting Methuselah is allowed to finish that
action. Saves ruling on whether someone was talking slowly, whether
someone clearly enunciated the words ("GovrnbledwithGlbrtSeduLazver!!"
is pretty unintelligible, especially if you aren't standing at the table
to hear it"), you name it. Either the minion is tapped, or he's not.
| How is tapping explaining anything about the game state besides that
someone
| was considering taking an action which maybe could have been only one
specific
| action or could have been any of a dozen different things?
It doesn't explain ANYTHING about the game state. It indicates that
someone has begun an action with that minion. He no longer gets to
consider whether or not to take an action; now his only choice is which
action he's going to take with that minion.
Much like after I touch the Bishop (good job snipping the very-relevant
analogy), my only choice is what square I will move the Bishop to.
| Doesn't the initiation of an action problem parallel the resolution of an
| action problem? Point being, if we can't prove an action is complete
unless
| the players agree or the judge uses best judgment, why should we be
able to
| prove an action has begun without player agreement or a judge's judgment?
The resolution of an action is subject to the decisions and potential
cards played from five Methuselahs, up to and including Out-of-Turn
Masters. As such, there is a vague moment in which nobody is sure if
anyone else is going to do anything.
The beginning of an action is subject to the decisions of only a single
Methuselah; the only thing which can change this is DI, and that is easy
to make a ruling on (see above). Why should we be able to prove it?
Because we've got a concrete, physical, "it's-right-there" type of thing
that the judge can see with his own eyes; whether or not the minion is
tapped. And if we're going to fool around with the 'TIME!' rules, we
need to have something concrete -- and that means NOTHING verbal.
|>Why do you want to make the game hard on the judges?
|
| Intent is an area that is always going to be a problem for a judge to
rule on,
| saying that someone's intent is clear because a minion gets tapped
isn't going
| to help that.
Sure it is. It's going to make it very easy for the judge. All players
know coming into the tournament "Tapping a minion means you are
beginning an action. If you tap a minion, you must take an action with
that minion if possible." And then, if a player taps a minion, he takes
an action. If a judge is called over, he just looks at the table, and
sees a tapped minion; he then says "the action has begun".
Now the judge doesn't have to rule on intent. Either it's tapped or it
isn't. I can't imagine how much simpler it could be made. I'm sorry
you hate the idea of it being easy to determine when an action has begun
or not, but it doesn't make the tapped v. not tapped thing any more
difficult for someone to determine.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFB4b8htQZlu3o7QpERAvbBAJ9iCsiPtWgpfu5mC9hrcs08DpoWygCeMQDf
erCamQZS0Com8kVMZiHX3Nk=
=DVOg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joshua Duffin
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9udnfLaI_O...@giganews.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Curevei wrote:
> |>| Even putting aside unlikely situations like "oops I spun my card
> |>around while
> |>| reaching for something", I don't see how moving a card necessarily
> defines
> |>| anything and defining what's going on is rather important*. Seems
> rather
> |>
> |>It defines intent, which is all we really need, now isn't it?
> |
> | Intent to do what? Some as yet undefined action?
>
> Correct. Intent to take an action with that minion.
OK, if you want to say "when you tap a minion 90 degrees, you have
declared that you're taking an action with it, and now you have to take
an action with that minion", you're right, it could be done, much like
it is in chess. But (a), you would have to teach players that, and they
would make mistakes, which a judge would also have to rule on. (Players
who don't know they're required to do this would likely be forced to
take an action when they had meant to only consider whether they wanted
to take an action. You could also have arguments about whether the
player was eligible to declare a new action, ie whether the last action
was really finished yet.) And then (b), it would encourage behavior, as
the time limit approaches, of players always tapping a minion first, and
then deciding what action they wanted to take at their leisure (since
they know that once they've tapped the minion, they'll be able to finish
their action before time).
There's also (c), that you could still have arguments about whether the
minion was fully tapped at the instant time was called. At least on
that topic, it's plausible that there won't be any more arguments than
there are in the current situation. (Though as far as I've seen and
heard, there are very few arguments under the current rule either.)
Josh
every rule has an incentive
Emmit Svenson
> I would very much never want to see the definition of
> an action being initiated being the orientation change of a minion.
I agree. If a hard definition is needed, it should be "An action has
begun when the action has been declared and the acting minion tapped
(if applicable)." That's compatible with Marlena recruiting, Force of
Will and all the other weird corner-case stuff. Also, we'll never hear
the dreaded words:
"What do you mean I have to bleed with my Vagabond Mystic?"
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Joshua Duffin wrote:
| "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:b9udnfLaI_O...@giganews.com...
|
|>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>Hash: SHA1
|>
|>Curevei wrote:
|>|>| Even putting aside unlikely situations like "oops I spun my card
|>|>around while
|>|>| reaching for something", I don't see how moving a card necessarily
|>defines
|>|>| anything and defining what's going on is rather important*. Seems
|>rather
|>|>
|>|>It defines intent, which is all we really need, now isn't it?
|>|
|>| Intent to do what? Some as yet undefined action?
|>
|>Correct. Intent to take an action with that minion.
|
|
| OK, if you want to say "when you tap a minion 90 degrees, you have
| declared that you're taking an action with it, and now you have to take
| an action with that minion", you're right, it could be done, much like
| it is in chess. But (a), you would have to teach players that, and they
| would make mistakes, which a judge would also have to rule on. (Players
That doesn't stop us from adding at least one new rule in every
expansion to an already-overcomplicated game.
Fortunately, "tap-act" is an easy rule to explain, and for the first few
tournaments that happen six months after the rule comes out, the
organizer/judge can be careful to remind everyone of it. "Remember, we
are playing under the new tap-act rule; if you tap the minion, it must
take an action." Very easy.
| who don't know they're required to do this would likely be forced to
| take an action when they had meant to only consider whether they wanted
| to take an action. You could also have arguments about whether the
| player was eligible to declare a new action, ie whether the last action
The last action must be complete before a new action can begin.
This feeds back into the original argument, where nobody could figure
out when an action was complete. But that's a lot easier to determine,
since tapping the minion for a new action should never be initiated
until the acting Methuselah is certain the previous action is complete.
~ Anyone yelling "Wait!" would clearly be yelling "wait!" beforehand, as
they would have an effect they want to play.
| was really finished yet.) And then (b), it would encourage behavior, as
| the time limit approaches, of players always tapping a minion first, and
| then deciding what action they wanted to take at their leisure (since
| they know that once they've tapped the minion, they'll be able to finish
| their action before time).
That's fine. Stalling can be handled by the rules under stalling. It
shouldn't take long to decide what action to take with a minion,
especially since once you tap that minion, _that_ minion has to take an
action.
| There's also (c), that you could still have arguments about whether the
| minion was fully tapped at the instant time was called. At least on
Sure. That's easy enough to rule on though; either someone heard "TIME"
and grabbed for the minion (not tapped), or someone was in the process
of tapping it and "TIME" was called (tapped). Even if the judge isn't
present, it's pretty easy for the players at the table to come to a
consensus on whether or not someone was tapping a minion in reaction to
'time', or whether they were already tapping/had tapped the minion.
cf. original response to Mike or Robert on this topic, where someone
threw up a bunch of what-ifs about exactly that.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFB4w7qtQZlu3o7QpERArAvAKCbozGVBOgHvD6lN6lpwKWHyvcvRgCfeNw2
5xdQwqRIPdOHF5GOeCVNA40=
=Y8Ha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
***JediMike***
>
> Joshua Duffin wrote: A bunch of good stuff I agree with.
>
Just wanna say (again)I really like the "Tap" rule and should be
considered as a rule change. But, YMM-still-V. ;)
***JediMike***