EC 2005 official results
Merldion
Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Jay Kristoff 3 9.5 0.5 180
2 Stefan Ferenci 3 9 0.5 180
3 Ginés Quinonero 2 9 0.5 168
4 Beatrice Düring 2 8 0.5 168
5 Peter Vadasz 2 8 0.5 156
6 Olivier Perez 3 12 #N/A 180
7 Dusan Simsik 2 8 150
8 Róbert Kocsis 2 7.5 156
9 Carl Pilhatsch 2 7 168
10 Sebastian Gravouil 2 7 138
11 Antti Horelli 2 6 144
11 Attila Sipos 2 6 144
13 Mats Ellingsen 2 5.5 138
14 Andreas Nusser 2 5.5 132
15 Martin Weinmayer 2 5 138
16 Richard Glasner 1 6.5 168
17 Martin Major 1 6 150
18 Enrique Alvarez Vigueras 1 6 144
19 Amiel Feldman 1 6 126
20 marc kolmerschlag 1 5.5 144
21 Eric Chiang 1 5 132
21 János Major 1 5 132
23 Martina Frimlova 1 5 126
23 Erik Torstensson 1 5 126
25 Johannes Walch 1 5 120
26 Zsófia Kolozsvári 1 5 108
27 Miklós Lányi 1 5 102
27 Gábor Endler 1 5 102
29 Andrea Del Cont 1 4.5 138
29 Mirko Anconitani 1 4.5 138
29 Olivier le Baut 1 4.5 138
29 Erol Öngün 1 4.5 138
33 Benjamin Swainbank 1 4.5 126
34 Jeroen van Oort 1 4 132
34 Jim Parker 1 4 132
34 Carlos Saez 1 4 132
34 Balázs Kozó 1 4 132
38 Sten Düring 1 4 126
38 Arnold Farkas 1 4 126
40 Rudolf Edlmayer 1 4 120
40 Peter Forray 1 4 120
42 Csaba Szilasi 1 4 108
42 Peter Dinya 1 4 108
42 Gyula Erdos 1 4 108
45 Dániel Horváth 1 4 102
45 Tamas Bank 1 4 102
47 Ferenc Vencel 1 4 96
47 Frank Moeller 1 4 96
49 Michal Vojan 1 3.5 126
50 Krisztián Gál 1 3 114
51 Milán Horváth 1 3 108
51 Alessandro Cecchini 1 3 108
51 Robyn Tatu 1 3 108
51 Diego Spallatti 1 3 108
51 Vladimir Klapko 1 3 108
51 Péter Korsós 1 3 108
57 Jorje Saez 1 3 102
57 László Tusor 1 3 102
59 Kamel Senni 1 2.5 120
60 Sigfried Pigal 1 2.5 102
61 Le Corre Richard 1 2 96
62 Joscha Düll 0 4.5 138
63 Ferenc Borbely (Feco) 0 4 138
63 Enrico Bertusi 0 4 138
65 Ruben Feldman 0 4 132
66 Hugh Angseesing 0 4 120
66 Carlos Martinez Merino 0 4 120
68 David Gimerez 0 3.5 144
69 Balazs Sebestyen 0 3 132
70 Tamás Csepregi 0 3 120
70 Viktor Barát 0 3 120
72 Lubomir Boda 0 3 114
72 Peter Ducai 0 3 114
72 Brian White 0 3 114
75 Frederic Pin 0 3 102
76 Zoltan Varga (Godollo) 0 2.5 126
77 Simona Siracusa 0 2.5 114
78 Antonio Merino Gomez 0 2.5 108
79 Lucas Bonroy 0 2 120
79 Attila Suhajda 0 2 120
81 Marko Saari 0 2 114
81 Martin Valcak 0 2 114
81 Matthew Hirsch 0 2 114
81 Mark Loughman 0 2 114
81 Zsolt Cziráki 0 2 114
86 Anthony Coleman 0 2 108
87 Matej Lenarth 0 2 102
87 Tamás Beke 0 2 102
89 Alessandro Donati 0 2 96
89 Andrea Migone 0 2 96
89 Mikkel Petersen 0 2 96
89 Balázs Farkas 0 2 96
93 Inaki Jimenez Alonso 0 2 90
93 Martin Randers 0 2 90
95 Ignacio Perez 0 2 84
96 David Tatu 0 1.5 108
97 Otto Koskinen 0 1.5 102
98 Dániel Klein 0 1.5 96
98 Lajos Székely 0 1.5 96
98 Sebastian Duranton 0 1.5 96
101 Caroline Hyll 0 1 108
102 Roberto Masala 0 1 96
102 Tamás Szabó 0 1 96
102 Gábor Veress 0 1 96
105 Zsolt VARGA 0 1 90
105 Csongor Kolozsi 0 1 90
105 Archibald Zimonyi 0 1 90
105 Riccardo Fabiani 0 1 90
105 Tamás Hencsey 0 1 90
105 Balázs Páhi 0 1 90
105 Balazs Kuno Kiss 0 1 90
105 Zoltan Komora 0 1 90
113 Zsolt Oláh 0 1 84
113 Roberto Amestoy Lapuente 0 1 84
113 Christian Kutschera 0 1 84
113 Jerome Goyet 0 1 84
113 Mateusz Filary 0 1 84
113 Karel Zitny 0 1 84
113 Emiliano D'Onofrio 0 1 84
113 Laurie Goulding 0 1 84
113 Gerold Preinfalk 0 1 84
122 Dániel Nagy 0 1 78
122 Peter Koncek 0 1 78
122 David Cherryholmes 0 1 78
125 Luca Allaria 0 1 72
126 Stefane Lavrut 0 1 60
127 Sára Vadász 0 0.5 84
127 Alejandro Rodriguez 0 0.5 84
127 Steve Read 0 0.5 84
127 Ludmila Kopackova 0 0.5 84
131 Vladimir Kafka 0 0.5 78
132 Marco Cortijo 0 0.5 72
133 Robert Dvoran 0 0 72
133 Ádám Horváth 0 0 72
133 Andres Cegarra 0 0 72
133 Mario Schwenk 0 0 72
133 Rivas Christophe 0 0 72
138 Balázs Pálffy 0 0 66
138 Salvador Pulido Sanchez 0 0 66
138 David Fraile Zamorano 0 0 66
138 Sandor Kiss 0 0 66
138 Silvia Fortini 0 0 66
138 Attila Ferencz 0 0 66
138 László Kóti 0 0 66
138 Attila Péczeli 0 0 66
138 Tomasz Gala 0 0 66
138 Krisztian Tivadari 0 0 66
148 Csaba Bánkuti 0 0 60
148 Oscar Perez Pou 0 0 60
150 Guenther Goettlinger 0 0 54
5th of November - Legacies of Blood Prerelease
Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Joshua Duffin 2 8 4 144
2 Zsolt Tóth 1 4.5 1 124
3 Ben Peal 2 8 0 168
4 Martin Varga 1 7 0 132
5 Max Widen 1 6.5 0 150
6 Karol Magda 1 4.5 120
6 Tuomas Vuokko 1 4.5 120
6 Marina Csallo 1 4.5 120
9 Tibor Spáda 1 4 108
10 Gabriella Talmácsi-Békefi 1 3.5 132
11 Zoltan Varga 1 3.5 126
12 Jovan Pavlovic 0 4 144
13 Matthew Morgan 0 4 138
14 Csaba Greguss 0 3.5 144
15 Zoltán Cseh 0 3 126
16 Andrea RAVERA 0 2.5 108
17 Marko Lindroos 0 2 120
18 Ivan Zaldivar 0 1.5 114
19 Kasper Skovgaard Kristensen 0 1.5 108
19 Danilo Rodriguez Mellado 0 1.5 108
19 Jesper Brje 0 1.5 108
22 Zita Darvas 0 1.5 102
23 Péter Talmácsi 0 1.5 96
23 Ferenc Horvath 0 1.5 96
25 Attila Beke 0 0.5 82
26 Csaba Marton 0 0.5 78
27 Emanuele Sinagra 0 0 84
28 Attila Bencze 0 0 78
29 Gergo Gyarmati 0 0 76
30 David Wittamnn 0 0 72
31 Ville-Hermanni Kilpiä 0 0 66
31 Emese Tóth 0 0 66
33 Brian Moritz 0 0 60
34 Attila Gaga 0 0 54
6th of November - European Championship 2005
Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Brian Moritz 2 9 4 168
2 Mirko Anconitani 2 9 1 162
3 József Gál 3 10 0 180
4 Amiel Feldman 2 9 0 168
5 Richard Glasner 2 9 0 168
6 Dániel Horváth 2 9 162
7 Dusan Simsik 2 8.5 180
8 Matej Lenarth 2 7.5 180
9 Dániel Vígh 2 7 144
10 Róbert Kocsis 2 6.5 156
11 Andrea RAVERA 2 6 144
12 Tuomas Vuokko 2 5.5 156
13 Olivier Perez 2 5.5 138
14 Marko Lindroos 1 6.5 168
15 Ferenc Horváth 1 6.5 138
16 Stefane Lavrut 1 5.5 144
17 Jeroen van Oort 1 5.5 132
18 Karol Magda 1 5.5 114
19 Marko Saari 1 5 150
19 Martin Weinmayer 1 5 150
21 Stefan Ferenci 1 5 138
22 Attila Sipos 1 5 136
23 Danilo Rodriguez Mellado 1 5 126
24 Tamás Csepregi 1 5 114
25 Erik Torstensson 1 4.5 144
25 Johannes Walch 1 4.5 144
25 Jovan Pavlovic 1 4.5 144
28 Mario Schwenk 1 4 132
28 Kamel Senni 1 4 132
30 Martin Major 1 4 126
30 Ignacio Perez 1 4 126
32 Alessandro Giogoli 1 4 120
33 Ruben Feldman 1 4 108
34 Artur Siupik 1 4 102
34 David Tatu 1 4 102
36 Jay Kristoff 1 3.5 132
37 Ben Peal 1 3.5 126
38 Joscha Düll 1 3.5 120
39 Kasper Skovgaard Kristensen 1 3.5 114
40 Eric Chiang 1 3 108
40 Carlos Saez 1 3 108
40 Antti Horelli 1 3 108
40 Mikkel Petersen 1 3 108
44 Bartlomiej Chrobak 1 3 102
45 Frederic Pin 1 3 96
45 Lucas Bonroy 1 3 96
45 Simona Siracusa 1 3 96
48 David Fraile Zamorano 0 4 132
49 Miklós Lányi 0 3.5 150
50 Peter Vadasz 0 3.5 132
51 Robert Wanat 0 3 132
52 Marc Kolmerschlag 0 3 126
52 Zsolt Cziráki 0 3 126
54 Vladimir Klapko 0 3 120
54 David Wittamnn 0 3 120
56 Benjamin Swainbank 0 3 114
56 Alessandro Donati 0 3 114
56 Zsolt Bagdány 0 3 114
59 Enrique Alvarez Vigueras 0 3 102
59 Jorje Saez 0 3 102
61 Csaba Greguss 0 2.5 126
61 Riccardo Fabiani 0 2.5 126
61 Beatrice Düring 0 2.5 126
64 Christian Kutschera 0 2.5 120
65 Walter Paolini 0 2.5 114
66 Andrea Fregni 0 2.5 108
67 Tamás Bank 0 2 114
67 Diego Spallatti 0 2 114
69 Oscar Perez Pou 0 2 108
69 Brian White 0 2 108
69 Zsófia Kolozsvári 0 2 108
69 Matthew Morgan 0 2 108
69 Ginés Quinonero 0 2 108
69 Max Widen 0 2 108
75 Erol Öngün 0 2 102
75 Arnold Farkas 0 2 102
75 Lukasz Wasylow 0 2 102
78 István Mecseri 0 2 96
78 Frank Moeller 0 2 96
78 Anthony Coleman 0 2 96
78 Gyula Erdos 0 2 96
82 Ferenc Vencel 0 2 84
82 Radoslaw Staszewski 0 2 84
84 Andrea Del Cont 0 1.5 108
84 Matthew Hirsch 0 1.5 108
86 Steve Read 0 1.5 102
86 Martina Frimlova 0 1.5 102
88 Jim Parker 0 1 96
88 Vladimir Kafka 0 1 96
90 János Major 0 1 90
90 Gábor Endler 0 1 90
90 Gergo Gyarmati 0 1 90
90 Hein Hammervold 0 1 90
90 Sebastian Gravouil 0 1 90
95 Martin Varga 0 1 84
95 Balázs Kozó 0 1 84
97 Ivan Zaldivar 0 1 78
97 Robyn Tatu 0 1 78
99 Joshua Duffin 0 1 72
100 Peter Dinya 0 1 66
101 Zsolt Tóth 0 0.5 90
101 Emanuele Sinagra 0 0.5 90
103 Carl Pilhatsch 0 0.5 84
103 Attila Beke 0 0.5 84
105 Frode Loining 0 0.5 78
106 Alejandro Rodriguez 0 0 72
106 Bogusz Komarzynski 0 0 72
106 Peter Ducai 0 0 72
106 Jesper Brje 0 0 72
106 Andreas Nusser 0 0 72
111 Federico Neri 0 0 66
111 Csaba Marton 0 0 66
111 Rivas Christophe 0 0 66
111 Mats Ellingsen 0 0 66
111 Zoltan Komora 0 0 66
111 David Cherryholmes 0 0 66
117 Gerold Preinfalk 0 0 64
117 Balázs Pálffy 0 0 64
119 Olivier le Baut 0 0 60
119 Mark Loughman 0 0 60
119 Sten Düring 0 0 60
119 Máté Andrási 0 0 60
119 Roberto Masala 0 0 60
119 Attila Péczeli 0 0 60
119 Rudolf Edlmayer 0 0 60
119 Hugh Angseesing 0 0 60
127 Milán Horváth 0 0 54
6th of November - Silence of Death (Side-event)
Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Tamás Szabó 1 7 4 162
2 Peter Koncek 1 5.5 1 138
3 Otto Koskinen 2 10 0 174
4 Robert Dvoran 1 6 0 142
5 Caroline Hyll 1 6 0 132
6 Viktor Barát 1 5 144
7 David Gimerez 1 5 142
8 Ádám Horváth 1 5 114
9 Sandor Kiss 1 4.5 144
10 Gabriella Talmácsi-Békefi 1 4.5 124
11 Martin Valcak 1 4 132
11 Emiliano D'Onofrio 1 4 132
13 László Kóti 1 4 114
14 Carlos Martinez Merino 1 4 108
15 Salvador Pulido Sanchez 1 4 102
15 Le Corre Richard 1 4 102
17 Inaki Jimenez Alonso 1 4 78
18 Lubomir Boda 1 3.5 126
19 Attila Suhajda 1 3 112
20 Gábor Veress 1 3 106
21 Péter Korsós 1 3 102
22 Roberto Amestoy Lapuente 1 3 78
23 Zsolt Oláh 0 4 138
24 Daniel Csendes 0 3.5 138
25 Ferenc Borbely (Feco) 0 2.5 132
26 Zita Darvas 0 2 104
27 Guenther Goettlinger 0 2 100
28 Tamás Hencsey 0 2 96
29 Attila Gaga 0 2 90
30 Sigfried Pigal 0 1 94
31 Tibor Holhos 0 1 92
32 Balazs Sebestyen 0 1 90
32 Attila Ferencz 0 1 90
34 Alessandro Cecchini 0 1 84
34 Luca Allaria 0 1 84
36 Sára Vadász 0 1 72
36 Martin Randers 0 1 72
38 Sebastian Duranton 0 0.5 88
39 Balazs Kuno Kiss 0 0.5 82
40 Marco Cortijo 0 0.5 64
41 Andrea Migone 0 0 74
42 Laurie Goulding 0 0 70
42 Tibor Spáda 0 0 70
44 Almási Attila 0 0 66
44 Andres Cegarra 0 0 66
46 Zoltán Cseh 0 0 60
6th of November - EC side event Storyline (side event)
Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Lajos Szekely 1 5 1.5 144
2 Balázs Farkas 2 8 0.5 162
3 Péter Talmácsi 2 7 0.5 156
4 Jerome Goyet 1 4 0.5 126
5 Balázs Páhi 1 3 0 90
6 Oscar Garza 1 2 78
7 Archibald Zimonyi 0 2 118
8 Emese Tóth 0 1 90
9 Csongor Kolozsi 0 1 78
10 Zsolt VARGA 0 1 66
11 Ville-Hermanni Kilpiä 0 0 70
12 Antonio Merino Gomez 0 0 46
Emiliano Imeroni
Merldion wrote:
> <snip>
>
> 6th of November - European Championship 2005
>
> Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
> 1 Brian Moritz 2 9 4 168
> 2 Mirko Anconitani 2 9 1 162
> 3 József Gál 3 10 0 180
> 4 Amiel Feldman 2 9 0 168
> 5 Richard Glasner 2 9 0 168
Wait a second...
Isn't there something wrong here?
I understood from other threads that the winner of the EC
was Richard Glasner with Ventrue obf, while Brian was
playing Legacy of Pander...
Can someone please clarify?
Emiliano
Merldion
I did not have time to check...
Now it is correct:
1 Richard Glasner 2 9 4 168
2 Mirko Anconitani 2 9 1 162
3 József Gál 3 10 0 180
4 Amiel Feldman 2 9 0 168
5 Brian Moritz 2 9 0 168
Jay Kristoff
>5th of November - ECQ Last chance
>Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
>1 Jay Kristoff 3 9.5 0.5 180
Sabbatspex 2005
Played by Jay Kristoff at the final European qualifier 11/5/2005
Billy
The Colonel
Devin Bisley
Elizabeth Westcott
General Perfidio Dios
Idalia, Prophet of Guadalajara
Mercy, Knight Inquisitor
Nicholas Chang
Piotr Andreikov
Remillard, Devout Crusader
Richard Tauber, Ayelea's Puppet
Wendy Wade
The Barrens
6x Blood Doll
2x Effective Management
The Hungry Coyote
Metro Underground
Pentex Subversion
Police Department
Powerbase: Montreal
Smiling Jack, The Anarch
4x Anima Gathering
Arson
4x Atonement
4x Zillah's Tears
4x Change of Target
4x Delaying Tactics
4x Eagle's Sight
4x Enhanced Senses
6x Forced Awakening
10x Telepathic Misdirection
6x Wake with Evening's Freshness
4x Aura Reading
5x Concealed Weapon
5x .44 Magnum
Bowl of Convergence
Palatial Estate
6x Procurer
2x War Ghoul
-------------------------------
Thanks to everyone who made this year's
EC so much fun. I had a great time!
Jay Kristoff
V:EKN Prince of Columbus, Ohio USA
Screaming Vermillian
Merldion wrote:
> 5th of November - Legacies of Blood Prerelease
WHAT?!? Where are my LoB spoilers?
Man... Euros are lame. Get on it!
~SV
Johannes Walch
> "Merldion" wrote:
>
>
>>5th of November - ECQ Last chance
>
>
>>Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
>>1 Jay Kristoff 3 9.5 0.5 180
>
>
> Sabbatspex 2005
> Played by Jay Kristoff at the final European qualifier 11/5/2005
D´oh! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I
would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
"If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
--
johannes walch
a-e
> Merldion wrote:
>
>
>>5th of November - Legacies of Blood Prerelease
>
>
> WHAT?!? Where are my LoB spoilers?
>
here's little something for you...
Quicksilver Contemplation
Action modifier/Reaction
Auspex/Temporis
[aus](reaction) +1 intercept
[tem](reaction) Reduce a bleed against you by 2
[aus][tem](action modifier/reaction) Only usable during a referendum.
Force a younger vampire to abstain from voting. This can cancel that
vampire's votes.
[AUS][TEM](action modifier) +2 bleed.
a-e
> Quicksilver Contemplation
> Action modifier/Reaction
> Auspex/Temporis
> [aus](reaction) +1 intercept
> [tem](reaction) Reduce a bleed against you by 2
> [aus][tem](action modifier/reaction) Only usable during a referendum.
> Force a younger vampire to abstain from voting. This can cancel that
> vampire's votes.
> [AUS][TEM](action modifier) +2 bleed.
almost forgot... it costs 1 blood. sorry :(
Stefan Ferenci
>
>
> D惱h! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I
> would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
> "If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
>
> --
> johannes walch
sorry johannes, that shows (again) how little you understand about aus
walls.
if a 0.5 was such a sure thing how come that the last time these two
decks where in a final the final ended with a gw
fact is when time was called, bneatrix and quines where about to fall,
fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
fact is jay is not playing weenie auspex, his deck is a mid-cap deck.
fact is the final was played at a high level, with only slight errors at
best, so there was little to exploit.
stefan
Stefan Ferenci
>
>
> D惱h! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I
> would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
> "If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
>
> --
> johannes walch
Emiliano Imeroni
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
Hey Stefan,
Unless you think it will generate too much unpleasant discussion,
I'm very curious to know what ruling you're talking about...
Ciao,
Emiliano
(still very sad about not making it to Budapest)
Pat
"a-e" <antero....@substanssi.net> wrote in message
news:O0tcf.452$JB1...@read3.inet.fi...
Of course it does... Temporis cards aren't allowed to be free! :)
- Pat
Damnans
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> D´oh! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I
>> "If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
>>
>> --
>> johannes walch
>
>
>
> if a 0.5 was such a sure thing how come that the last time these two
> decks where in a final the final ended with a gw
>
> fact is when time was called, bneatrix and quines where about to fall,
My name is "Ginés" ;-) (the "G" is pronounced like the German "ch" in
"Buch", "acht", "noch"...
And the fact is that, as usual, there was too much useless table "talky
talky" >:-) which slowed down the game. And only in the last two turns
you were in a "hurry hurry" ;-)
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
I did not suffer from a bad draw, and I also had to shuffle my deck
after the judges sorted it for comparison to my decklist.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
Damnans wrote:
> My name is "Ginés" ;-) (the "G" is pronounced like the German "ch" in
> "Buch", "acht", "noch"...
Chinés in portuguese means chinese! :-D
> I did not suffer from a bad draw, and I also had to shuffle my deck
> after the judges sorted it for comparison to my decklist.
What deck did you played this time? Baali? Valerius Maior? I'm
curious...
Parabéns pela classificação no europeu! :P
Abraço Luso,
.- Luís Duarte
Powermonger
and been in such a large tournament.
I'm very pleased with the experience, and certainly will be there next
year in Torino.
Thank you very very much to all the spanish players who welcomed me and
made me feel one of their own. Every one of them were great partners
and friends and have a place in my home to stay whenever they want.
Than you Ginés, David, Andrés, Iñaki, Marco & the rest. Than you
VTES Spain! you are up to the traditions! Vamos a comernos unas chumis!
Many thanks to Gabor who took me at the airport!
Many thanks David and Robyn Tatu for such a Wonderful conversation. See
you in Atlanta!
And thanks to all the american players who were so kind and respectful
players (Matt, Matt, Ben , Joshua, etc.).
Best Regards,
Ankur Gupta
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
A couple of questions about this:
First, if you're trying to avoid a "confrontation" by not mentioning the
specific issue, then don't lambast someone on the public newsgroup. I
don't care who it is; that's just downright rude. If you want to make a
big deal about it, then post the issue and let it be an open discussion.
What's the rule? What mistake was made?
Second, if in fact Jay was suffering from a bad draw, I'd LOVE to see what
a good draw for him would be, since he, you know, won. Alternatively, I'd
like to be sitting at a table where a bad draw can still survive the
onslaught of other Methuselahs.
> fact is jay is not playing weenie auspex, his deck is a mid-cap deck.
>
> fact is the final was played at a high level, with only slight errors at
> best, so there was little to exploit.
And yet Jay was able to win with a bad draw? Man, either Jay is the
bestest player ever, or everyone sucked, or he didn't really have a bad
draw.
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
Emmit Svenson
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
I can't imagine how a bad ruling could possibly affect what cards you
drew from your deck.
Chris Berger
I think I've pieced together that the judge had them sort their decks
so they could be matched against the decklist, and that people were
pissed off that they had a bad draw, and thought it was because the
deck had been sorted.
It doesn't matter how sorted your deck is. If it wasn't randomized
after you shuffled, then you are at fault, because it is your
responsibility to randomize your deck. Put it this way: if you arrange
your deck such that like cards are not next to each other, and then
shuffle lightly, you have not sufficiently randomized your deck - it
wouldn't be as obvious, but you would still be in violation. If your
shuffling is not sufficient to randomize when the deck is sorted, then
it wasn't sufficient to randomize even if the deck had been sequenced
in some other way.
Damnans
> Damnans wrote:
>
[...]
>>I did not suffer from a bad draw, and I also had to shuffle my deck
>>after the judges sorted it for comparison to my decklist.
>
>
> What deck did you played this time? Baali? Valerius Maior? I'm
> curious...
I played this deck:
Deck Name: Leguleyos celérrimos
Created By: Damnans
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 18, Max: 30, Avg: 6,16)
----------------------------------------------
2 Emerson Bridges pot DOM FOR PRE 8 Ventrue
2 Sir Walter Nash DOM FOR PRE 7 Ventrue
1 Timothy Crowley ani dom FOR PRE 7 Ventrue
1 Jan Pieterzoon pot pre DOM FOR 7 Ventrue
1 Heather Florent dom FOR PRE 6 Ventrue
1 Luccia Paciola for pre DOM 6 Ventrue
1 Ranjan Rishi for DOM PRE 5 Ventrue
1 Jazz Wentworth dom for PRE 5 Ventrue
1 Violette Prentiss dom PRE 4 Ventrue
1 Courtland Leighton dom for pre 4 Ventrue
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (13 cards)
1 Anarch Troublemaker
3 Blood Doll
1 Coven, The
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Elysium: The Arboretum
1 Giant`s Blood
1 Jake Washington (Hunter)
1 Pentex Subversion
1 Secure Haven
1 Uptown Hunting Ground
1 Ventrue Headquarters
Action (14 cards)
4 Enchant Kindred
6 Govern the Unaligned
4 Scouting Mission
Action Modifier (26 cards)
5 Bonding
8 Change of Target
3 Conditioning
3 Daring the Dawn
2 Foreshadowing Destruction
4 Freak Drive
1 Kiss of Ra, The
Political Action (8 cards)
6 Kine Resources Contested
2 Parity Shift
Reaction (17 cards)
6 Deflection
3 Redirection
8 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
Combat (12 cards)
12 Majesty
>
> Parabéns pela classificação no europeu! :P
I was already qualified ;-) But thank you anyway ;-)
Daneel
<emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
>> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
>> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
>
> Hey Stefan,
>
> Unless you think it will generate too much unpleasant discussion,
> I'm very curious to know what ruling you're talking about...
Well, it's sad, but I doubt Stefan would post any facts. The truth is, he
probably knows the ruling was right, but he does not have the courage to
admit that all the accusations, whining and whatnot boil down to one
thing - he was not allowed to violate the tournament rules. Stating that
he failed to perform because of that would kind of place a question mark
next to all his previous achievements, so vague accusations are probably
all you'll get from him.
So Stefan, please either post the facts about your warning, or apologize
sincerely for your unfounded accusations. You've also been very quick to
threaten with applying to VEKN - if you feel that the ruling was unjust,
please do so. But waving unfounded accusations is not a nice thing to do
even if people know you are notoriously verbal.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Jay Kristoff
"Ankur Gupta" wrote:
> Second, if in fact Jay was suffering from a bad draw, I'd LOVE to see what
> a good draw for him would be, since he, you know, won. Alternatively, I'd
> like to be sitting at a table where a bad draw can still survive the
> onslaught of other Methuselahs.
>
> > fact is jay is not playing weenie auspex, his deck is a mid-cap deck.
> >
> > fact is the final was played at a high level, with only slight errors at
> > best, so there was little to exploit.
>
> And yet Jay was able to win with a bad draw? Man, either Jay is the
> bestest player ever, or everyone sucked, or he didn't really have a bad
> draw.
None of the above. My predator, Peter Vadasz, was playing Toreador-anti
with stealthy Presence bleeds (Jost & Marijava Ghouls). My deck has enough
intercept and bounce to completely trump such a deck. Even so, none of it
had showed up early in the game. It was really humilliating as 1 stealth
bleeds of
3 kept tearing into my pool. Peter was 1 bleed card away from ousting me,
but
came up short and left me with 1 pool. From there I slowly rebuilt. I
milked Blood
Doll + Palatial Estate, and was able to use Anima Gathering to get +2 int.
on Billy.
Much later on, when the round timed out at the 2.5 hour mark, no one had
been
ousted, but I probably looked the strongest.
As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
clumps in
my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly suffle the deck.
The
judges weren't about to let that happen. I'm not sure if there is a rule
for or against
what I wanted to do, so I wasn't complaining (aloud). I do know that
clumping will
occur in a random sample. At least that's what I was telling myself as I
was getting
bled like crazy.
As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
chance qualifier, the top
ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
similar fate in
Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
rules provide the
structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
in between rounds.
If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
accordingly. But as I said
in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
lack thereof) should not
keep us from playing in final rounds.
In the 2005 NAC, decklists were not collected, whereas in previous years
they were. Scott,
what was the reason for that?
Jay
Alias
Daneel napsal:
so you were the head judge, if I read properly? speaking about your
performance, dou you remember the discussion regarding the blood cost
paid accidentally with path of night in play? later, everybody else
confirmed I was right. even another judge, to whom I spoke day after,
admitted that and apologized. I wouldnt want to open it again, I really
feel no wrong, it was actually completely irrelevant during that game,
but such a blatant failure from a head judge is little bit
disturbing..could be much more important in another situation..
I could post the details of this problem for everybody else, but I
would prefer your point of view first.
as for mr.Ferenci - again, I know its bad to solve such things not
immediately, but few days later on the internet - but - on Saturday, I
thought it was just me, I was very tired after drinking whole night,
and not in the mood for hardcore table talk..
but as I see the opinions of other people on your person - yes, its
definitely possible, that you are really such an extremely obtrusive
idiot. at least compared to all the other nice people I have met during
the weekend.
next time,
claim, that you are already qualified and that you only play for fun
or
do everything for a win, including irritating verbal harrasment during
whole game
but dont do both simultaneously.
t-shirts with funny quotes are nice, but cannot fix everything..
Vladimir
the guy with descent into darkness on saturday/weenie ani on sunday
and excuse my poor english as always
Frederick Scott
news:76Ncf.94521$Hs.7...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
> clumps in my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly
> suffle the deck. The judges weren't about to let that happen.
They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
ruling was?
"Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
afterward. Of course, if a thorough randomization process took place,
it wouldn't make a shred of difference. So if the ruling was that
people couldn't manually remix their sorted cards, that was a pretty
stupid ruling. But as long as everyone could randomize, shuffle,
blindly remix to their heart's content afterward, it should have made
zero difference to anyone's draw.
Fred
LSJ
> They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
> ruling was?
>
> "Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
> any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
> afterward. Of course, if a thorough randomization process took place,
> it wouldn't make a shred of difference. So if the ruling was that
> people couldn't manually remix their sorted cards, that was a pretty
> stupid ruling. But as long as everyone could randomize, shuffle,
> blindly remix to their heart's content afterward, it should have made
> zero difference to anyone's draw.
Sounds right.
As it doesn't make any difference, as you note, the judges may have
felt that the player(s) who wanted to de-clump or otherwise arrange
their decks of the cards were planning on not "sufficiently
randomizing" the decks.
Or they could simply have been pressed for time and decided not to
allow the players to "waste" time sorting/arranging their decks in
this-or-that fashion prior to beginning the randomizing process.
Or it could be something totally different.
It is pretty difficult to say with so few details available.
Bala
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
See Rules at 3.2. Pre-Game Procedure:
"All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be
seen. "
You saw your cards. You made a mistake. You have been judged.
Frederick Scott
>> news:1131654596.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Was he claiming to be shuffling at the moment he did that?
LSJ's reasoning about why the judges might have done what they did
notwithstanding, there is no actual rule that people can't adjust
their deck order *before* shuffling. (The rule you quote is not such
a rule.) As long as they thoroughly shuffle - face down, of course -
afterwards.
Fred
Merldion
As the judge taking care of the ECQ finals, I have warned the players
before the game preparation that their decks are stacked, because we
have checked all crypts and libraries card-by-card comparing them to
the decklists. I also told them that they have any time they need to
randomize their decks properly. I left for a few minutes but my
fellow-judge, Daneel stayed at the table. He issued a warning to
Stefan, because improper deck shuffling, because Stefan started to
shuffle his deck with the cards face up. As the rules above clearly
state this being illegal I have supported Daneel's judgement. Daneel
has also encouraged the players to shuffle as long as they like.
That's what happened.
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
Damnans wrote:
> Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
> > Damnans wrote:
> Deck Name: Leguleyos celérrimos
Errr... Ginés, can you please translate?
Is this Catalan?
.- Luis Duarte
cur...@aol.commetal
wrote:
> As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
>chance qualifier, the top
>ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
>similar fate in
>Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
>rules provide the
>structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
>in between rounds.
>If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
>accordingly. But as I said
>in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
>lack thereof) should not
>keep us from playing in final rounds.
> In the 2005 NAC, decklists were not collected, whereas in previous years
>they were. Scott,
>what was the reason for that?
>
>Jay
Do you want tournament V:TES to be taken seriously?
If so, then people should learn how to fill out deck lists correctly
or get someone to do it for them. It's a common requirement for CCG
majors. Sure, it sometimes screws people making honest mistakes, but
so do lots of things in life.
Chris.QJ
wrote:
> As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
>chance qualifier, the top
>ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
>similar fate in
>Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
>rules provide the
>structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
>in between rounds.
>If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
>accordingly. But as I said
>in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
>lack thereof) should not
>keep us from playing in final rounds.
hi Jay,
i wouldn't mind getting rid of decklists myself, because I think that
99.5% of the players are well adjusted enough not to cheat by changing
their deck between rounds (especially before the final), but how are
you going to prevent the remaining .5% from cheating, if you do not
have decklists. it is impossible to tell if a player has been swapping
cards in his deck if you do not have one.
regards,
Chris.QJ
x5m...@gmx.de
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:76Ncf.94521$Hs.7...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
> > clumps in my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly
> > suffle the deck. The judges weren't about to let that happen.
>
> They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
> ruling was?
>
> "Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
> any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
> afterward.
We had this discussion before. If stacking (how separating clumps is
called) has no effect after randomization, it is not necessary. If it
has any effect, it is not allowed.
As a judge you usually dont care, if a deck is stacked, because it will
be shuffled afterwards. But if a deck is not stacked, you really dont
need to give the players time to stack it before randomizing it.
So the ruling of the hungarian judges was absolutely correct.
Frank
Damnans
> Damnans wrote:
>
>>Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
>>
>>>Damnans wrote:
>>
>>(...)
>>Deck Name: Leguleyos celérrimos
>
>
> Errr... Ginés, can you please translate?
> Is this Catalan?
No. It is Spanish.
Leguleyo: Pettifogging lawyer; Shyster.
Celérrimo: very fast
Johannes Walch
> As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
> chance qualifier, the top
> ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
> similar fate in
> Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
> rules provide the
> structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
> in between rounds.
> If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
> accordingly. But as I said
> in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
> lack thereof) should not
> keep us from playing in final rounds.
I am all for it. But we need it in the rules, else quite a few players
will be making all kind of noise about how cheaty it is not to have
decklists.
> In the 2005 NAC, decklists were not collected, whereas in previous years
> they were. Scott,
> what was the reason for that?
NAC seems to be a lot more relaxed (=non competitive) than the EC to me.
Johannes
Frederick Scott
news:1131701449.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:76Ncf.94521$Hs.7...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> > As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
>> > clumps in my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly
>> > suffle the deck. The judges weren't about to let that happen.
>>
>> They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
>> ruling was?
>>
>> "Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
>> any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
>> afterward.
>
> We had this discussion before. If stacking (how separating clumps is
> called) has no effect after randomization, it is not necessary. If it
> has any effect, it is not allowed.
Yep. I totally agree. However, it is one thing to say a thing isn't
necessary and quite another to say it should be or is illegal. If
there's no rule against it, there's no rule. And Daneel shouldn't
have issued a warning for shuffling illegally to Stefan unless Stefan
claimed to be shuffling as he was doing that. If there was some
other reason (e.g., all participants in general or Stefan in particular
had been ordered to being randomizing there deck(s) ), it might be
different.
> As a judge you usually dont care, if a deck is stacked, because it will
> be shuffled afterwards. But if a deck is not stacked, you really dont
> need to give the players time to stack it before randomizing it.
Sure. In which case, the correct procedure is to specifically order
everybody to begin shuffling/randomizing their decks now. Otherwise,
folks are going to naturally start engaging in whatever their normal
pregame sequence is. I'd also reiterate the command directly to
anyone who didn't seem to catch it before beginning to issue warnings.
> So the ruling of the hungarian judges was absolutely correct.
I'm not sure I agree. Of course, I'd have to have been there to
really say. If nothing else, it seems overblown, I suppose. Good
stuff for something to talk about while waiting for the release,
though.
Fred
Chris.QJ
>We had this discussion before. If stacking (how separating clumps is
>called) has no effect after randomization, it is not necessary. If it
>has any effect, it is not allowed.
>
>As a judge you usually dont care, if a deck is stacked, because it will
>be shuffled afterwards. But if a deck is not stacked, you really dont
>need to give the players time to stack it before randomizing it.
>
>So the ruling of the hungarian judges was absolutely correct.
>
>Frank
hi,
i have a different take on that:
a player gets a checked deck (all cards of same type and name clumped
together).
now there are two options:
1.) the player unclumps and shuffles thoroughly leading to a
sufficiently randomized deck
2.) the player does not unclump and shuffles thoroughly leading to a
sufficiently randomized deck
so both cases lead a sufficiently randomized deck.
if it makes the player feel better to unclump and the shuffle, fine,
let him go for it, since there is no mention in the rules that it is
forbidden to do so. the only rules concerning shuffling states that
the player has to shuffle sufficiently and face down. so basically
Stefan could just have said that he is not yet shuffling when Daneel
gave the warning.
i would have let all the players unclump, had they wanted to, and then
would have given the warning if an unclumping player does shuffle
thoroughly.
thats my take on things.
regards,
Chris.QJ
Stefan Ferenci
which is totally not true. you gave as our decks, and said you can
shuffle now, i check the cards and realized that the decks were sorted.
so i started to desort my deck not stack it, just seperate the masters
blood doll etc. which is as lsj stated is perfectly legal. at that point
daneel told me i am not allowed to look at my cards, i accidently did it
again, and got warned, at that point after i complained, tibor told
everybody, that the decks were sorted, that he advises us to shuffle
them hard, and then when i complained about the time needed to shuffle a
sorted deck like that, at that point you granted me all the time i needed.
i did not shuffle face up, therefore your warning was not just. i truly
regret (and hate myself for) not standing up and leaving the final, but
admittingly i am a ratings whore.
other wrongs around the finals.
trying to force the finalists to show a vampire from our decks to the
other finalists (to determine seating)
changing the prior announced time limit of 3 hours to at first 2 hours,
after jay and i complained to 2.5 hours AFTER seating was determined.
ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
letting at one point take peter back an announced action, when he
realized after announicing an action and tapping a vampire, that he
controlled millicent.. (jay disagreed but did not complain, neither did
gines. i didn´t care).
daneel before i apologize to you hell will freeze, because you were one
of the worsest judges i have ever met. all my accusations are just, you
were wrong because you have little knowledge of the vekn rules.
tibor, if you felt insulted by my post, i apologize. the warnings were
issued by daneel not you.
stefan
Stefan Ferenci
> if it makes the player feel better to unclump and the shuffle, fine,
> let him go for it, since there is no mention in the rules that it is
> forbidden to do so. the only rules concerning shuffling states that
> the player has to shuffle sufficiently and face down. so basically
> Stefan could just have said that he is not yet shuffling when Daneel
> gave the warning.
>
i told daneel "i will shuffle my deck afterwards, and will ask any
player on the table to shuffle my deck" that clearly states that at that
point i was not shuffeling my deck, but unclumping it.
s.
Stefan Ferenci
s.
Damnans
> Merldion wrote:
[...]
>
> other wrongs around the finals.
[...]
> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
Locations are optional by default ;-)
http://groups.google.es/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510c851217e773ff
Stefan Ferenci
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>> Merldion wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> other wrongs around the finals.
>
> [...]
>
>> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
>
>
> Locations are optional by default ;-)
>
> http://groups.google.es/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510c851217e773ff
>
>
>
estate, and the hg? (hgs say may, rack and palatial say gain)?
s.
LSJ
> Merldion wrote:
>> Thanks Bala,
>> As the judge taking care of the ECQ finals, I have warned the players
>> before the game preparation that their decks are stacked, because we
>> have checked all crypts and libraries card-by-card comparing them to
>> the decklists. I also told them that they have any time they need to
>> randomize their decks properly. I left for a few minutes but my
>> fellow-judge, Daneel stayed at the table. He issued a warning to
>> Stefan, because improper deck shuffling, because Stefan started to
>> shuffle his deck with the cards face up. As the rules above clearly
>> state this being illegal I have supported Daneel's judgement. Daneel
>> has also encouraged the players to shuffle as long as they like.
>>
>> That's what happened.
>>
> which is totally not true. you gave as our decks, and said you can
> shuffle now, i check the cards and realized that the decks were sorted.
> so i started to desort my deck not stack it, just seperate the masters
Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
down.
> blood doll etc. which is as lsj stated is perfectly legal. at that point
I said it was immaterial.
It is perfectly acceptable for the judge to disallow any face up
stacking/sorting/declumping/arranging of the deck, for the reasons
I indicated.
And even that (allowing or disallowing) is immaterial unless the
player subsequently violates the VEKN rules by not sufficiently
randomizing his deck. So it really doesn't matter for the case
where the VEKN rules are followed.
And doing so helps ensure that the VEKN rules are followed, if
it gives the player an added impetus to see to it that his deck
is sufficiently randomized.
> daneel told me i am not allowed to look at my cards, i accidently did it
> again, and got warned, at that point after i complained, tibor told
> everybody, that the decks were sorted, that he advises us to shuffle
> them hard, and then when i complained about the time needed to shuffle a
> sorted deck like that, at that point you granted me all the time i needed.
>
> i did not shuffle face up, therefore your warning was not just. i truly
> regret (and hate myself for) not standing up and leaving the final, but
> admittingly i am a ratings whore.
Arranging your cards while looking at their faces is shuffling face up.
> other wrongs around the finals.
>
> trying to force the finalists to show a vampire from our decks to the
> other finalists (to determine seating)
Players need not show other players any cards from their decks prior
to play.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1117b512d52f9b1c
> changing the prior announced time limit of 3 hours to at first 2 hours,
> after jay and i complained to 2.5 hours AFTER seating was determined.
Time limits for all rounds should be set prior to the start
of the tournament.
> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
They were at one time (prior to CE, for the Rack, at any rate), but
they are currently not optional.
> letting at one point take peter back an announced action, when he
> realized after announicing an action and tapping a vampire, that he
> controlled millicent.. (jay disagreed but did not complain, neither did
> gines. i didn´t care).
Would depend on the representation of the game state (i.e., how clearly
Millicent was in his controlled region, and whether peter had been
apprised of the move when it occurred, etc.).
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Sten During
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>> Merldion wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> other wrongs around the finals.
>
> [...]
>
>> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
>
>
> Locations are optional by default ;-)
>
> http://groups.google.es/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510c851217e773ff
>
>
>
That one has been changed to hunting grounds are optional as far as
I know.
Current card-text on hunting grounds are changed to reflect this
as well (may move). Where there is no such wording the effect is
mandatory and should be enforced retroactively. I might have a
vested interest in a player being forced to use The Rack or
Momentum's Edge (Taste of Vitae and Parity Shift comes to mind).
Sten During
Stefan Ferenci
> Daneel napsal:
> as for mr.Ferenci - again, I know its bad to solve such things not
> immediately, but few days later on the internet - but - on Saturday, I
> thought it was just me, I was very tired after drinking whole night,
> and not in the mood for hardcore table talk..
its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with disqualification.
the rest of that paragraph, i do not understand. were you part of the
final? i doubt it!
> but as I see the opinions of other people on your person - yes, its
> definitely possible, that you are really such an extremely obtrusive
> idiot. at least compared to all the other nice people I have met during
> the weekend.
>
have i met you during the ec? if not i kindly ask you not to insult me
on hearsay.
> next time,
> claim, that you are already qualified and that you only play for fun
> or
> do everything for a win, including irritating verbal harrasment during
> whole game
>
> but dont do both simultaneously.
>
what are you talking about. have we played together? vekn rules require
me to play to win, even if i am qualified.
stefan
Alias
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> Alias wrote:
> > Daneel napsal:
>
>
> > as for mr.Ferenci - again, I know its bad to solve such things not
> > immediately, but few days later on the internet - but - on Saturday, I
> > thought it was just me, I was very tired after drinking whole night,
> > and not in the mood for hardcore table talk..
>
> its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with disqualification.
> the rest of that paragraph, i do not understand. were you part of the
> final? i doubt it!
no
>
> > but as I see the opinions of other people on your person - yes, its
> > definitely possible, that you are really such an extremely obtrusive
> > idiot. at least compared to all the other nice people I have met during
> > the weekend.
> >
>
> have i met you during the ec? if not i kindly ask you not to insult me
> on hearsay.
yes
>
> > next time,
> > claim, that you are already qualified and that you only play for fun
> > or
> > do everything for a win, including irritating verbal harrasment during
> > whole game
> >
> > but dont do both simultaneously.
> >
>
> what are you talking about. have we played together? vekn rules require
> me to play to win, even if i am qualified.
yes, we did. qualifier, second round. I am pretty sure it was you,
because when I asked prior to the game "hi, are you Stefan Ferenci?"
(to check if I am at the right table), you replied "so? you want an
autograph or what?"
you know, a side note, just to compare, when I came to the table before
the third round of the qualifier, there was a hungarian player (my
prey) offering chocolate to everybody :) and, you know, chocolate is
always better than infantile arrogance :)
> stefan
Vladimir
Stefan Ferenci
> yes, we did. qualifier, second round. I am pretty sure it was you,
> because when I asked prior to the game "hi, are you Stefan Ferenci?"
> (to check if I am at the right table), you replied "so? you want an
> autograph or what?"
>
>>stefan
>
>
> Vladimir
>
i remember, but i didn´t reply like that however, sorry i didn´t have
any choclate for you. i´ll bring some next time.
s.
x5m...@gmx.de
If unclumping is randomizing - why not do it face down?
If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your tastes -
why should a judge allow it?
The judge told you, you should shuffle face down, so you were obviously
in the shuffling phase of the deck. It is so simple. You didnt follow
his advice, so you got a warning. What else should he do. Starting a
discussion?
Stefan, that you dont like the decisions of judges, if you dont agree,
is really your problem not theirs.
Frederick Scott
news:ck%cf.7565$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
> the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
> is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
> down.
I can understand the reasons for not accepting the results of a
shuffle/randomization technique that was done face up. I have real
questions about the expediency of a rule that purports to outlaw
reordering someone's deck at a moment prior to beginning a game AND
beginning randomization of a deck for a game.
Before a game, there is no way to regulate peoples' behavior like
that. We can say their deck needs to consist of a certain mix of
cards and we can say that the mix needs to be the same one from
one game to the next. But I don't see how anyone can outlaw
"arranging the order" of a deck. There's no rule against looking
at your deck between games and certainly before the first game;
one can look at one's deck completely unstacked between games,
and then one can restack a deck however they like - how would
THAT be any different from what you're talking about, other than
just taking longer? Will the judges follow each participant
around and into the restroom if they happen to be hold their
decks, in fear that a player will look at and reorder his deck?
I'm confused.
If I understand the rule you're suggesting exists, it seems to a
little silly. Maybe I did not.
> It is perfectly acceptable for the judge to disallow any face up
> stacking/sorting/declumping/arranging of the deck, for the reasons
> I indicated.
I think it's probably reasonable to tell people who are seated and
almost ready to begin play that time constraints demand that they
begin randomizing their deck (hence they cannot be looking at it
face up) in immediate preparation for play. They should also deal
out 7 library cards, 4 crypt cards, and 30 pool counters as well.
But those orders should be made clear so no one receives a warning
and can say they're (legitimately) surprised by it. (Obviously I
have no idea happened in this case.)
> Arranging your cards while looking at their faces is shuffling face up.
In that case, everybody "shuffled face up" when they sorted their cards
for inspection!!! Everybody at the EC should be given a warning.
That interpretation, taken strictly, is absurd. To not take it
strictly is an ambiguous mess. "Shuffling face up" is shuffling face
up: meaning I am looking at my cards as I do whatever it is I do and
then represent it to my fellow players as a shuffle.
Fred
Sten During
> just taking longer? Will the judges follow each participant
> around and into the restroom if they happen to be hold their
> decks, in fear that a player will look at and reorder his deck?
Ok, so, just to stretch it a bit further, would you say it's ok
if I went into the restroom and changed the content of my library
and crypt between round 1 and 2 and between round 2 and 3 as long
as no jugde saw me and I made certain my deck was restored to the
original state before I play in the final round?
Just curious.
Sten During
Frederick Scott
news:4374cdd3$0$41137$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> just taking longer? Will the judges follow each participant
>> around and into the restroom if they happen to be hold their
>> decks, in fear that a player will look at and reorder his deck?
>
> Ok, so, just to stretch it a bit further, would you say it's ok
> if I went into the restroom and changed the content of my library
> and crypt between round 1 and 2 and between round 2 and 3 as long
> as no jugde saw me
No, of course not. But: 1) there's a good reason for such a rule;
and 2) that can spot checked for.
Fred
Daneel
wrote:
> daneel told me i am not allowed to look at my cards, i accidently did it
> again, and got warned, at that point after i complained,
Not trying to be hairsplitting or anything, but I Warned you on the third
time you "accidentally" looked at you cards. At first I explained to you
the rules, just in case you weren't completely familiar with them. You
voiced your disagreement and continued doing the face up shuffling. I
then told you again that you are not allowed to shuffle face-up - which
you again ignored. It was then that I issued a Warning. Which was just
fine, as you then started to shuffle in a legal way.
> daneel before i apologize to you hell will freeze, because you were one
> of the worsest judges i have ever met. all my accusations are just, you
> were wrong because you have little knowledge of the vekn rules.
> tibor, if you felt insulted by my post, i apologize. the warnings were
> issued by daneel not you.
Well, I was the Bad Judge (TM), wasn't I? ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Jay Kristoff
"Chris.QJ" wrote
This .5% is a strange bunch. I doubt that they are winning much.
Swapping cards in between preliminary rounds seems like a fool's
errand. What's to say that your experiences in round 1 will at all
be like round 2 (unless you're in a 5 player event)?
It seems that the time when illegal card swapping would give a
player the most advantage is before a final round. Players may
have played other finalists earier in the day, done some scouting,
or have heard rummors as to what other finalists were playing.
I can envision someone running off to the bathroom and swapping
4 Majesty for 4 Seduction or some thing like that. To limit pre-
finals card swapping, I recomend minimizing the time between
round 3 and the final round or having the organizer collect the finalists'
decks prior to the break before the finals, and then return them as the
final round was about to begin.
Jay
Sten During
I know, I was being a pain in the ***, but the basic thing here is
not if it's difficult to find out if a player did something but if
that something was ok to do or not. I'm aware some rules will be
harder to enforce than others, but that should not be the primary
criteria for wether it's an important rule or not.
Let's assume I'm "declumping" my deck by pairing together all wakes
with intercept and all actions with stealth. I then shuffle the
deck deck four times in front of your eyes and offer you the deck
for further shuffling just prior to the start of the game. I think
we can both agree that the deck is likely to be "not sufficidently
randomized" when I start the game for the simple reason that used cards
as well as used plastic sleeves tend to stick together.
Now, I don't suggest that players on average deliberately try to
"cheat", but the one single reason for declumping a deck is to make
it more evenly spread after shuffling, which is NOT the same as
randomizing the deck. If the reason for this behaviour is based on
knowledge (in which case it WOULD be cheating) or superstition I
don't know. I'd like to think it's the latter -- like wearing a
lucky amulet :)
Sten During
Frederick Scott
> I know, I was being a pain in the ***, but the basic thing here is
> not if it's difficult to find out if a player did something but if
> that something was ok to do or not. I'm aware some rules will be
> harder to enforce than others, but that should not be the primary
> criteria for wether it's an important rule or not.
I agree somewhat. But this is not exactly an important rule. I
agree with LSJ's point about suspecting that people declumping
their cards may not be intending to sufficiently randomize them
afterward. But it seems to me that the answer to that is enforcing
a rule against playing an insufficiently randomized deck. Do what
you will in terms of deck order before shuffling, but we will then
watch you shuffle so you better do a good job.
And besides, the rule is patently unenforcable. I think it's James
or Legbiter or someone who likes to say, "Do not command what you
cannot enforce." And there's a good reason for that: enforcement
of such things turns on capricious matters like whether a guy had
a few minutes to wander off with his deck and unclump in secret
rather than being in a hurry and doing it where people can watch
him. Since there's no potential for spot-checking like you can
do for deck changes, it all takes on the character of a witch hunt
in my eyes. It's not something worth engaging in considering that
the real answer is just to make people shuffle thoroughly in front
of you before playing. If they do that, I don't care what they
did with their deck order beforehand.
> Let's assume I'm "declumping" my deck by pairing together all wakes
> with intercept and all actions with stealth. I then shuffle the
> deck deck four times in front of your eyes and offer you the deck
> for further shuffling just prior to the start of the game. I think
> we can both agree that the deck is likely to be "not sufficidently
> randomized" when I start the game for the simple reason that used cards
> as well as used plastic sleeves tend to stick together.
I'm not sure I agree that four shuffles is insufficient, depending on
how they're done. But if I don't see someone randomize his deck
sufficiently IN FRONT OF ME (and I've never met the guy before so
I don't know his character), I always make a point of shuffling it
myself for exactly this reason. Don't you? Everybody should.
Fred
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> Let's assume I'm "declumping" my deck by pairing together all wakes
> with intercept and all actions with stealth. I then shuffle the
> deck deck four times in front of your eyes and offer you the deck
> for further shuffling just prior to the start of the game. I think
> we can both agree that the deck is likely to be "not sufficidently
> randomized" when I start the game for the simple reason that used cards
> as well as used plastic sleeves tend to stick together.
>
Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
V:tES.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
>>is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
>>down.
>
> I can understand the reasons for not accepting the results of a
> shuffle/randomization technique that was done face up. I have real
> questions about the expediency of a rule that purports to outlaw
> reordering someone's deck at a moment prior to beginning a game AND
> beginning randomization of a deck for a game.
What are these real questions?
Expediency?
Purports?
Paint it how you wish if you need to take issue with it, the
fact remains that the pre-shuffle state of the deck is immaterial,
except to those who do not understand what it means to "sufficiently
randomize" a deck.
A deck cannot be reordered in "a moment". It takes time. And
it is time wasted, if the VEKN rules are followed.
So the big question is: what of it?
The judge allows or disallows (additional) sorting of the deck.
Net effect on the game: zero.
Play. The. Game.
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> A deck cannot be reordered in "a moment". It takes time. And
> it is time wasted, if the VEKN rules are followed.
>
> So the big question is: what of it?
It is unenforcable in many circumstances. Therefore, the enforcement
of it becomes capricious. Players attempting to contravene it will
do so by strategizing: sneaking off and reordering their deck. Or
arriving before the first game with an ordered deck.
Fixing this problem this way invites reliance on a means that will
only work some of the time. Fixing it by simply requiring a set
amount of randomizing works all the time. Why not rely solely on
the latter?
Furthermore, players absolutely have legitimate business inspecting
their decks face up between games, particularly for cards played
in their areas by other players and to search for their cards
played in other players' areas. By your interpretation of the
face-up-shuffle rule, they wind having to be very careful about
exactly how they handle their decks lest they be accused of a
face up shuffle when gathering up their cards for play. I think
that's a needless thing to be worrying about.
> The judge allows or disallows (additional) sorting of the deck.
> Net effect on the game: zero.
I don't have an issue with compelling players to follow direct
orders issued by a judge, as long as he is clear about them and
clear that they are compulsorary in nature as he issues them.
> Play. The. Game.
Sure.
Fred
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>A deck cannot be reordered in "a moment". It takes time. And
>>it is time wasted, if the VEKN rules are followed.
>>
>>So the big question is: what of it?
>
> It is unenforcable in many circumstances. Therefore, the enforcement
> of it becomes capricious.
And still doesn't matter.
So the big question remains.
> Players attempting to contravene it will
> do so by strategizing: sneaking off and reordering their deck. Or
> arriving before the first game with an ordered deck.
And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.
> Fixing this problem this way invites reliance on a means that will
> only work some of the time. Fixing it by simply requiring a set
> amount of randomizing works all the time. Why not rely solely on
> the latter?
What problem?
Nothing is being fixed here.
If there were something being fixed, then the net effect would not
be zero. And the net effect is zero.
> Furthermore, players absolutely have legitimate business inspecting
> their decks face up between games, particularly for cards played
> in their areas by other players and to search for their cards
> played in other players' areas.
OK.
> By your interpretation of the
> face-up-shuffle rule, they wind having to be very careful about
> exactly how they handle their decks lest they be accused of a
> face up shuffle when gathering up their cards for play.
Hardly.
> I think
> that's a needless thing to be worrying about.
Good thing no one will be worrying about it, then.
>>The judge allows or disallows (additional) sorting of the deck.
>>Net effect on the game: zero.
>
> I don't have an issue with compelling players to follow direct
> orders issued by a judge, as long as he is clear about them and
> clear that they are compulsorary in nature as he issues them.
Um. OK.
James Coupe
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your tastes -
>why should a judge allow it?
Because it is then followed by a thorough randomization, at which point
it's not a question of "allowing" it. It should make no difference if
the later shuffling is good enough. If it makes a player feel better,
who cares?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I guess if you don't think my complaints about your interpretation
of the meaning of the face up shuffle rule are all things that
don't matter then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
There's really no argument one can make to dispute such an
assertion.
I suppose the one other thing I might suggest is that rule 3.2
could be a bit more straightforward in this regard. I personally
would have never thought to interpret, "All shuffling must be done
so the faces of the cards cannot be seen." as a prohibition against
declumping or otherwise doing pre-shuffle ordering - because I
don't think of such actions as "shuffling". A more consistent and
universal understanding of what rules mean is always a good thing.
Fred
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:js9df.7288$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Frederick Scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.
>
> I guess if you don't think my complaints about your interpretation
> of the meaning of the face up shuffle rule are all things that
> don't matter then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
?
Context. Thread.
It doesn't matter if you stack your deck this way or that way
or leave it stacked in its current situation prior to randomizing
the deck.
Shorter: It doesn't matter.
Still. Again.
Maybe you'll find a new way to twist it. Maybe not.
Either way, it will remain true.
> There's really no argument one can make to dispute such an
> assertion.
>
> I suppose the one other thing I might suggest is that rule 3.2
> could be a bit more straightforward in this regard. I personally
> would have never thought to interpret, "All shuffling must be done
> so the faces of the cards cannot be seen." as a prohibition against
> declumping or otherwise doing pre-shuffle ordering
Great.
I didn't say that. The rules don't say that.
We've both said that the judge's directives are to be followed.
The directive to "get on with shuffling" (to include not looking
at the faces) is consistent with the rules.
So here we are. Saying the same thing, around and around.
But somehow, you find that it is a topic of contention.
As you like.
Bala
>> "All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be
>> seen. "
>> You saw your cards. You made a mistake. You have been judged.
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>i was not shuffling dude,
LSJ wrote:
"Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
down. "
Do you have another answer? ;) Dude.
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:rybdf.7340$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:js9df.7288$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.
>>
>> I guess if you don't think my complaints about your interpretation
>> of the meaning of the face up shuffle rule are all things that
>> don't matter then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
>
> ?
>
> Context. Thread.
In a previous article, you wrote:
# Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
# the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
# is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
# down.
According to rule 3.2, "All shuffling must be done so that the faces
of the cards cannot be seen." That is a rule in the tournament rules.
Combined with what you said above, one can logically deduce that
you think "Desort/declumping/stacking" are illegal activities at a
tournament. Possibly before a tournament, too, I don't know. If
that's not what you meant, I apologize for the misunderstanding but
you could have been more clear in thrust of your comment.
It doesn't seem to me that someone caught declumping at his leisure
long before the next game begins and with no judges around trying to
move things along need be, for instance, issued a warning for
engaging in something illegal. That was the position I was trying
to articulate.
Again, if I've been badgering you uselessly about something you
didn't mean, I apologize.
Fred
XZealot
> Again, if I've been badgering you uselessly about something you
> didn't mean, I apologize.
Badgers? We don't need no stinking Badgers!
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
ira...@gmail.com
> shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
> V:tES.
I've heard that 7 shuffles are enough to randomize a 52-card deck, but
I'm wondering if there's any proof of that. Also, are you assuming a
"perfect" shuffle, where the deck is cut exactly in half, and then the
cards are interleaved?
Assuming there is math to show that 7 shuffles are sufficient to
randomize a 52 card deck, I'd like to know how many shuffles are enough
to randomize a 90 card deck.
Also, I've seen a lot of players "shuffle" their decks by counting them
out into 6* piles, and then stacking the piles. *Sometimes more or
less than 6. Perhaps doing that is "better" randomization than
shuffling?
I'm curious about this and I'm not sure how to do the math. I might do
some internet searching on it later, but if anyone already knows,
please post here.
Thanks,
Ira
Pat
<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131761674.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
>> shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
>> V:tES.
>
> I've heard that 7 shuffles are enough to randomize a 52-card deck, but
> I'm wondering if there's any proof of that. Also, are you assuming a
> "perfect" shuffle, where the deck is cut exactly in half, and then the
> cards are interleaved?
>
My favorite shuffle trivia is this... if you make just 8 perfect
"out-shuffles" of a 52-card deck, you return it to its original order.
Reference:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Out-Shuffle.html
This page
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiffleShuffle.html
states another interesting result:
3/2 log base 2 (n) is a sufficient number of shuffles to randomize a deck of
n cards.
For n = 90, this is approximately 10.
For n = 12, this is approximately 6. (Although 12 may not be a large enough
n for the result to hold?)
- Pat
Derek Ray
>> Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
>> shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
>> V:tES.
>
> I've heard that 7 shuffles are enough to randomize a 52-card deck, but
> I'm wondering if there's any proof of that. Also, are you assuming a
> "perfect" shuffle, where the deck is cut exactly in half, and then the
> cards are interleaved?
There was at least one study done that indicated such, although I do not
have a link or other information handy. I have not checked Google;
perhaps it's right there on page 1.
The 'perfect' riffle, of course, is not actually a shuffle at all as it
does not leave any cards in an unknown position -- which means that the
results of the study are inherently suspect, as part of any experiment
is reproducibility. Random isn't reproducible, by definition, so one of
the few useful tests would be to use a truly random shuffling method to
sort the 52 cards, and then compare the results to 7 "imperfect riffles"
to see how much more of a pattern there tends to be from the riffles...
in other words, how many times you get results that were similar to a
prior result, compared to how many times you got that with the
true-random method. But even here there's an element of uncertainty
involved about the results, as your test for "similar results" is going
to, by necessity, be a bit weak.
In short, it's pretty hard to test "random". The literal definition is
that given a deck of 52 cards numbered 1 through 52 and any given
shuffling method, the chances that the cards come up ordered as:
1, 2, 3, ... 51, 52
... should be identical to the chances they come up:
52, 51, 50, ... 2, 1
... and the chances of being ordered in ALL other possible combinations.
Easy to brute-force test with dice ... not so easy to do with cards.
> Assuming there is math to show that 7 shuffles are sufficient to
> randomize a 52 card deck, I'd like to know how many shuffles are enough
> to randomize a 90 card deck.
Even assuming the study is accurate, it would take way more than 7, and
certainly more than players currently do.
> Also, I've seen a lot of players "shuffle" their decks by counting them
> out into 6* piles, and then stacking the piles. *Sometimes more or
> less than 6. Perhaps doing that is "better" randomization than
> shuffling?
Depends on whose point of view you're using. Many people believe it's
better randomization, and the owner of the deck will always tell you "I
get better shuffles this way."
From an objective view, it's not actually randomization at all; it's
intentional de-clumping, and as such I don't consider it to be shuffling
of any sort -- after someone does this, I expect to see them use some
form of actual shuffling on the deck. If they shuffle honestly, by the
definition of random above, it won't matter what order the cards went
into the deck.
> I'm curious about this and I'm not sure how to do the math. I might do
> some internet searching on it later, but if anyone already knows,
> please post here.
Well, you really don't need the math. What you do need to know is:
-- 90 cards are significantly more difficult to shuffle, PHYSICALLY,
than 52 cards. In Vegas, dealers do a "rough mix" prior to all
shuffling; the best way to understand THAT is to watch it on your local
Texas Hold 'Em TV program. It is the best randomization they have
available to them; the several riffle shuffles they do afterwards is
simply icing on the cake.
-- Vegas dealers have it easier than V:TES players. Vegas dealers only
really need people to not be able to predict the order the cards will
come in, and they rarely use the entire deck. V:TES players ALSO need
to have no significant bias in their deck either towards or against
clumping; if you have six Blood Dolls, it should be equally likely for
them to be all in the top 15 cards, spread out through the deck evenly,
or all in the bottom 15 -- and because V:TES players can potentially use
the entire deck, it actually matters a lot more from the viewpoint of
correct randomization *AND* from gameplay; while many decks benefit more
from having an even distribution and no cards of the same type next to
each other, others such as Giovanni powerbleed will do much better
drawing up all their Governs early, and all their Conditionings and
Foreshadowings in the later part of the deck, when the hammer really
needs to be dropped *AFTER* the block decision is made.
-- Most V:TES players will never rough-mix their cards, out of fear of
damaging the condition. Combined with their inability to shuffle a
90-card deck properly, the play of the game suffers as a result...
certainly so for those who choose not to separate their cards
beforehand, as they will be more likely to clump up. I personally note
that I get more "expected" results out of a deck after it's been played
a few times -- this is undoubtedly because combos end up next to each
other in the ash heap, and even though I do put some effort into making
my shuffle random, even my hands aren't good enough to split up EVERY
combo and create a truly random order (although remember, the
possibility must exist that some combos ARE together in the perfect play
order as well).
-- The above is not an endorsement of table-shuffling, however, as that
action biases the output of the deck in exactly the OPPOSITE fashion
from not separating cards; it makes the output much more unlikely to be
clumped than it normally would be in a random shuffle. This is just as
bad, and in fact slightly worse since it gives the separators an
advantage over the non-separators... if the non-separators' deck is
ordered in clumps, that is. If it's not ordered (say, it's been played
a bunch), the results will be unpredictable as to who will get more
"clumping", as the initial order is unknown.
(breathes)
...AS FAR AS the whole getting-a-free-ticket thing goes, which ruling
exactly do I need to disagree with to collect? I can be bribed. :D
--
Derek
[honestly? I'm disinclined to interfere with players' superstitions,
since all it ever does is annoy them and solves nothing... and a judge
should provide solutions to problems, not annoyance.
If necessary (ie, i see them fail to properly shuffle after sorting) or
asked to make a ruling by one of their opponents, I would remind the
player that sorting isn't shuffling in any way, shape, or form, and just
as much randomization will need to happen AFTER de-sorting as it would
if no sorting had occurred. I'd also advise their predator of this and
let the players try to sort it out amongst themselves.
If the process is causing someone to take too long to begin a game, you
warn them for time (the actual offense), and tell them to hurry up and
get to the actual shuffling part.]
x5m...@gmx.de
and didnt made a player feeling better!
Do you know a better way to stop people judging tournaments in the
future?
James Coupe
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
Please quote appropriate context to make your posts easier to follow.
:-(
>So we are criticizing a judge because he started the shuffling process
>and didnt made a player feeling better!
No. A question was asked by you:
If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your
tastes - why should a judge allow it?
I responded:
Because it is then followed by a thorough randomization, at
which point it's not a question of "allowing" it. It should
make no difference if the later shuffling is good enough. If it
makes a player feel better, who cares?
The point is that it makes no difference.
Note that at no point did I go on to criticise the judge or the
judgement.
>Do you know a better way to stop people judging tournaments in the
>future?
Judges in major tournaments know that they're going to get some grief
because of rulings they make - either they're right, but they don't have
the exact ruling to hand, or it's a judgement call and the player
doesn't believe them, or... It's inevitable.
Judges do, for better or worse, need to be able to take a little flack.
I have, for instance, been given grief by a player because I told them
they couldn't maneuver after having declined to do so (which could have
cost them that combat and an influential minion).
Since judges are interacting with real people, they will be dealing with
real people, real emotions and real feedback. Judges who can't deal
with that should get over it.
Chris.QJ
wrote:
> This .5% is a strange bunch. I doubt that they are winning much.
>Swapping cards in between preliminary rounds seems like a fool's
>errand. What's to say that your experiences in round 1 will at all
>be like round 2 (unless you're in a 5 player event)?
hi Jay,
I think you are overlooking something in your statement:
if you know the seating order the archon uses, then after round one
you know which players, and in what order, you are goint to sit with
in the following two rounds. all it takes is a small sheet of paper
with the seating orders of your 25 player pod for all three rounds and
a little scouting after you are ousted in round 1 (which might not
even be necessary, as you will be most likely be sitting on a table
next to them in a previous round) *. playing a tremere block deck, and
knowing that your predator in the next game is going to be pot
rush.... fine swap those .44s for sniper rifles.
I am not saying that this is done, but if you really wanted to, it can
be ridicoulusly easy and highly effective.
> It seems that the time when illegal card swapping would give a
>player the most advantage is before a final round. Players may
>have played other finalists earier in the day, done some scouting,
>or have heard rummors as to what other finalists were playing.
>I can envision someone running off to the bathroom and swapping
>4 Majesty for 4 Seduction or some thing like that. To limit pre-
>finals card swapping, I recomend minimizing the time between
>round 3 and the final round or having the organizer collect the finalists'
>decks prior to the break before the finals, and then return them as the
>final round was about to begin.
this would have to be fine tuned so that players still have the time
check their decks for completeness before they pass it to the judge.
Having your key Fame, Pentex, PB:Montreal.. hidden in someone elses
deck can be a severe disatvantage in the final. but not enough time
to scout for results and opponents in the final and alter their deck
accordingly.
I'd be inlined to say that this is unmanageable in a large tournament.
regards,
Chris.QJ
* this was also cause for much entertainment when waiting for play to
start (sometimes about half an hour) and sitting on two 5 player
tables standing head to head.
"hey cool, i can parity shift for 10 in this game"....
;-)
Stefan Ferenci
>
>
> Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
> the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
> is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
> down.
>
than i kindly ask you to include that in tournament rules, because (i
even asked a friend of mine that studied german) shuffeling in german
means, randomizing eg a deck of cards, declumbing/stacking/desorting
would not fall in this category.
s.
Stefan Ferenci
that post.
s.
Chris.QJ
wrote:
>
>> Again, if I've been badgering you uselessly about something you
>> didn't mean, I apologize.
>
>Badgers? We don't need no stinking Badgers!
Badger
Retainer
1 blood
Animal. 1 life.
If a judge makes a ruling you do not like, you may burn Badger to have
the judge repeat the ruling two more times.
;-)
Chris.QJ
Stefan Ferenci
>
> Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
> the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
> is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
> down.
>
a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i will
only look at my cards not change the order)
if a hand in a perfectly randomized deck, and get it back sorted,
shouldn´t the judge tell the players that their decks were sorted?
s.
Stefan Ferenci
> What is unclumping?
>
> If unclumping is randomizing - why not do it face down?
> If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your tastes -
> why should a judge allow it?
>
i never said unclumping is randomizing. i said i would randomize the
deck afterwards.
s.
LSJ
> if you know the seating order the archon uses, then after round one
> you know which players, and in what order, you are goint to sit with
> in the following two rounds. all it takes is a small sheet of paper
> with the seating orders of your 25 player pod for all three rounds and
> a little scouting after you are ousted in round 1 (which might not
> even be necessary, as you will be most likely be sitting on a table
> next to them in a previous round) *. playing a tremere block deck, and
> knowing that your predator in the next game is going to be pot
> rush.... fine swap those .44s for sniper rifles.
>
> I am not saying that this is done, but if you really wanted to, it can
> be ridicoulusly easy and highly effective.
Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
sequentially).
Even when your own position is known, figuring out who you'll be
seated with and getting a good enough idea of the nature/angles
of their decks such that you can improve your own deck sufficiently
to counter it (unless you're just looking to salt in a few clan
hosers or weenie hosers or IC hosers) doesn't strike me as
ridiculously easy nor more than somewhat effective. It gets
easier the worse your deck does (i.e., when you're ousted
first, you have more time to scout and re-tool your deck), but
that hardly seems like a good thing to plan.
BTW, pods range in size all the way up to 52.
And of course, if the organizer allows any drops or adds, all bets
are off.
--
LSJ
> a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
> deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i will
> only look at my cards not change the order)
If inspect means look at the faces, then of course not.
> if a hand in a perfectly randomized deck, and get it back sorted,
> shouldn´t the judge tell the players that their decks were sorted?
Between rounds, it won't matter since you are to sufficiently randomize your
deck at the start of each round. If the judge inspects your deck in the
middle of a round, then he should leave the order unchanged unless there's
some reason to change the order. In the latter case, the judge should
specify what he or she is doing (and whether you are to randomize afterward
or leave the order as-is).
LSJ
No need. Because, again, it doesn't matter.
If the judge asks you to start shuffling, then do so (face down, of
course).
Chris.QJ
wrote:
hi Scott,
>Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
>I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
>put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
>sequentially).
you don't do that+ almost everyone else does = easy in almost all
non-LSJ-run tournaments.
>
>Even when your own position is known, figuring out who you'll be
>seated with and getting a good enough idea of the nature/angles
>of their decks such that you can improve your own deck sufficiently
>to counter it (unless you're just looking to salt in a few clan
>hosers or weenie hosers or IC hosers) doesn't strike me as
>ridiculously easy nor more than somewhat effective. It gets
>easier the worse your deck does (i.e., when you're ousted
>first, you have more time to scout and re-tool your deck), but
>that hardly seems like a good thing to plan.
>
>BTW, pods range in size all the way up to 52.
both are no problem for mr.cheaty (tm) ;-)
1.) plan to be ousted rather soon in round 1 so that you have time to
scout. in most medium to large size tournaments 2GW and 8 or 9 VPS
(and even less in smaller ones) are enough to reach the final so it
can be achieved with 0VP in round 1 (harder, but doable)
2.) carry flash cards for all possible numbers of players. uneccessary
if you know that more than 52 players will attend.
>
>And of course, if the organizer allows any drops or adds, all bets
>are off.
I handled adds and drops in a way that only the pod to which a player
was added of dropped out of was affected (manually correcting seating
order and starting palyer issues). so if adds or drops happen outside
of you pod, you are not affected. if it happens in your pod, you're
screwed, but you propably earned it ;-)
regards,
Chris.QJ
LSJ
> I handled adds and drops in a way that only the pod to which a player
> was added of dropped out of was affected (manually correcting seating
> order and starting palyer issues). so if adds or drops happen outside
> of you pod, you are not affected. if it happens in your pod, you're
> screwed, but you propably earned it ;-)
Handling a drop/add with only intra-pad swaps is usually more difficult
to do while maintaining the pred-prey-other relationship distinctiveness
and the available-VP equivalence. Using inter-pod swaps, the task is
usually trivial.
James Coupe
Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
>i never said unclumping is randomizing. i said i would randomize the
>deck afterwards.
One question:
If your later randomization is going to be thorough, why did you feel
the need to unclump?
Part of proper randomization is the possibility that clumping will
occur.
James Coupe
Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
>a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
>deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i
>will only look at my cards not change the order)
Even if you could do this, how would you determine "a sufficient order
of randomization"?
A random shuffle means that it's entirely possible for your deck to come
up with all the masters first, then all the combat cards, then all the
event cards, then all... Or in alphabetical order. Or extremely
clumpy. Or flowing like water.
What, specifically, would you be looking for?
Jay Kristoff
"James Coupe" wrote:
> Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
> >i never said unclumping is randomizing. i said i would randomize the
> >deck afterwards.
>
> One question:
>
> If your later randomization is going to be thorough, why did you feel
> the need to unclump?
>
> Part of proper randomization is the possibility that clumping will
> occur.
The science of your statement is dead on. Of course there can be
some very bad clumping after any thorough randomization. The
human element is what has a strong effect in this matter. It simply
feels good to know that all of one's bounce cards weren't next to
each other prior to suffling. Please, endulge our misguided feelings.
Jay
Robert Goudie
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> > a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
> > deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i will
> > only look at my cards not change the order)
>
> If inspect means look at the faces, then of course not.
>
> > if a hand in a perfectly randomized deck, and get it back sorted,
> > shouldn´t the judge tell the players that their decks were sorted?
>
> Between rounds, it won't matter since you are to sufficiently randomize your
> deck at the start of each round.
Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
-Robert
Daneel
wrote:
> its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with
> disqualification.
Not trying to be hairsplitting or anything, but if "the judge" refers to
me, I never threatened you with anything, disqualification or other.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Stefan Ferenci
one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified, qualifies
as a threat (at least for me)
your lack of memory is frightning.
i don´t mind any warnings, but threatning disqualification for such a
minor offense, is what i am pissed about.
s.
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:37:04 +0100, Stefan Ferenci
>> <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>
>>> its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with
>>> disqualification.
>>
>>
>> Not trying to be hairsplitting or anything, but if "the judge" refers to
>> me, I never threatened you with anything, disqualification or other.
>
> one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified, qualifies
> as a threat (at least for me)
While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone), I
must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything along
these lines. One reason for this is that a repeated offence is only
escalated to the next higher level (which, in the case of a Warning, would
be a Game Loss). Hence, had I really wished to "threaten" you, I would
have
"threatened" you with the Game Loss.
But I didn't do either. I never threatened you with anything. I'm not sure
why you need to plummet the crux of your argument deeper and deeper into
the realm of fiction in a fervert attempt to prove something. I'm also not
sure why you assume nobody else recalls the events, and you can get away
with stating falsehood.
> your lack of memory is frightning.
...especially of events that never transpired. I'm not sure what you are
trying to get at; first, you claim that I Warned you unjustly for illegal
shuffling. Then you claim that you weren't even shuffling at all; now you
claim that I threatened to disqualify you. What's next? You weren't even
playing at the EC? ;)
> i don´t mind any warnings, but threatning disqualification for such a
> minor offense, is what i am pissed about.
Interesting. Until now you extracted sufficient pissitude out of having
been Warned. Alas, just for your information, it is possible to get
Disqualified for even a very minor violation, if you repeat it enough
times, because the punishment is getting more and more severe for
repeating the very same violation. For more information, refer to the
VEKN rules.
--
Bye,
Daneel
James Coupe
Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> writes:
>Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
>rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
>sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
In theory, it shouldn't. If your shuffling is sufficient, it will take
any deck ordering and produce an entirely different one.
The very common "Deal into a few different piles then an overhand
shuffle" as one part of your shuffling would, in fact, deal rather well
with a sorted deck. 8 piles, for example, would mean that each one of
your 8 Deflections would end up in a different pile - and thus be
unclumped, at that point.
If your thorough randomization process needs more work for a deck in a
specific order, it's *not* a randomization process. It's taking an
unclumped deck and keeping it mostly unclumped but in a different order.
That is, you don't know the order of your deck but it is not a random
order.
James Coupe
writes:
>While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone), I
> must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything along
> these lines. One reason for this is that a repeated offence is only
> escalated to the next higher level (which, in the case of a Warning, would
> be a Game Loss). Hence, had I really wished to "threaten" you, I would
>have
> "threatened" you with the Game Loss.
This is the default recommendation. It is not "only escalated" in such
a fashion in the real world.
The rules make quite clear, however, that a judge can award a repeated
offence without escalation or that they can skip to a higher penalty.
The recommended penalty for the first offense is listed in the
"Penalty" portion of each infraction. For the second offense of
the same infraction, the next highest penalty is recommended.
In a given situation without further explanation or clarification, a
player does NOT know how you are going to apply the next penalty and the
rules do not allow for them to know. Guess, perhaps, but they can never
know.
One reason behind this is obvious. If a player knows they can get away
with something due to a rigid application of the rules, they can save up
their warning for a particularly egregious breach of the rules. As the
rules stand, players cannot do that because the judge can respond
appropriately, not mechanically.
LSJ
> Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
> rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
> sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
Which is another way of saying that players grow accustomed to inadequate
shuffling and therefore seek to apply the advantage of having a declumped
ordering to start with.
This is not a good thing.
Players should always conduct themselves as if lots of shuffling is
going to be needed, because lot s of shuffling is always needed to
ensure sufficient randomization.
Robert Goudie
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> > Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
> > rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
> > sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
>
> Which is another way of saying that players grow accustomed to inadequate
> shuffling
Yeah, I'd say I'm in that camp.
> and therefore seek to apply the advantage of having a declumped
> ordering to start with.
...but not in that camp! Frankly I don't recall ever watching a player
riffle shuffle their 90-card deck 12 times (assuming that's what it
takes to sufficiently randomize). And just because they don't do that
doesn't mean they are trying to take advantage of a declumped order.
Maybe the placement of my response is getting me labled as a promoter
of declumping?
I personally just don't shuffle enough times, I guess. Maybe its just
lazy. It just seems that in practice, after a few blind riffles and a
cut, I know nothing about the order of the cards and am ready to play.
I get plenty of clumps--both good ones and bad ones.
-Robert
Bala
James Coupe
Welcome to Usenet, where your posts make very little sense if you refuse
to quote context so that other people can follow your posts.
If you're engaging in 1 to 1 conversation, please use e-mail.
x5m...@gmx.de
> x5m...@gmx.de writes:
...
> >So we are criticizing a judge because he started the shuffling process
> >and didnt made a player feeling better!
>
> No. A question was asked by you:
>
> If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your
> tastes - why should a judge allow it?
>
> I responded:
>
> Because it is then followed by a thorough randomization, at
> which point it's not a question of "allowing" it. It should
> make no difference if the later shuffling is good enough. If it
> makes a player feel better, who cares?
>
> The point is that it makes no difference.
And because it makes no difference, a judge can start the shuffling
without waiting for players to "unclump" their decks - something that
was introduced as a new thing in this thread. And he has every right to
do that, after the final will probably go until midnight.
If the judges says: "Please, shuffle your deck face down." he has
stated three things:
- The shuffling process has started and has to happen after the
tournament rules. (Stefan, it is not you, who can say, when randomizing
starts, it is the judge.)
- He will not tolerate that decks are shuffled face up.
- He will not tolerate that his decision and in general the authority
of judgement in tournaments is ignored.
Yes, the judge could have said: Lets play until 1 AM, so you have 30min
for unclumping and then 30 min for randomizing the sorting done by the
unclumping. But he could also choose to start shuffling immediately.
> Note that at no point did I go on to criticise the judge or the
> judgement.
How do you call discussing a decision of a judge and stating that it
could have done better?
> Judges do, for better or worse, need to be able to take a little flack.
Yes, and players have to learn that a judgement has not to be
discussed, keeps the game going and doesnt need to be discussed
afterwards on the internet, if it was correct.
And it is a different thing to tell a judge afterwards that a concrete
decision was wrong, so he or other judges can do it next time better,
or to condemn his person.
Stefan Ferenci
>>
>>
>> one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified,
>> qualifies as a threat (at least for me)
>
>
> While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone), I
> must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything along
> these lines.
well since you deny threatening me with disqualification, i´ll stop
arguing with you because there is not point in arguing with someone who
is either a dirty liar and not man enough to back up his words and
actions or a complete retard. (or maybe both who knows).
s.
Emmit Svenson
Robert Goudie wrote:
> Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
> rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
> sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
No more shuffling is needed to sufficiently randomize a sorted deck
than to randomize an unsorted deck. You should always shuffle your
cards as completely as if they had just been sorted.
James Coupe
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>> Note that at no point did I go on to criticise the judge or the
>> judgement.
>
>How do you call discussing a decision of a judge and stating that it
>could have done better?
I'm afraid you're reading posts I'm not making. You asked "Why should a
judge allow it?" I addressed that point i.e. in the abstract, because
it was asked about the general point of unclumping and why it should or
shouldn't be allowed.
When you're reading posts I actually make, feel free to carry on. If
you'd prefer to continue inventing things I didn't say, however,
alt.dev.null is there for your convenience. It's filled with posts I
didn't make, and you won't trouble anyone with your ramblings there.
mgreen02
> A random shuffle means that it's entirely possible for your deck to come
> up with all the masters first, then all the combat cards, then all the
> event cards, then all... Or in alphabetical order. Or extremely
> clumpy. Or flowing like water.
Right on target James. Essentially what Stephen is asking is "can I
check my deck is non-randomised" because he's looking for a specific
pattern in the card order, namely: an evenly spread.
I hate it when I see players deliberately changing the order of their
ash heaps to unclump it as it means you have to ask them to shuffle
when you sit down to play them- then they ask if you think they're
cheating. On balance i'd rather be seen to hardball someone into
shuffling than lose to someone who is more likely than I am to have a
non-randomised deck. I just wish more people realised it and insisted
on shuffling.
Matt
James Coupe
mgreen02 <mgre...@entomology-mansions.co.uk> writes:
>I hate it when I see players deliberately changing the order of their
>ash heaps to unclump it as it means you have to ask them to shuffle
>when you sit down to play them- then they ask if you think they're
>cheating. On balance i'd rather be seen to hardball someone into
>shuffling than lose to someone who is more likely than I am to have a
>non-randomised deck. I just wish more people realised it and insisted
>on shuffling.
I wish there was a decent-but-quick way of shuffling 90 cards in
sleeves, like an automated card shuffler or something. I doubt many
people would be willing to put 10 War Ghouls into a machine, however.
Beyond that, table shuffles aren't bad.
Johannes Walch
> Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
> I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
> put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
> sequentially).
Not a bad idea, but in a 100+ player tournament that is not feasible.
--
johannes walch