Preliminary Portsmouth Tournament report July 2000
legb...@my-deja.com
tournaments i have ever been at. Here is a brief and posibly inaccurate
account of who played what and to what effect.
Anam Sheader Prince of Petersfield played a Malky sneak-bleed and deflect
deck, got to the final with 4VP and got a VP there, too [at my expense].
Unworthy of our respected sister, you say? Ah, but it's the tyranny of
the ratings, you see. It's also unworthy of her that she's propping up
the ratings table, and this was her get-off-the-bottom deck.
Ian Stubbington Prince Consort Elect of Petersfield played his ani/dom
deck and so was one of 4 Ravnos-centred decks at this tourney. he got
some VPs i think but not enough to get to the final.
Michael McClellan aka Anklebiter played his Brujah Child Experiments deck
again, and got 0 VP again. We REALLY have to change that deck for the
next tourney. Sensory Deprivations, LOTS of them, were its undoing.
DAvid hammond Prince of Watford played a Ravnos combat/bleed deck which
did pretty well but didn't make the final this time.
Adam lewis played some weird Malky stuff with loads of Malky pranks and
games for pool-gain. Thanks for the Netrunner cards, Adam!
Garry Scarlett played his Ventrue/!Ventrue dom/for/pre deck. It seemed to
hand-jam a bit on pre cards and maybe needs a bit of family therapy. i
showed him how to do this. He still got to the final [4VP] where he was
rob's first victim.
Niki Sehmi played a strange Tor/Malky deck with lots of malky games and
pranks for pool gain. Good staying power but REALLY seemed to lack
offensive punch. He made a couple of strategic errors in my opinion,
including a Judgement Camarilla Segregation which was instrumental in
handing the third-heat game we both played in to me [the only person it
hurt was Rob Treasure who was his grand prey and my prey].
John Keech played a Giovanni deck and i've NO idea how he did, but i'm
sure he didn't make the final.
Barney baker played a Ravnos deck and might have made the final but for
some backstabbing from Sid [of which more anon].
Jon Cooper played a Spiridonas deck and got roundly creamed, despite
scoring the tournament record for a single bleed [13. He needed 14 to
oust his prey, unfortunately].
Sid Sidhu played a really nice for.pot.ser princely combat deck but [IMO]
made bad strategic and tactical errors, of which the two worst were to
fall for my little tactic in the final, and to rat on a deal with Barney
in the third heat so's not to have to face him [Barney] in the final. To
Do A Sid thus passes into Portsmouth parlance as a term for the lower-
than-a-Setite's belly kind of deal-renegadery. Anyway, mistakes or not
it's a dam' fine deck and it got to the final with 5-ish VP.
William Lee played an almost identical deck to Sid's [bit more takeover,
bit less combat], and had the most VP going into the final. With my help
he got Sid's scalp there, but really Sid's deck was the better one IMO.
i played the latest version of my Temptation of Greater power deck which
caused a lot of comment and no little fear. Forgive me if i don't post it
just yet - Under Construction sign is still up on this one. Going into
the third heat i only had 1.5 VP but then i got my fangs into Rob and
all-but-swept the table [Rob got the other VP, at Jon's expense]. In the
final i found myself downstream of Sid who in turn was downstream of
Will, and i didn't therefore bring out any minions until about turn 5
when i activated 3 at once - Sheldon, Gilbert Duane and Mariel lady
Thunder. For those who were puzzled by this, it is of course my patent
buggering up combat decks strategy as pioneered on Sorrow in jyhad on-
line. In a nutshell this is that if you are downstream of a combat deck
and you give it no targets then 9 times out of 10 it will go for your
grand-predator, and if you are lucky this will weaken both of them and
give you a chance. It worked a treat, but table-rearrangement was my
downfall [thanks, Rob!].
Rob Treasure played a version of his Ventrue untouchables and i hope he
will post it here because he won, eventually, after an amazingly long and
hard-fought game.
John Eagles is now Prince of Southsea and thanks to him for organising
and judging and forwarding the results to Todd, the MOMENT i have given
him Todd's address.
The next Portsmouth tournament is Saturday the 5th of August and there
will be a lot more people there, i think, including some of our American
friends. The next UK tournament is in Watford on Sunday the 23rd of July
courtesy of dave hammond and his merry band, and a lot of us will be
there [me, Anam, Ian, John Eagles, mark baxter and probably John Keech
from portsmouth]. Hope to see you at one or both of those events!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
shsoton
decks and no weenies enhanced everyone's enjoyment.
Some serious time wasting/stalling went on in my round 2 game. Players who
shall remain nameless took an obscene amount of time to take their turns
toward the end of the 2 hr limit, so all players would get ½ point. Not
decent play if you ask me as I had the tools to take out 2/3 players -
really pissed me off.
James showed once again that Temptation of Greater Power is IMO overpowered.
At least with Hostile the 'victim' gets some pool in return for their best
vampire, ToGP you get squat. Ok so you need to back it up but I still think
it is very powerful and possibly unbalanced. Then again I am only smarting
as I took a total of 24 pool loss from them in round 3, targeting Queen Anne
then Arika (thanks in return James!).
As mentioned already, a lot of Ravnos decks. They for my money (along with
Assamites) are 2 clans that are generally -not good- to play in tournaments.
They have no real bleed, intercept, anti vote or anti S:CE in their bag of
tricks. Don't get me wrong I like nothing better than Sensory Depping loads
of minions or taking out a Fortitude deck with Blood Sweats, but they just
don't cut it. Saying that I liked Barn's Ravnos deck with Sensory Deps by
the cart load and good old Dawn Op / Draw ot Beast if you block. Would have
done well if he hadn't been the victim of the worst example of
deal-breaking/enemy making bad tactical play I have ever seen (more
shortly).
Huge 6 player final, which IMO is never a good idea. Radically changes the
game mechanics and make certain cards even more powerful. None the less a
good game was had, the seating order for absent friends and those who are
interested was as follows -
Sid S James Mc Anam S
Wil L Gary S Rob T
Sid and Wil generally beat the crap out of each other following James'
obvious but very effective constipation tactic. Shame really as I think
either Sid or Wil would had won if the seating were different. I ousted Gary
following a 6 point Power Parity Shift (did I mention 6 player games suck)
after he got serious hand clog. Anam was bleeding me heavily for 5-7 pool a
turn but I had quite a bit of pool gain on the go which saved my butt. She
could have taken me out on two occasions but a few well placed lies meant I
had time (after some ridiculous deal making) for an essential Dramatic
Upheaval. Anam used her 'Rob dies horribly' hand to then oust James and I
went for the table.
Anyway back to the interesting stuff, just what was that deal? and how
pissed was Barn?
Basically they agreed (and I believe shook) to try to share the points on
the table in round 3. When it came to what I call 'the point of temptation'
Sid was indeed tempted by the Dark Side. He took out Barn and created a
really ill advised enemy in the process. Barn had obviously shaped his game
around this whole play and both players needed 1 further VP to enter the
final. This is a whole debate right here so I shall write a separate post to
stir up the pot. In a nutshell Sid took the greedy option, I of all people
understand this but you have to be prepared (and more importantly tooled up)
to deal with the retribution and I don't think he was.
Oh and by the way here is my deck. Heavily modified version of Ventrue
Untouchables that I drag out every once in a while. Hint if you want to play
it - Don't bring out the Frenchman unless there are no beats at all on the
table.
Deck name: Hostile - Parity sleaze
Created by: Rob T.
Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 12, Max: 41, Avg: 6.83]
1 Arika (Ventrue, 11, au ce DO FO OB PR, Inner Circle)
1 Courtland Leighton (Ventrue, 4, do fo pr)
1 Emerson Bridges (Ventrue, 8, DO FO po PR, Prince)
1 Francois Villon (Toreador, 10, AU CE ch ob po PR, Prince)
1 Lena Rowe (Pander, 3, au ob pr)
2 Queen Anne (Ventrue, 10, au DO FO PR ob, Prince)
1 Ranjan Rishi (Ventrue, 5, DO fo PR)
1 Roland Loussarian (Ventrue, 3, fo pre)
1 Rufina Soledad (Ventrue, 2, fo)
1 Sir Walter Nash (Ventrue, 7, DO FO PR, Prince)
1 Suhailah (Ventrue, 9, FO OB po se, Prince)
Library: (90 cards)
1 Anarch Troublemaker
1 Ancilla Empowerment
1 Banishment
2 Bewitching Oration
1 Changeling Skin Mask
2 Cloak the Gathering
2 Conditioning
1 Daring the Dawn
5 Deflection
1 Direct Intervention
1 Dramatic Upheaval
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
2 Elysium: The Arboretum
3 Fifth Tradition: Hospitality, The
1 Foreshadowing Destruction
4 Forgotten Labyrinth
2 Freak Drive
1 Giant's Blood
2 Govern the Unaligned
5 Hostile Takeover
2 Information Highway
2 Legal Manipulations
2 Lost in Crowds
8 Majesty
4 Minion Tap
2 Obfuscate
4 Parity Shift
1 Revelations
1 Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper, The
3 Rumors of Gehenna
5 Second Tradition: Domain
1 Secure Haven
2 Skin of Steel
1 Sudden Reversal
3 Superior Mettle
2 Swallowed by the Night
2 Unflinching Persistence
1 Ventrue Headquarters
2 Ventrue Justicar
3 Wake with Evening's Freshness
Apologies for the uber-long post but it was a good tourney and a lot went
down !
Rob T
legb...@my-deja.com
i agree with all that stuff, but i'd add that if ToGP were really
overpowered then somebody else would have built a decent ToGP deck
already. It's really quite tricky and challenging to build and play this
deck, which is one of the reasons i like it so much.
<snip>
i'd just like to point out [for the benefit of the posters to a couple of
VERY much larger threads] that there are no forced's and 3 WWEFs in this,
arguably the very best all-round deck which has ever been created for
VTES.
hamd...@my-deja.com
> As mentioned already, a lot of Ravnos decks. They for my money (along
with
> Assamites) are 2 clans that are generally -not good- to play in
tournaments.
> They have no real bleed, intercept, anti vote or anti S:CE in their
bag of
> tricks.
In defense of the Ravnos, they have better bleed potential than the
Gangrel (thanks to the ever useful Fata Morgana), and some of them have
Dominate for the dedicated bleeder (in fact much of Ian's Ravnos deck
on Saturday relied around the use of Dominate for Super Bleeds (tm)).
Of course Dominate can also be used to disrupt voting (Kindred
Coercion, Pulling Strings). Voting can also be disrupted by Delaying
Tactics (my personal choice) and Suprise Influence... but that's
something any deck can use. Not to mention the Deflection / Redirection
angle (again, something Ian's deck did a lot of). But I do concur it's
hardly Ravnos specific, these are just ways around the problem.
As for combat, Animalism is almost as good as Protean, and ye olde Dawn
Op + DOTB (advanced) usually has the desired effect in stopping pesky
dodges / S:CE, especially with the antisocial actions like Sensory Dep.
The main problem with Sensory Dep is that with voting decks, the votes
remain in play. I found Covenant of Blood quite useful - antisocial and
generally does what it says on the tin.
Intercept can be a nuisance with Ravnos, but they are again at the same
disadvantage as the Gangrel (I wasn't aware, however, that you could
only play 1 Cats Guidance a block, which didn't help). But, with the
usual combo of Masters (KRCG, Rumor Mill, London Evening Star), Sports
Bikes and Retainers, it's not a major disadvantage.
( Incidentally,I have noticed that at Portsmouth that intercept comes
primarily from 2nd trads and not much else. Anyone consistently
generating more than 3 stealth will usually get to do what they like.
This is a bit different to the Watford game (mainly due to a
geographical shortage of 2nd Trads any further north of London - honest
guv!). I could be wrong (it is dangerous to generalise) but I've shown
up to 3 so far and it's been the case in most of the games I've played.
Actually, I vaugely remember Rob commenting on this a couple of months
ago...)
I think the Tremere are probably worse to play in tourneys, because of
the spread of abilities (Dominate is really about going forward, Auspex
is about going back, and Thaumatergy is about spending loads of blood
for hideous effect!). That and the cost of the "interesting" cards
means that you either end up with short furious bursts of activity,
followed by long periods of getting strength back, or prolonged bursts
of mediocre activity followed by a swift ousting.
I agree totally about Assamites though. But my chum Rob has a very
nasty Assamite deck that generally does quite well.
I'll shut up now.
David
UGPOW
legb...@my-deja.com
>
> Anyway back to the interesting stuff, just what was that deal? and how
> pissed was Barn?
>
> Basically they agreed (and I believe shook) to try to share the points on
> the table in round 3. When it came to what I call 'the point of temptation'
> Sid was indeed tempted by the Dark Side. He took out Barn and created a
> really ill advised enemy in the process. Barn had obviously shaped his game
> around this whole play and both players needed 1 further VP to enter the
> final. This is a whole debate right here so I shall write a separate post to
> stir up the pot. In a nutshell Sid took the greedy option, I of all people
> understand this but you have to be prepared (and more importantly tooled up)
> to deal with the retribution and I don't think he was.
>
Sunday's game at Legbiter Hall [Legbiter playing !Ventrue, Lady legbiter
playing Tzimisce, Anklebiter playing Lasombra - all HF decks]:
"OK Michael, i will remove the Pentex Subversion from your vampire if you
don't bleed me for two turns"
"K"
[i did]
[Lady Legbiter's turn] "i bleed you for three with my Pulse'd vamp"
"i try to block"
"+1 stealth from Changeling"
"K, it's through, and i bounce it to dad with deflection. Daddy, was that
a Sid?"
"No, fair play, you only promised not to bleed me. Alright, the bleed is
for 3?"
[and it was. i still won thanks to timely top-decking of a Daring the
Dawn]
Mike Nudd
>> Anyway back to the interesting stuff, just what was that deal? and how
>> pissed was Barn?
>>
>> Basically they agreed (and I believe shook) to try to share the points on
>> the table in round 3. When it came to what I call 'the point of temptation'
>> Sid was indeed tempted by the Dark Side. He took out Barn and created a
>> really ill advised enemy in the process. Barn had obviously shaped his game
>> around this whole play and both players needed 1 further VP to enter the
>> final. This is a whole debate right here so I shall write a separate post to
>> stir up the pot. In a nutshell Sid took the greedy option, I of all people
>> understand this but you have to be prepared (and more importantly tooled up)
>> to deal with the retribution and I don't think he was.
>>
>Well, he has certainly passed into VTES legend with this one.
I have to say we're starting to see the repurcussions of the event
already. Both Barney and Sid were absent from our game last night, and
both declined to contact us beforehand to explain themselves.
It appears Barney is still more than a little pissed off, and will be
taking some time out to recuperate and brew himself some new
enthusiasm for the game.
Sid, although keen to play, has chosen to avoid play for a while too.
Mostly I think because, due to the above-mentioned sleaze, no-one will
trust him, and everyone will take the earliest opportunity to oust
him.
It is a shame this situation has developed, as they are both good
players, and both formed a staple part of our regular group,and we'll
miss them. I just hope they dust themselves off and get stuck back in
soon. After all, it is only a game... : )
Regards,
Mike Nudd
VEKN Prince of London
mi...@vekn.org.uk
http://www.vtes.org.uk/
shsoton
for VTES
Bloody hell, what did I do to deserve all this praise? My head will not fit
out of the door leaving work today !
Seriously I don't think it is the 'best' all-round deck, it ain't at all bad
but a good weenie deck usually has a good pop at doing it in. It has a lot
of combat defence and should really include a Kiss of Ra and maybe Business
Pressures for those Hostile/Parity/agitation moments.
I almost prefer the Lazverinus deck for all-round versatility. Had an
interesting ongoing chat with Tim Eijipe about versatility pros/cons.
Rob T
(Founder member of Agitation Nation - a group of like minded individuals who
decided to set up a club just to get the bi-annual newsletters and a tee
shirt as well).
legb...@my-deja.com
"shsoton" <shs...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >in this, arguably the very best all-round deck which has ever been created
> for VTES
>
> Bloody hell, what did I do to deserve all this praise? My head will not fit
> out of the door leaving work today !
Just the number of competitive tournaments this deck or a variant thereof
has won, really, is a sufficient argument for saying it's the tops.
>
> Seriously I don't think it is the 'best' all-round deck, it ain't at all bad
> but a good weenie deck usually has a good pop at doing it in. It has a lot
> of combat defence and should really include a Kiss of Ra and maybe Business
> Pressures for those Hostile/Parity/agitation moments.
Well, you can always beat any deck in VTES cos of the rock-paper-scissors
nature of the game. But judged on results, this is the top deck i know
of.
>
> I almost prefer the Lazverinus deck for all-round versatility. Had an
> interesting ongoing chat with Tim Eijipe about versatility pros/cons.
>
> Rob T
> (Founder member of Agitation Nation - a group of like minded individuals who
> decided to set up a club just to get the bi-annual newsletters and a tee
> shirt as well).
>
>
mgre...@my-deja.com
> I almost prefer the Lazverinus deck for all-round versatility. Had an
> interesting ongoing chat with Tim Eijipe about versatility pros/cons.
>
Interesting. As we were discussing last night, the best games are had by
those that have to employ a number of different methods to achieve teh
victory conditions. there are so many variables to consider in V:TES
that a one-trick-pony deck can quickly lose it's way if things don't go
to plan.
The idea is to have fun. Every game is different with a tool box deck-
more fun potential. V:TES is like a giant LEGO set. One-trick decks only
use the yellow bricks.
More drug-induced analogies as i think of them.
> Rob T
> (Founder member of Agitation Nation - a group of like minded
> individuals who decided to set up a club just to get the bi-annual
> newsletters and a tee shirt as well).
>
Clearly we have to get these tee shirts printed! An amazing team name.
matt
Stubby
have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
spelling). so the choice was there. carving up tables doesn't help and
it still owuldn't have got barney into the final or sid for that
matter. the only reason it was 6 players is cos me and garry had 3
each. i know barney is angry and i think (imo) sid was wrong but the
reaction and since nuclear fallout is unjustified.
see ya all soon,
anam
Andrew S. Davidson
>it wouldn't have mattered - if he had keep the deal both of them would
>have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
>spelling). so the choice was there. carving up tables doesn't help
How is collusion defined? It seems to me that it would be a normal
deal for players to try to split points on a table. Is it only
collusion if it is agreed prior to the game or are in-game deals
outlawed too?
Andrew
legb...@my-deja.com
vt...@netcomuk.co.uk (Stubby) wrote:
> it wouldn't have mattered - if he had keep the deal both of them would
> have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
> spelling). so the choice was there.
Actually, it IS legal to make a deal which gives you VPs, so i don't
think John could have legally done them for collusion.
carving up tables doesn't help and
> it still owuldn't have got barney into the final or sid for that
> matter. the only reason it was 6 players is cos me and garry had 3
> each. i know barney is angry and i think (imo) sid was wrong but the
> reaction and since nuclear fallout is unjustified.
>
> see ya all soon,
>
> anam
>
Nothing that Sid did was illegal, but everything he did was unwise.
Barney wasn't the only person he deal-ratted on - Michael was another. i
think there is something wrong with the psychology of a person who breaks
a deal with a friend and who is prepared to trick an 11-year old boy for
advantage. The fact that this is Only a Game™ actually makes it worse.
What might he do if there was something important at stake? It IS a pity,
because Sid is a good and creative player, but i think he has shat upon
his fingers BIG-time here.
Stubby
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:08:48 GMT, Stubby wrote:
>
>>it wouldn't have mattered - if he had keep the deal both of them would
>>have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
>>spelling). so the choice was there. carving up tables doesn't help
>
>How is collusion defined? It seems to me that it would be a normal
>deal for players to try to split points on a table. Is it only
>collusion if it is agreed prior to the game or are in-game deals
>outlawed too?
>
>Andrew
delibert deals to gain vp's isn't allowed in tournements. its aginast
the 'fair-play' rules. i don't know if there are actual rules against
it (check with LSJ)
its an unfair advantage to certain people on the tables and it should
be a fair fight with best deck winning as many vp's as possible. It
makes matters worse where people carve up tables just to stop a
particular person getting any points.
any thing that gives a person an unfair advanatge in a game should not
be allowed. if you can't get the points yourself - then you don't
deserve them. i know this point too well.
but then most of this is my honest opinion but it is the tourne rules
we play with in pompey
regards,
Anam
Prince of Petersfield
kp...@my-deja.com
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Nothing that Sid did was illegal, but everything he did was unwise.
> Barney wasn't the only person he deal-ratted on - Michael was
another.
Credibility is an asset, and it can be spent. Sid has now effectively
lost the ability to make other deals in the future, since he won't be
trusted. Some deals are mutually beneficial, but they still rely on
trust. Reneging on a deal is simply bad for business in any
environment where reputation counts- the Portsmouth/newsgroup
environment is one that qualifies.
Kevin
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:08:48 GMT, Stubby wrote:
>
>>it wouldn't have mattered - if he had keep the deal both of them would
>>have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
>>spelling). so the choice was there. carving up tables doesn't help
>
>How is collusion defined? It seems to me that it would be a normal
>deal for players to try to split points on a table. Is it only
>collusion if it is agreed prior to the game or are in-game deals
>outlawed too?
The normal definition of collusion is either agreeing BEFORE-game to
split up points in some fashion, or agreeing IN-game to things that
are obviously not to your own benefit, and are to someone else's gain.
These are, of course, not absolutes - being the victim of a Jedi Mind
Trick is certainly not collusion. =)
The best litmus test is to think, when you see deals being made, "does
this provide the deal-maker a better opportunity to gain VPs than NOT
making the deal would?" Since deal-making is such an integral part of
the game itself, some deals that might be classified as "crazy" or
"collusion" actually end up being legit.
case in point: I was offered a deal by one of my prey this past
weekend where, if I laid off bleeding for one turn so he could oust
his own prey, he would stop defending and transfer himself out right
afterwards. (He was at 2 pool, his prey was at 3 and he only had two
untapped minions.) I only had two minions who could bleed, and as he
saw it, he could have just left his own untapped and hosed me,
probably gaining both of us 0 VPs. Was it a legit offer on his part?
Yes, since he would've improved his situation considerably. Would it
have been legit for me to accept the deal? well, VAGUELY, since I
*do* gain something out of it - a guaranteed VP. Would it have been a
smart deal? Considering I had a minion with OBF and a Laptop, and a
Lost in Crowds and Night Moves in hand... no, it would've been dumb,
since odds are I can get him anyway. And sure enough, I was able to
bleed him out, and ALMOST got my next prey as well, except that my
predator found all his Ambushes and subtracted my remaining minions.
Mostly, collusion refers to before-game and away-from-the-table deals
for friends to help each other out, etc. - or for during-game deals
where someone suddenly ceases trying to gain as many VPs as possible
on their own and starts knowingly working against their own best
interest. It's normally fairly obvious.
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
shsoton
most definitely DO NOT agree with the extent of it at all. IMO it eats into
the very essence of the game and limits players options.
Admittedly my ranting is in partial ignorance as I have not read the exact
wording of the rule, (where can I find it?) but I think from others I
understand the basic idea.
As far as I understand it you are no longer permitted to make a deal
offering VP's to another player at the expense of other (weaker?) players?
Is this correct? If so how/ if/who/why and most importantly when do you
judge a player to be in a weaker position?
Eg. of this rule going to s*** already.
Player A is using the sometimes necessary constipation technique re-vamped
by Mr McClellen and player B make a deal for points with player C. A ruling
is made based on player A seeming 'weak' when all he/she is doing is
stalling until they make their 'big push'.
Some of the best EVER plays I have seen or participated in since the day
Jyhad was launched, have involved making the best of an extremely bad
situation. 'Using' and hanging back from your omnipotent or opposite
(rock/paper etc.) opponent to allow them to get 2/3 VP's on the premise that
they will then fold allowing you some chance of VP's rather than taking the
serious slapping you would have.
In it's vehement defence, this type of deal is part of the game, tentative
at best and often collapses through greed (see Saturday Portsmouth
tournament), stupidity or more commonly the other 3 players understandably
stonewalling and kicking some ass back !!!! If the rule is as I have
understood it (please tell me it is not!) then I would like to voice my
extreme disagreement and disappointment.
As you may conclude I feel rather strongly about this but would like to
apologise if I am launching unjustified cannonballs.
Rob T.
kp...@my-deja.com
<A350A7FA544CD9E6.5BC2CCA4...@lp.airnews.net>,
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The best litmus test is to think, when you see deals being made, "does
> this provide the deal-maker a better opportunity to gain VPs than NOT
> making the deal would?" Since deal-making is such an integral part of
> the game itself, some deals that might be classified as "crazy" or
> "collusion" actually end up being legit.
>
interests to get ousted. In the third round of a tournament, if you
have enough VP to probably make it into the finals, have no chance of
ousting your prey (who has 1.5 fewer VP than you) and have the option
of ousting yourself to your predator (who has more VP than you already)
good tournament strategy indicates you should oust yourself, giving the
VP to your predator, and preventing the other player from passing you
in VP count.
Of course, the ideal is to always sweep the table, but that isn't
always an option.
legb...@my-deja.com
"shsoton" <shs...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mmmmmm tick tick tick. I do agree with part of this new collusion rule but I
> most definitely DO NOT agree with the extent of it at all. IMO it eats into
> the very essence of the game and limits players options.
>
> Admittedly my ranting is in partial ignorance as I have not read the exact
> wording of the rule, (where can I find it?) but I think from others I
> understand the basic idea.
It is at the White Wolf VTES site under tournament rules or some such.
>
> As far as I understand it you are no longer permitted to make a deal
> offering VP's to another player at the expense of other (weaker?) players?
> Is this correct? If so how/ if/who/why and most importantly when do you
> judge a player to be in a weaker position?
In essence [IIRC] you can't make a deal which gives you 0 VP. Anything
else is OK.
>
> Eg. of this rule going to s*** already.
>
> Player A is using the sometimes necessary constipation technique re-vamped
> by Mr McClellen and player B make a deal for points with player C. A ruling
> is made based on player A seeming 'weak' when all he/she is doing is
> stalling until they make their 'big push'.
>
> Some of the best EVER plays I have seen or participated in since the day
> Jyhad was launched, have involved making the best of an extremely bad
> situation. 'Using' and hanging back from your omnipotent or opposite
> (rock/paper etc.) opponent to allow them to get 2/3 VP's on the premise that
> they will then fold allowing you some chance of VP's rather than taking the
> serious slapping you would have.
>
> In it's vehement defence, this type of deal is part of the game, tentative
> at best and often collapses through greed (see Saturday Portsmouth
> tournament), stupidity or more commonly the other 3 players understandably
> stonewalling and kicking some ass back !!!! If the rule is as I have
> understood it (please tell me it is not!) then I would like to voice my
> extreme disagreement and disappointment.
>
> As you may conclude I feel rather strongly about this but would like to
> apologise if I am launching unjustified cannonballs.
>
> Rob T.
i think you are right. The new rule is actually IMO unenforceable. But it
is not meant to deal with the kind of stuff we do all the time. It is
meant to squash whole playgroups turning up and conspirirng together to
get one or two of them into the final.
shsoton
deck winning. IMO as important and often more important than any given deck
is player ability and all the complicated psychological hokum that goes
along with it. Which is why I love the game as much as I do.
>any thing that gives a person an unfair advanatge in a game should not be
allowed.
Sorry an' all that but I think the WHOLE game is built around unfair
advantages.
>if you can't get the points yourself - you don't deserve them.
The piggy-back technique is a well known and oft-used strategy. If you study
most games we play an element of this comes into play surprisingly often. At
the extreme end as I said, you can use your prey as a snow plough or use and
abuse them with a lower then a super-low thing Life Boon deck.
What is Succubus Club for (other than weird swapping and collusion!) if not
to stop players ousting their prey with an annoying 2/3 pool gift?
I totally agree with the 'no out of game' stuff and have often been the
target of many a 'lets take out Rob' rap, surely that is collusion of the
highest order?? IMO it is part of the game and you have to deal with it. I
had some infuriating stalling used on me on Saturday - what can you do?? The
game goes both ways and is NEVER predictable. A losing player can turn a
game around with good bluffs and deals they don't intend to keep. Sometimes
you find that your willingness to walk down (not up) filthy street is your
only chance.
As I said deals and deal reneging is fine and dandy but you must be prepared
for the meteor storm of shit that will come down on your head.
One main problem I can see is people 'crying wolf' and claiming heavy
collusion and out of game deals when they get ousted. How does this get
policed? It is a VERY grey area with the bad old situation of one word
against others.
Rob T
Mike Nudd
>> Admittedly my ranting is in partial ignorance as I have not read the exact
>> wording of the rule, (where can I find it?) but I think from others I
>> understand the basic idea.
>
>It is at the White Wolf VTES site under tournament rules or some such.
From the VEKN Tournament Rules page
(http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html):
'5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not tolerated at any
time. Judges, players, spectators, and officials must behave in a
polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players
who use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament
officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials,
or opponents, will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the
V:EKN Penalty Guidelines and will be subject to further V:EKN review.'
There is some more details on what constitutes 'unsportsmanlike
conduct' on the VEKN Penalty Guidelines page
(http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknPenalty.html), but there is no
reference to 'deal making' per se.
However, having said that, if 2 or more players collude to share VPs
in more than one round, then I would personally consider that unfair
on the other players of the tournament, and would penalise them
accordingly.
It's really down to the judge, and the situation at hand. Making and
breaking deals over the table is a part of the VtES game, and such
bevhaiour shouldn't be poo-pooed out of hand. Having other players
lose their trust in you when you renege on a deal is often punishment
enough anyway...
Stubby
>Actually, it IS legal to make a deal which gives you VPs, so i don't
>think John could have legally done them for collusion.
i just don't think its god under the fair play rules.
>>
>Nothing that Sid did was illegal, but everything he did was unwise.
>Barney wasn't the only person he deal-ratted on - Michael was another. i
>think there is something wrong with the psychology of a person who breaks
>a deal with a friend and who is prepared to trick an 11-year old boy for
>advantage. The fact that this is Only a Game™ actually makes it worse.
>What might he do if there was something important at stake? It IS a pity,
>because Sid is a good and creative player, but i think he has shat upon
>his fingers BIG-time here.
>
i do agree with you. i just wish people would remember its just a game
and not worth all this aggro :(
anam
shsoton
> In the land of obscure corner cases, sometimes it is in your own best
> interests to get ousted. In the third round of a tournament, if you
> have enough VP to probably make it into the finals, have no chance of
> ousting your prey (who has 1.5 fewer VP than you) and have the option
> of ousting yourself to your predator (who has more VP than you already)
> good tournament strategy indicates you should oust yourself, giving the
> VP to your predator, and preventing the other player from passing you
> in VP count.
> Of course, the ideal is to always sweep the table, but that isn't
> always an option.
I completely agree with you.
Quality Example # 2 would be as you say above but pitting you against the
direct anathema of your deck. Obviously you don't really want a deck that
always uses you as a sponge to be in the final. If you are on higher VP what
is wrong with helping your Prey/Pred etc. to take out the boogyman deck in
effect giving you 'no VP' ?
I presume the above examples go against the rule of not making a deal giving
you 0 VP? Is there a distinction between 'gain' and VP?
Rob T
Sorrow
> arguably the very best all-round deck which has ever been created for
I'm sorry, but I'll have to *seriously* disagree. I built a deck incredibly
similar to this deck, based off of this deck and I got my ass handed to
me on a plate in little itty bitty pieces in the Atlanta tournament in May.
I wanted to see just how good Rob's decks were (especially this one as
it was touted heavily at the time) here in the states.
Sorrow
---
no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force
no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust
no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders
now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes
now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies
shsoton
> and not worth all this aggro :(
don't agree, it really bugs me when people say 'it's just a game' or 'thats
life!'
Rob T
legb...@my-deja.com
with your substantive points. From my point of view, there are 3 or maybe
3.5 things which make jyhad great:
1. The opportunity to engage in a competitive but ultimately social event
with REALLY smart people. As my friend Maggie Smith once said, the best
reason for working in Universities is that you don't have to talk to the
gammas. Same goes for playing Jyhad.
2. The role-playing aspect. i don't mean shit like doing mad stuff
because you think you are a malkavian but the way the game mirrors the
World of Darkness where bored immortals joust with one another
essentially to pass the time, and whose characters ARE their decks.
3. The intrinsic quality of the game [it's just BETTER than magic which
fits criteria 1 and 2 fairly well].
i would like to make two comments about substantive issues which have
arisen in this thread.
First about the no-collusion rules. i agree with Rob that they are worthy
but unworkable. IMO the right way to cause people to play together nicely
is to have a few revengeful bastards like me and William Lee and Barney
who WILL REMEMBER if you shaft us and who will PUNISH YOU, if not now
then later [another aphorism from Il Principe: "It is better to be feared
than loved"]. But this can't become totally personalised without
buggering up the game for everyone, so i have a self-imposed statute of
limitations. For example, in Jyhad on-line i used to have the rule that
if someone shafted me i would go for them whenever i could for two games
thereafter, and then the debt was paid. Similarly, in the tournament on
Saturday when Sid came after me as his grand-prey i told him that i would
oust myself in favour of Garry [my predator] if he did that, and that if
he didn't i would get 2 VP and he [most probably] would get 3. He did. i
did [probably breaking the strict letter of the collusion rules in so
doing], and the game ended up 1VP to me and 2 each to Garry and Sid. And
in the final i went after Sid too, though a bit more subtly [as already
explained]. So now Sid and i are totally square. The flip-side of this is
that you have to keep any deals you make, and i always do, though you'd
be wise if you don't know me to check the small print of any deal you
make with me.
Second about why what Sid did was wrong or more precisely unwise, and let
me emphasise again that he did NOTHING illegal. Kevin pretty much hit the
nail on the head with his observation that credibility is one of your
resources and whereas you can redraw a card or regain pool it's difficult
to get your credibility back. However, as Rob has just so candidly
explained he himself is in fact an untrustworthy mendacious cold
calculating s.o.b at the card table [though a dear fellow otherwise]. No-
one grudges Rob his treacheries however, at least not for long, because
they are intelligent treacheries which win him games and tournaments. And
you CAN trust Rob to do stuff which is in his own interests. What is
making us all shake our heads at Sid is the sheer STUPIDITY of his
strategic and tactical play - you break deals [if you're that kind of
player] because you get a real tangible advantage from doing so, and not
[as appeared to be the case on Saturday] for the sheer devilment of
treachery. It all reminds me of a guy called Don we used to play
Diplomacy with in Dundee, who used to play [VERY unsuccessfully] like
this, and eventually got sacked for cheating in science.
legb...@my-deja.com
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote:
> > i'd just like to point out [for the benefit of the posters to a couple of
> > VERY much larger threads] that there are no forced's and 3 WWEFs in this,
> > arguably the very best all-round deck which has ever been created for
> > VTES.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'll have to *seriously* disagree. I built a deck incredibly
> similar to this deck, based off of this deck and I got my ass handed to
> me on a plate in little itty bitty pieces in the Atlanta tournament in May.
> I wanted to see just how good Rob's decks were (especially this one as
> it was touted heavily at the time) here in the states.
>
> Sorrow
This is a constant source of amazement to all of us, and a major topic of
conversation at our tourneys and when American or European friends visit
us - UK players who try to clone American decks almost always come
unstuck, and vice-versa [the Atlanta guys often try to clone Rob's decks
and just TOTALLY fail to get anywhere with them]. There IS a difference
between the way the game is played on the two sides of the pond, and it's
very difficult to pin down why this is. However, the reason i was
highlighting Rob's deck is not its potential nor its transplantability
but its results here, in Rob's hands.
Derek Ray
>In article
><A350A7FA544CD9E6.5BC2CCA4...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The best litmus test is to think, when you see deals being made, "does
>> this provide the deal-maker a better opportunity to gain VPs than NOT
>> making the deal would?" Since deal-making is such an integral part of
>> the game itself, some deals that might be classified as "crazy" or
>> "collusion" actually end up being legit.
>>
>In the land of obscure corner cases, sometimes it is in your own best
>interests to get ousted. In the third round of a tournament, if you
>have enough VP to probably make it into the finals, have no chance of
>ousting your prey (who has 1.5 fewer VP than you) and have the option
>of ousting yourself to your predator (who has more VP than you already)
>good tournament strategy indicates you should oust yourself, giving the
>VP to your predator, and preventing the other player from passing you
>in VP count.
My math here is failing a bit miserably. If my prey had 1.5 fewer VP
than myself, and my predator already was past me, I shouldn't oust
myself directly but should spend ALL my resources to cripple my prey,
tapping out every turn, etc. If I got him, great! If not, odds are
my predator will, with 6 more pool. But this is HARDLY ousting
oneself, and it's not even especially a corner case - it IS your prey,
after all, and rushing forward like mad is a risky, but effective way
to gain an oust sometimes.
>Of course, the ideal is to always sweep the table, but that isn't
>always an option.
that's what's important to remember in junk like this. your first
idea is to gain one VP, to your immediate left. Next idea is to gain
one further down the line, and so on. Primary support idea is to not
be ousted while doing this so that you CAN gain one VP, but if you can
only get one, you better make sure you get the ONE before you go.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>I completely agree with you.
>
>Quality Example # 2 would be as you say above but pitting you against the
>direct anathema of your deck. Obviously you don't really want a deck that
>always uses you as a sponge to be in the final. If you are on higher VP what
>is wrong with helping your Prey/Pred etc. to take out the boogyman deck in
>effect giving you 'no VP' ?
>
>I presume the above examples go against the rule of not making a deal giving
>you 0 VP? Is there a distinction between 'gain' and VP?
of course. gain isn't always VP. it's a little bit sleazy to
deliberately prevent a deck that will kill yours from getting to the
final when you're already guaranteed the final, but it's also
certainly not collusion or any of the other "naughty" things - not
when there's such an obvious benefit in it for you.
trying to find someone else who will help you with that deal, now...
THAT's a different story. Most players ought to turn that deal down
unless you can offer them enough VPs to get to the final themselves
instead. =) If they aren't going to make it to the final anyway no
matter how many VP, that'll bring down the same meteor-storm of shit
on their head for kingmaking. =/
Although I must say, I've not played in a tournament yet where a 5-VP
sweep in the final round didn't give you an excellent chance to make
the finals. Maybe if you had gone zero and zero beforehand, but not
many decks that go 0 and 0 can get 5, even WITH help.
Frederick Scott
vt...@netcomuk.co.uk (Stubby) writes:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 08:36:31 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:08:48 GMT, Stubby wrote:
>>
>>>it wouldn't have mattered - if he had keep the deal both of them would
>>>have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
>>>spelling). so the choice was there. carving up tables doesn't help
>>
>>How is collusion defined? It seems to me that it would be a normal
>>deal for players to try to split points on a table. Is it only
>>collusion if it is agreed prior to the game or are in-game deals
>>outlawed too?
>
>delibert deals to gain vp's isn't allowed in tournements. its aginast
>the 'fair-play' rules. i don't know if there are actual rules against
>it (check with LSJ)
>
>its an unfair advantage to certain people on the tables and it should
>be a fair fight with best deck winning as many vp's as possible. It
>makes matters worse where people carve up tables just to stop a
>particular person getting any points.
I don't think that's a very good conclusion to draw. Keep in mind, the
concept of "collusion" is a rather nebulous one and there's a fuzzy
line between a "fair" alliance in which two Methuselahs are cooperating
for mutual benefit due to an extant game-created situation and an "unfair"
one which only occurs by virtue of outside-the-game dealmaking.
I don't see how it makes a difference that victory points are involved
in the deal. Whether two Methuselahs are cooperating to split victory
points or to take out an opponent whose development is threatening them
both, it's still a situation created by the game, thus must be seen as
"fair". If not, the line between fair and unfair would become so
absurdly fuzzy as to basically become arbitrary.
Fred
Oaflord
Meth's get together in "real life" to gang up on one Meth if the need was
there?
Just something to think about...
Thomas Kuster
V:EKN Prince of Caledon
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe."
John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.
Mike Nudd <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message
news:39632379...@news.ftech.net...
Jasper Phillips
Amen. That's the lamest justification I've even seen. It may be a game,
but most games aren't actually much fun if you aren't willing to take
it a little seriously (.e.g. multiplayer games are much less fun if
even one player doesn't care and throws the game). And if it's not fun,
why play at all?
While it can be annoying to lose because another player screwed up, it sucks
to lose because of some players frivilous "it's just a game" behavior. If
they made a mistake, well they didn't mean it and hopefully they'll learn
from it. If it was intentional and they just don't care you can expect to
see the same thing again.
And just to prevent the standard ill thought out comeback: Wanting to play
a game to win has _nothing_ to do with "needing to win". In the end I
don't care whether I win or lose a game, but I enjoy playing to win.
Nor do I always use my "sharpest sword" to have the best chance at winning.
kp...@my-deja.com
place in the finals a little more clearly, or at least try. (I think I
did the math wrong the first time, the difference between you and the
next guy has to be between 2 and 3, not 1 and 2).
The final will have 4 people in it, and it is the last round of pre-
final play. The other tables in the final round have finished, so you
now know what it will take to make it to the finals.
Currently, there are 5 players in the running for the finals:
A: 7.5 vp
B: 7 vp
C: 7 VP
you: 6 vp
D: 3.5 vp
and everyone else with less than 3.5.
You are at a four person table: E,F, you, and D.
E ousts F, giving him one VP. You have all your vampires in torpor, a
justicar in your uncontrolled region, and 1 pool. E has all his
vampires in topor and 1 pool. D has 2 vampires out. It is your turn.
If you don't oust yourself, D will oust both E and you on his turn,
giving him 3 VP, and knocking you out of the finals. If you transfer
yourself out, you give 1 vp to E, and 6 pool. More importantly, you
deprieve D of the 3rd VP he needs to pass you.
Thus, it is in your interest to self-oust in this case. I actually
noticed it in my last Portsmouth tournament, although too late to make
a difference.
Kevin
Stubby
ward due to a similair incident where I ended up getting punched (i
was in the game but not the person involved with the deal). I believe
that some sort of control has to be taken or tempers could results in
damage.
it is a serious game but not worth losing friends or having fights
about.
anam
legb...@my-deja.com
We had a long discussion about this thread after our Wednesday night
games [Anam and Ian having gone by then], and some new facts came up. It
looks as though the Barney/Sid deal may well actually have been illegal,
since it was apparently made out-of-game. DREADFUL grey area, and we
identified several others during a long, heated but friendly debate. i
think we DID all agree that the present no-collusion rule needs to be
looked at, since it is unenforceable against the kinds of things it is
meant to stop, and gets in the way of some strategic stuff which SHOULD
be allowed.
Just in case anyone is interested, Andy and Mark won the first two games
with weenie presence filth decks, and John and Rob won the other two
games with respectively Toilet Doors and Tzimisce. And Rob, i think you
still have my Blood Hunt.
ISDASL
results of a game. If two people decide before the game has started, but
after they have been placed at the table as predetor and prey, that the
predetory player will leave his prey alone so that s/he can get two VP (in a
four player game) and then roll over and die is in my opinion collusion, and
it definately will have an effect on the game. Remember, this deal was made
before play started and had NOTHING to do with the state of play, situation
or anything - it was purely designed to get the two players into the final
by dealing out the vp in a way that suited them - this is collusion to alter
the results of a game and therfore cheating.
5.1. Cheating
Cheating will not be tolerated. The head judge reviews all cheating
allegations, and
if he or she determines that a player cheated, the head judge will issue
the
appropriate penalty based on the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. All
disqualifications
are subject to later V:EKN review, and further penalties may be assessed.
Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
activities:
Receiving outside assistance or coaching
Looking at opponents' card faces while shuffling or cutting their
decks
Taking inappropriate notes (see section 1.4)
Collusion to alter the results of a game
Misrepresenting rules or card texts or errata
Using marked cards/sleeves (see section 4.6)
Drawing extra cards
Manipulating which cards are drawn from your deck or from an
opponent's
deck
Stalling to take advantage of a time limit
Misrepresenting public information (pool totals, number of cards in
deck, and
so on)
The V:EKN penelty guidelines section 160 state that cheating is :
"intentionally committed infractions that can give a player a significant
advantage over others."
Having two players in a four player game keeping some form of pre-game deal
definately gives them a significant advantage over the other (in this case)
two players who were un-aware of such a deal.
The punishment ?
Penalty:
Disqualification without Prize.
From section 161 of same document. I was judging the tournament, but was
anaware at the time that this was going on, as it happened, the deal was
broken with no small aftermath. However, I beleive that contary to what my
learned doctor freind says below, I could have 'done' them for collusion and
remained well within my guidelines. I would appretiate it is LSJ is reading
this, that he would wither respond to to newsgroupe or mail me privately
with his views on this.
Sorry to go on, but I do not want to be misrepresented.
<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jurth$qs3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3962277f...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>,
> vt...@netcomuk.co.uk (Stubby) wrote:
> > it wouldn't have mattered - if he had keep the deal both of them would
> > have been thrown out of the tournement for 'colusion' (don't trust my
> > spelling). so the choice was there.
>
> Actually, it IS legal to make a deal which gives you VPs, so i don't
> think John could have legally done them for collusion.
>
> carving up tables doesn't help and
> > it still owuldn't have got barney into the final or sid for that
> > matter. the only reason it was 6 players is cos me and garry had 3
> > each. i know barney is angry and i think (imo) sid was wrong but the
> > reaction and since nuclear fallout is unjustified.
> >
> > see ya all soon,
> >
> > anam
> >
> Nothing that Sid did was illegal, but everything he did was unwise.
> Barney wasn't the only person he deal-ratted on - Michael was another. i
> think there is something wrong with the psychology of a person who breaks
> a deal with a friend and who is prepared to trick an 11-year old boy for
> advantage. The fact that this is Only a GameT actually makes it worse.
> What might he do if there was something important at stake? It IS a pity,
> because Sid is a good and creative player, but i think he has shat upon
> his fingers BIG-time here.
>
>
legb...@my-deja.com
"ISDASL" <john-...@second-byte.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In my defence, the rules state that cheating includes collusion to alter the
> results of a game. If two people decide before the game has started, but
> after they have been placed at the table as predetor and prey, that the
> predetory player will leave his prey alone so that s/he can get two VP (in a
> four player game) and then roll over and die is in my opinion collusion, and
> it definately will have an effect on the game. Remember, this deal was made
> before play started and had NOTHING to do with the state of play, situation
> or anything - it was purely designed to get the two players into the final
> by dealing out the vp in a way that suited them - this is collusion to alter
> the results of a game and therfore cheating.
>
my post number 30 in this thread. i didn't realise that the deal was made
out-of-game when i responded to Anam.
. I was judging the tournament, but was
> anaware at the time that this was going on, as it happened, the deal was
> broken with no small aftermath. However, I beleive that contary to what my
> learned doctor freind says below, I could have 'done' them for collusion and
> remained well within my guidelines. I would appretiate it is LSJ is reading
> this, that he would wither respond to to newsgroupe or mail me privately
> with his views on this.
>
Yep, seconded. i think we need a root-and-branch overhaul of the current
cheating/collusion rules. Cheating is bad, mmmkay? But we need rules
which are clear, enforceable and that don't penalise strategic play.
CHEATING:
Carving up the points in a game before the game starts.
Cooperating together as a playgroup during a tourney.
NOT CHEATING:
Ousting yourself as part of a deal that gives you advantage [including,
for example, securing a place for yourself in the final, or preventing
another player whose deck you can't deal with from getting there], or to
punish another player for cross-table action against you.
Incompetence.