What's the dumbest thing you've ever done during a game?
Xexyz
fine people in the interwebs too?
I was playing my Gangrel vote deck and my predator was playing a
standard Setite stealth-bleed and had a Form of Corruption in play
with a counter on it. I was down to something like 11 pool, but my
predator was in a bad way because his predator and myself had beat up
his vamps pretty bad. So I was sitting in a pretty good position,
which was about to get even better because I had a Gather in play, on
Gitane St. Claire. So it swings around to my turn, I untap my
Gather, eagerly anticipating a cheap Gitane coming up. During my
influence phase, I'm contemplating how much pool I want to put on her
before I tap the Gather to bring her up. I think to myself, "I'll
just put one pool counter on her since I have a Restoration in my hand
which I'll use next turn to bring her up to 4 blood." Note that while
I'm having this mental dialogue with myself my predator is seated
across from me, so I'm actually STARING DIRECTLY AT MY PREDATOR'S FORM
OF CORRUPTION. Satisfied that I have a solid plan, I tap the Gather
to bring Gitane into play with 1 blood, confident that she wasn't
going to get rushed or otherwise lose her 1 blood before I was able to
play the Restoration next turn. Oops.
(Thankfully I ended up winning the game anyway, otherwise my friends
would've never let me live that down.)
All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me
feel better by sharing your blunders.
Johannes Walch
> Satisfied that I have a solid plan, I tap the Gather
> to bring Gitane into play with 1 blood, confident that she wasn't
> going to get rushed or otherwise lose her 1 blood before I was able to
> play the Restoration next turn. Oops.
I had a game where I dealed with Stephane Lavrut back in the day and we
passed all our vamps and pool back and forth along with the Succubus
Club. Except one turn when we forgot to pass the Club. So the guy with
everything couldnt give the stuff back and regain pool so all vamps were
lost when he was ousted in this turn.
Jozxyqk
... played Werewolf Pack.
The game stopped for a laugh break.
floppyzedolfin
FVicentini
> Diablerize the dude with Fame when my prey is on 1 pool.
allied myself with the nergal player during the storyline.
librarian
Those who were there know.
best -
chris
Emiliano Imeroni
> All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me
> feel better by sharing your blunders.
Put Secure Haven on my Dame Hollerton in torpor, hoping in this way to
escape my predator's warghouls...
...except I needed a cross-table rescue.
I bet Hugh is still laughing two years later.
Emiliano
klai...@gmail.com
wrote:
Played Charnas the Imp on my preys empty Carna The Princess Witch.
davewi...@gmail.com
final round of a tournament...
somehow still won, but I flipped the vampire, expecting blackhorse
tanner or something like that... and just flung the card and the pool.
Charlotte By Night
Morgan Vening
A friend did exactly the same with Jaroslav. He was cross table, and
was really happy because he now had two vamps with +1 Intercept (his
pred was a no-stealth Ventrue Vote. I asked him who his other vamp was
that had +1 Intercept. He got real quiet. Then really loud.
Probably my biggest mistake, was bleeding into my prey who was on 1
pool, with an Anarch Revolt in play (pre Anarch change). He bounced it
to his prey, ousted him (also on 1 pool), went on to win the game. If
I'd not bled, I would have gained 12 pool and 2VP and most likely the
game.
Morgan Vening
Oko...@gmail.com
Bold move!
extrala
> ..
> All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me
> feel better by sharing your blunders.
is on one pool. Obviously I don't need to do anything against him, so
I start rushing my grandprey (i.e. next prey). Had I only seen that my
prey has the Edge...
Regards, Ralf
==================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
Johannes Walch
Regarding VPs and Fame I always tend to take my VP, there are so many
things that can go wrong, Edge, Vessel, Life Boon ... Rather loose an
action than taking any chances.
--
If playing against Cock all you need to
remember is: Don´t get caught by Cock.
jiazhou...@gmail.com
Merging Petaniqua after another player at the table had brought out
Saulot.
jwnew...@bellsouth.net
I saw Dave Tatu play Charnas on The Little Taylor of Prague once.
Ouch.
-witness1
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
And that is what has been dubbed the "Bakija Gambit" due to me doing
the same thing (except it was Lithrac. With 9 blood on him as I
thought I was bringing out Suhalia) in a bit tournament in a game that
I was totally winning up to that point. Which no longer held after
that...
-Peter
davewi...@gmail.com
> And that is what has been dubbed the "Bakija Gambit" due to me doing
> the same thing (except it was Lithrac. With 9 blood on him as I
> thought I was bringing out Suhalia) in a bit tournament in a game that
> I was totally winning up to that point. Which no longer held after
> that...
>
> -Peter
I have heard of that maneuver from the Ohio people, they have dared
each other to do a Bakija to get the game started right.
tigernat1
self rescue. Oh look, a fresh, full Stanislava!!!
I can at least blame it on the vodkas i had been drinking all day.
Vegas gNat
atomw...@sbcglobal.net
Juggernaut1981
> ...I once influenced out Appolonius.
Personally one of the dumbest things I've done was rescuing my own
famous vampire when my predator had a built in rusher and tensions on
the table... when it would leave the rescuing vamp on 0 blood, the
famed vamp on 0 blood and i have less than 5 pool.... there were no
happy endings...
Dumbest thing I've seen was my prey and predator contesting the exact
same vampire because it was the superstar of both decks...
opao...@yahoo.com
> ...I once influenced out Appolonius.
i played more than 1 Phobia in a game -- using Saqqaf. w00t, combo!
Appolonius at least can bleed well and Freak Drive. and playing Lost
in Translation with him was definitely a surprise for my predator. go
extra capacity!
dea...@gmail.com
> feel better by sharing your blunders.
During a recent tournament, a funny thing happened. The table was
down to four players, my prey had a 10-cap Lasombra (don't remember
which one) with a Baltimore's Purge and Renewed Vigor, ready to do the
trick for the second time in this game. My grand-prey was playing
stealth-bleed with KoT Malkavians, but needed about two turns more to
oust my predator with weenie Assamites. I had Mistress Fanchon with
Orlando Oriundus, a Banishment in my hand (for the Lasombra, of
course) and pool enough not to be afraid of my predator's bleeds.
In my grand-prey's turn, she played a Fear of Mekhet on Mistress
Fanchon. She was implying, rather gleefully, something fearful for
the Inner Circle ever since I brought her out, and now her promise was
fulfilled. Unfortunately, I didn't know the card, and it took me a
long time to read it, so she proceeded to minion phase while I was
reading it. The funny thing is I had completely forgotten about the
Sudden Reversal in my hand and somehow didn't realize that Fear of
Mekhet is master card, so it wasn't cancelled, Mistress Fanchon
burned, and I lost.
-- Arry
gra...@hotmail.com
> long time to read it, so she proceeded to minion phase while I was
> reading it. The funny thing is I had completely forgotten about the
> Sudden Reversal in my hand and somehow didn't realize that Fear of
> Mekhet is master card, so it wasn't cancelled, Mistress Fanchon
> burned, and I lost.
You should have been given the opportunity to react to the card. ie,
whilst you were reading it, she should not have progressed with her
turn and waited until you were happy to move forward.
--> J
gra...@hotmail.com
In the Australian Championships in 2006, I was playing an IC & Friends
powerbleed deck. In game two, my prey was on 4 pool. I had Arika out
(on 0 blood after getting bashed by a Blood Brother), and Leandro.
Arika hunted and then Leandro bled, and played a threats to make it
4. My prey played Archon Investigation. Leandro burnt, I was left on
low single digit pool with a tapped Arika on 1 blood, no S:CE in hand
and no pool defense. My predator had the bleed on the table to kill
me if he did not have the rush. I was resigned to my fate.
My prey begins his turn, he is ecstatic that he has survived, and
rushes his turn. He knows I'm dead, everyone on the table knows i'm
dead. He taps a vamp, gets a Mr Winthrop. Taps another vamp and gets
a Hawg. Taps his third vamp, "equip with Aaron's Feeding Razor".
I look up, disbeliving what I just heard.
"That'll kill you I say"
"Crap" says he. In a panic, he looks around the table, asking his
prey (Assamite bleed/vote) "Can you block this". His prey slowly
looks at his hand.
"Hmmm, that's at stealth right"
"Yes, 1stealth"
Slowly his prey put his cards on the table face down. "No block"
My prey then looks at me, and you could tell that he was hoping that
I'd take pity on him and do something to save him. I just smile and
start collecting my 6 pool. I ended up sweeping the game and it got
me into the final.
--> J
Peter D Bakija
> This is not something that i did, but something that I benefited from.
Heh. While certainly a funny story, I can't help thinking "Why didn't
everyone just have him not do that?" I mean, yeah, tournament and all,
but one of those incredibly stupid instant errors that result from
this being a game with a lot of moving parts. Would it have killed
folks to just be like "Uh, yeah, how about you *don't* do that..." He
was probably going to die anyway.
-Peter
gra...@hotmail.com
It's fairer not to allow this at all. No take backs. Because I've
seen it, and I reckon most people have seen it, you let someone have a
takeback and then they are well within their rights at a later stage
to deny you a takeback. If nobody gets them, everyone is on the same
playing field. Yes, I've seen this in a tournament. And it just
leaves a real bad taste in your mouth when you witness it.
--> J
Peter D Bakija
> It's fairer not to allow this at all. No take backs. Because I've
> seen it, and I reckon most people have seen it, you let someone have a
> takeback and then they are well within their rights at a later stage
> to deny you a takeback. If nobody gets them, everyone is on the same
> playing field. Yes, I've seen this in a tournament. And it just
> leaves a real bad taste in your mouth when you witness it.
Really? Like, it strikes me that there is a significant difference
between someone changing their mind and trying to undo something after
other players have reacted to it ("Oh, I wouldn't have called that
vote if I knew you were going to block it...") and someone just
stupidly playing a card that is in every way obviously a bad idea and
is going to result in them ousting themselves out of not paying
attention. Which happens once and a while.
I'm vastly more irritated by things like people ousting themselves by
accident than by letting someone undo something that hasn't actually
gone anywhere yet (i.e. no one played any reaction cards or tried to
block or anything of the sort). But I guess that is me.
-Peter
Chris Berger
I don't know if you don't play many tournaments (I don't either), or
if your local tournament environment is just different, but it's been
my experience that people won't let you take things back in
tournaments, and I generally don't blame them. This Saturday, I made
three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the
final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it
was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was
completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the
Independent/Anarch status of my vamps).
The other 1 time was that I said that a vote was failing, and then saw
the edge and decided to burn it for a vote. Cameron said, "sorry, I'm
gonna be a dick and say that you already declared the vote failed -
you can't add votes to it". I don't even think he was being a dick.
I *did* think that I hadn't moved past the end of the vote yet, but
let it go because I had 2 VP's already and was in no position to save
myself from being ousted by Cameron for the tie, even if the vote
passed.
But my point is, that it's not really being a dick to not let people
take things back - it's kind of expected in a tournament, and in an
earlier round where I made a smaller mistake and was allowed to take
it back since nothing else had happened yet - I was mildly surprised
that it was allowed. Tournament environments tend to be strict
constructionist environments, and a lot of times you just have to live
with your errors... If the card is on the table, you usually aren't
allowed to pick it up.
LSJ
> This Saturday, I made
> three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the
> final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it
> was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was
> completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the
> Independent/Anarch status of my vamps).
Then the game state should be adjusted accordingly. Rewinding is not the only
available remedy. If rewinding is not logistically feasible, some other remedy
should be applied.
> The other 1 time was that I said that a vote was failing, and then saw
> the edge and decided to burn it for a vote. Cameron said, "sorry, I'm
> gonna be a dick and say that you already declared the vote failed -
> you can't add votes to it".
There's a world of difference between saying a vote was failing and saying that
a vote failed.
> I *did* think that I hadn't moved past the end of the vote yet,
That's even more telling.
You can't pass the end of the vote unless *everyone* is done (and thinks that
you are moving on to the next thing).
Burning the Edge at that point would not be taking anything back, so the
question of whether rewinding is feasible doesn't even come up.
Peter D Bakija
> I don't know if you don't play many tournaments (I don't either), or
> if your local tournament environment is just different, but it's been
> my experience that people won't let you take things back in
> tournaments, and I generally don't blame them.
I play in plenty of tournaments (and run plenty of tournaments) and
again, while "no take backs" is a reasonable rule of thumb for
competetive play, there is a vast difference between deciding that you
didn't want to call a vote after it turns out that someone just played
a Delaying Tactics and someone saying "I'm gonna play this equipment
that costs 1 pool" while they are at 1 pool, before anything else has
happened, as inevitably, someone is going to say "Uh, that is going to
oust you, ya know..."
> But my point is, that it's not really being a dick to not let people
> take things back - it's kind of expected in a tournament, and in an
> earlier round where I made a smaller mistake and was allowed to take
> it back since nothing else had happened yet - I was mildly surprised
> that it was allowed. Tournament environments tend to be strict
> constructionist environments, and a lot of times you just have to live
> with your errors... If the card is on the table, you usually aren't
> allowed to pick it up.
Except when it is obviously a mistake. Like when you say "I'm going to
play this here Nosferatu Kingdom" and you drop it on the table, pay
your pool, and someone says "Uh, you don't have an Anti-Nosferatu in
play." At which point you are compelled by the rules to pick the card
up and put it back in your hand and fix it. I realize that there is a
difference between the two situations as presented, but the difference
is pretty small. And for my money, totally worth fixing. As again,
obvious, stupid, and likely caught before anyone else has reacted or
played any cards.
-Peter
carn...@gmail.com
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > This Saturday, I made
> > three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the
> > final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it
> > was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was
> > completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the
> > Independent/Anarch status of my vamps).
>
> Then the game state should be adjusted accordingly. Rewinding is not the only
> available remedy. If rewinding is not logistically feasible, some other remedy
> should be applied.
The game state was adjusted accordingly, with the agreement of the
judge and all the players. (Both for Chris's errors and the identical
error I had made on the next turn, amusingly.)
-John Flournoy
Chris Berger
> > This Saturday, I made
> > three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the
> > final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it
> > was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was
> > completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the
> > Independent/Anarch status of my vamps).
>
> Then the game state should be adjusted accordingly. Rewinding is not the only
> available remedy. If rewinding is not logistically feasible, some other remedy
> should be applied.
>
mention the other error and have someone say "that's not the only
idiotic thing you did on Saturday." The final was definitely a comedy
of errors on my part, and certainly would have gone at least
*slightly* better for me if I hadn't accidentally cheated in the first
place. Twice.
> > The other 1 time was that I said that a vote was failing, and then saw
> > the edge and decided to burn it for a vote. Cameron said, "sorry, I'm
> > gonna be a dick and say that you already declared the vote failed -
> > you can't add votes to it".
>
> There's a world of difference between saying a vote was failing and saying that
> a vote failed.
>
I believe that my exact words were "so it fails... oh, unless I pitch
the Edge for a vote."
> > I *did* think that I hadn't moved past the end of the vote yet,
>
> That's even more telling.
>
> You can't pass the end of the vote unless *everyone* is done (and thinks that
> you are moving on to the next thing).
>
Well, that's where Cameron and I disagreed. I felt that I hadn't
passed the stage where I could add votes, he thought I had. My point
is that he wasn't being a dick by saying that I couldn't "go back", I
just disagreed that I *had* to go back in order to do so. Since I
knew that it wouldn't change the outcome of the game, I let the point
go and agreed that Cameron was correct that I was done with the vote.
In which case, he was not being a dick by not allowing me to go back.
Christian C
I´ll say no more...
Salem
> On Mar 2, 9:18 am, grai...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> It's fairer not to allow this at all. No take backs. Because I've
>> seen it, and I reckon most people have seen it, you let someone have a
>> takeback and then they are well within their rights at a later stage
>> to deny you a takeback. If nobody gets them, everyone is on the same
>> playing field. Yes, I've seen this in a tournament. And it just
>> leaves a real bad taste in your mouth when you witness it.
>
> Really? Like, it strikes me that there is a significant difference
> between someone changing their mind and trying to undo something after
> other players have reacted to it ("Oh, I wouldn't have called that
> vote if I knew you were going to block it...") and someone just
> stupidly playing a card that is in every way obviously a bad idea and
> is going to result in them ousting themselves out of not paying
> attention. Which happens once and a while.
I agree there is a difference. However, there is a lot of grey area in
between those two points, and somewhere in there you have your line. I
am not sure I'd know exactly where you would want to draw said line, and
i am not sure you'd know where I would draw said line. So, in the
interests of certainty, especially at a tournament, it makes sense to
draw that line at the clearest, and legalest, point possible. Which is,
if he legally played it, he played it.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
wedge
I choose to end my minion phase with three minions untapped.
My prey has one pool and a vampire in torpor and a empty vampire out
of
torpor.
My pred has Dragonbound in play. My grandprey has an untapped vampire
with an untapped Enkil Cog.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> So, in the
> interests of certainty, especially at a tournament, it makes sense to
> draw that line at the clearest, and legalest, point possible. Which is,
> if he legally played it, he played it.
Agree 100%. I have a simple rule of thumb: If you've put the card on
the table, you've "played" it.
If the play was illegal (ie, playing NK with no ready Nos-Anti) play
must be rewound. If the play was just bad (ie, ousting yourself with
Aaron's Feeding Razor), then I'm afriad that's just bad luck.
Chalk it up to experience, and move forward content in the knowledge
that you will never make that mistake again. I'm of the firm belief
that a "no takeback" rule makes for better players. Allowing take-
backs is tolerating, if not outright encouraging, sloppy play imo. And
sooner or later those players who have become accustomed to take-back
play will find themselves in a tourney where there are no take-backs,
play sloppy, and lose as a result.
I like to think of it as tough love :)
jason...@iinet.net.au
BTW, dumbest thing I've done:
Ancilla Empowerment in my hand.
I have 4 minions, 5 pool.
Prey has 4 minions, 4 pool.
I entrance my prey's War Ghoul so "it won't go to waste when I oust
him".
Then I call Ancilla Empowerment.
Prey wins game.
Peter D Bakija
> Agree 100%. I have a simple rule of thumb: If you've put the card on
> the table, you've "played" it.
>
> If the play was illegal (ie, playing NK with no ready Nos-Anti) play
> must be rewound. If the play was just bad (ie, ousting yourself with
> Aaron's Feeding Razor), then I'm afriad that's just bad luck.
Yeah, see, this strikes me as just stupid. Like, I'm not claiming that
anyone is doing anything inappropriate by wanting folks to stick to
this sort of thing. But for my money, if my prey is at 1 pool and they
play a card that costs them one pool? I'm gonna say "Is that really
something you meant to do?" and have them fix it if it wasn't. If
someone else already played some cards to tried to block or something?
Well, ok, game state has changed, it stays where it is. But if they
drop the card on the table, someone points out "That is going to oust
you, you know...". I'm all for people fixing things that are stupid.
> I like to think of it as tough love :)
That is the good difference between games and real life. Games are
games. And you can fix stupid errors.
-Peter
jason...@iinet.net.au
> But if they drop the card on the table, someone points out "That is going to oust
> you, you know...". I'm all for people fixing things that are stupid.
But where do you draw the line? Mistakes that oust you? Mistakes that
inconvenience you? To me it seems a very slippery slope, and very
subjective. Better to simply draw a line, make it clear, and have no
complaints because the playing field is always consistent. Otherwise
you open the door to "Oh, but last week..." "Oh, but last year..."
"Oh, but in City XYZ..."
> That is the good difference between games and real life. Games are
> games. And you can fix stupid errors.
Not making stupid errors is part of being a good player. Learning from
your stupid errors is part of becoming a better player. I've lost many
games because I was forced to wear the mistakes I've made, and I
certainly feel that I've become a much better player as a result.
People can sometimes learn far quicker through failure than success.
I agree that this is a game and it should be fun. But that doesn't
mean you should expect quarter from your opponents. This is a
competition game, and it's only natural that people play to win. If
you drop the ball and lose, learn from it and move on.
jase
librarian
> On Mar 2, 8:21 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
>> Agree 100%. I have a simple rule of thumb: If you've put the card on
>> the table, you've "played" it.
>>
>> If the play was illegal (ie, playing NK with no ready Nos-Anti) play
>> must be rewound. If the play was just bad (ie, ousting yourself with
>> Aaron's Feeding Razor), then I'm afriad that's just bad luck.
>
> Yeah, see, this strikes me as just stupid. Like, I'm not claiming that
> anyone is doing anything inappropriate by wanting folks to stick to
> this sort of thing. But for my money, if my prey is at 1 pool and they
> play a card that costs them one pool? I'm gonna say "Is that really
> something you meant to do?" and have them fix it if it wasn't.
But in a tournament, they can't just show their cards. It's a penalty
to show the card. So they will get penalized either way.
I'm with most of the Aussie's who have posted so far (Julian, Chris, and
Jason) - if it's legally played, it's played, even if stupidly.
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija
> But where do you draw the line? Mistakes that oust you? Mistakes that
> inconvenience you?
You draw the line where things make sense. Again, it is very rare that
something like this comes up (i.e. something akin to "I'm at 1 pool
and I take an action to equip with something that costs a pool" or
"I'm at 1 pool and I play a master card that costs 1 pool") and I'm
not talking about people just changing their minds on some action they
took. I'm talking about something that is obvious and clearly an error
in every way. It is unlikely that it happens much. And unlikely that
anyone is going to try and somehow take advantage of doing something
like playing an Ivory Bow while at 1 pool. It is just a stupid error.
And stupid errors are a unsatisfying way to win, or lose, games.
> To me it seems a very slippery slope, and very subjective.
"Slippery slope"? No. Subjective? Sure.
> "Oh, but last week..." "Oh, but last year..." "Oh, but in City XYZ..."
You don't have to open the door to anything. If someone does something
obviously and unintentionally stupid and it is caught before anything
else in the game state changes? Fix it.
> I agree that this is a game and it should be fun. But that doesn't
> mean you should expect quarter from your opponents.
I'm not saying anyone should expect anything. I'm saying that as
someone who *didn't* cause the error? I'd want the error fixed. Not
'cause my opponent expects to be allowed to fix the error. But 'cause
as someone else playing the game, I get no joy or entertainment out of
people losing due to stupid, obvious errors that sometimes come up.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> But in a tournament, they can't just show their cards. It's a penalty
> to show the card. So they will get penalized either way.
And yet when they play a card illegally (i.e. attempt to play
Nosferatu Kingdom when they don't have an !Nos in play), the card is
shown, a new card is drawn, everything is *required* to be rewound and
fixed, and everyone lives.
The game can survive a bit of reasonable leeway in terms of people
making stupid obvious errors that are caught before the any of the
rest of the game state changes.
-Peter
Chris Berger
> On Mar 2, 10:59 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
>
> > But where do you draw the line? Mistakes that oust you? Mistakes that
> > inconvenience you?
>
> You draw the line where things make sense. Again, it is very rare that
> something like this comes up (i.e. something akin to "I'm at 1 pool
> and I take an action to equip with something that costs a pool" or
> "I'm at 1 pool and I play a master card that costs 1 pool") and I'm
> not talking about people just changing their minds on some action they
> took. I'm talking about something that is obvious and clearly an error
> in every way. It is unlikely that it happens much. And unlikely that
> anyone is going to try and somehow take advantage of doing something
> like playing an Ivory Bow while at 1 pool. It is just a stupid error.
> And stupid errors are a unsatisfying way to win, or lose, games.
>
inclined to have someone take back an action like that. However, in
the heat of a game, as that person's predator, I'm not sure I wouldn't
feel differently about it... And as a person who makes stupid errors
from time to time, I don't feel certain that I would be allowed to
take it back in the same situation, making me more inclined to be
greedy if the situation does come up.
Bottom-line, IMHO, is that being reasonable is not really enforceable,
and ousting yourself with an accidental equip isn't necessarily
against the rules of the game. I would hope that most people would
allow a takeback in that situation, but I'm not sure that many would...
Xexyz
stupid, such as playing a Feeding Razor when he's at 1 pool. If he
starts to play it and immediately realizes his mistake, I'm not going
to be a dick and insist on "no takebacks", but I'm not going to warn
him of bad decisions ahead of time.
I will make an exception for new players though, since I want them to
develop a serious interest in the game, not drive them away. I don't
mind pointing out hints and strategy, even to my own detriment, if it
helps a new player learn about playing the game.
Drain
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
Talking about enforceable, wouldn't self-oust through card play
constitute a PtW violation?
I mean, PtW affords some room for poor judgment, sure, but playing a
card that outright ousts you ought to be outside the scope of all but
the widest definitions of 'poor judgment', right?
Drain
John P.
> constitute a PtW violation?
>
> I mean, PtW affords some room for poor judgment, sure, but playing a
> card that outright ousts you ought to be outside the scope of all but
> the widest definitions of 'poor judgment', right?
>
> Drain
PtW does not protect against bad/stupid play.
-John P
Peter D Bakija
> I see no reason to warn my prey that he's about to do something really
> stupid, such as playing a Feeding Razor when he's at 1 pool.
Yeah, see, I have no interest in all at winning a game 'cause my prey
made an incredibly stupid, obvious error, such as accidentally playing
a card that costs a pool when they are at 1 pool. If I'm playing a
game, tournament or no, and my prey did this? I'd say "Uh, are you
sure that is what your plan is?" and be perfectly happy when he fixes
the error.
I have no need to win this game that bad.
-Peter
Blooded Sand
He has 9 Orun on Eze. I call Ancient influence.....
librarian
> On Mar 3, 1:34 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>> But in a tournament, they can't just show their cards. It's a penalty
>> to show the card. So they will get penalized either way.
>
> And yet when they play a card illegally (i.e. attempt to play
> Nosferatu Kingdom when they don't have an !Nos in play), the card is
> shown, a new card is drawn, everything is *required* to be rewound and
> fixed, and everyone lives.
>
Sure, but it's still an illegal play, and a penalty will be assessed,
presumably.
> The game can survive a bit of reasonable leeway in terms of people
> making stupid obvious errors that are caught before the any of the
> rest of the game state changes.
>
Sure. It can also survive no leeway as well (in tournaments), and I
contend that it survives better that way.
I have played with players who are really good guys, nice people, good
players, who have considered exploiting the "takeback" rules. Why not?
If they are allowed rules (as they seem to be in your meta/house) that
allow takebacks, why not exploit them, like any other rule that can be
bent? What if someone makes a "stupid" play *every* turn?
By the way, I totally don't espouse "no takebacks" for new players,
especially in non-tournament games. However, I usually go with a one
warning - i.e. "Hey, you know if you play that equipment it's going to
oust you. Why not do a different action? But just so you know, the
next time, we won't let you take it back, so be ready..."
With no takebacks, it's more fun, at least for me.
best -
chris
LSJ
> I have played with players who are really good guys, nice people, good
> players, who have considered exploiting the "takeback" rules. Why not?
> If they are allowed rules (as they seem to be in your meta/house) that
> allow takebacks, why not exploit them, like any other rule that can be
> bent? What if someone makes a "stupid" play *every* turn?
Then the judge notices the cheating and removes the cheater.
Just like making a "stupid" illegal play (I bleed you with this Archon
Investigation. Oh, oops. Well, now I guess you really do know I have it. Heh, heh.)
Pretending that an intentional stupid move is an innocent mistake doesn't make
it so.
And we have judges.
librarian
It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry.
Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is
revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences should
not be encouraged.
best -
chris
jason...@iinet.net.au
> I have no need to win this game that bad.
To my mind this is not about "needing to win" at all. I insist on no
take-backs in any tournament setting I am judging, regardless of
whether I am being advantaged, disadvantaged or not affected by the
error in play at all.
This is about setting rules and sticking to them. Rules that my
players will almost certainly encounter when they travel interstate to
other events. Rules that I 100%, absolutely believe will make my guys
and gals better players in the long run.
jase
LSJ
> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry.
> Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is
> revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only inferior,
you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your vampires have it at
superior, you must play it on someone else's vampire?
That's a BadIdea(tm).
> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences should
> not be encouraged.
But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative consequences?
jason...@iinet.net.au
> By the way, I totally don't espouse "no takebacks" for new players,
> especially in non-tournament games.
Agree 100%. We actually have an official "cheating phase" in our
casual games for limited take-backs, when you play something out of
turn, or forget to get pool for the edge and play a Master, etc. And
there is certainly a vast amount of leeway given to new players -
everyone has a very sensinble head on their shoulders.
Tourneys are different to casual games.
jase
librarian
> librarian wrote:
>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry.
>> Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is
>> revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>
> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only
> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your
> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's vampire?
>
> That's a BadIdea(tm).
>
Really? Why? Honestly, why?
>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences
>> should not be encouraged.
>
> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative
> consequences?
I'm not sure I ever said that.
best -
chris
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> librarian wrote:
>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get
>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a
>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>>
>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only
>> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your
>> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's vampire?
>>
>> That's a BadIdea(tm).
>>
>
> Really? Why? Honestly, why?
It's been tried.
It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha game about
the game.
Google bright lights.
or
The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't playable in
that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple.
>>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences
>>> should not be encouraged.
>>
>> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative
>> consequences?
>
> I'm not sure I ever said that.
And so....?
AngryNorway
I was going second in a four player. Being tools, myself and player
number 4 were both playing 1/2 cap weenie votes (Only real difference
was I was Archbishops, he was Princes).
First round, I brought out 2 vamps, my across the table brought out 4.
Neither of the other two players looked even close to having a minion,
so the first of the two of us to call a title vote would shut down his
across table guy for the rest of the game.
I was going first, so after a couple of minutes internal cackling and
victory thoughts, I ever so happily tapped my vampire and called a
Crusade vote.
Across the table discarded a KRC and I lost the vote.
I had slipped into some weird oblivious state and forgotten to bleed
to get the Edge to push the vote!
My across the table wasn't so stupid, and sure enough got the edge,
got a Prince, and my first third of the game was spent cycling through
votes.
I did end up table sweeping, but only thanks to the binning of the
across the table Prince.
Was almost the worst game losing mistake I've ever made in turn 1 :P
- Jahn
librarian
> librarian wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> librarian wrote:
>>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get
>>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a
>>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>>>
>>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only
>>> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your
>>> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's
>>> vampire?
>>>
>>> That's a BadIdea(tm).
>>>
>>
>> Really? Why? Honestly, why?
>
> It's been tried.
>
> It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha
> game about the game.
>
Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally
played, but it ousts the person playing it. Should we let the player
back up? It seems like you say yes, but I'm not sure. Maybe you are
just clearing up a hole I left in my argument. My feeling is mental
errors are part of every game, and shouldn't those who do not make
mental errors benefit, and those who make mental errors should bear the
consequences?
> Google bright lights.
>
> or
>
> The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't
> playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple.
Ok, that's a subtle difference from my statement of "legally played,
must be played." And it's one I can live with. Legally played as
declared then. If not legally played, then penalty in regards to
showing cards out of hand should be applied, and play backed up to
proper place prior to illegal play, etc etc. Still doesn't apply to the
example being discussed, or do you feel like it does?
>
>>>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences
>>>> should not be encouraged.
>>>
>>> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative
>>> consequences?
>>
>> I'm not sure I ever said that.
>
> And so....?
I still feel that allowing sloppy or stupid legal play to have no
negative consequences should not be encouraged. If a play is illegal,
there are separate, usually different consequences. I sort of thought
that was already assumed in this discussion, but it helps to be clear.
best -
chris
Benird
rules were stiplulated at the beginning of the day that if a card was
played or card's name fully read out as it's being played and the card
could be played for the particular action (self ousting included) then
it was deemed to have been played. There were several instances
through the tournament and the previous day's tournament where cards
were "stupidly" played but given the stipulation at the start of the
event were required to continue.
Usually in a tournament or social game I would allow people to take
back "stupid" actions, heck I do it all the time, but since this was
the national championship there is a reasonable expectation that
people know what they're doing.
Yes it was a silly thing to do, yes some laughs were had on the day,
even by the player who did it. If it were a different event, maybe a
takeback would have been allowed. In this case 3 of us consulted as to
how it should be ruled and the 3 of us decided that the action was
taken legally, if silly and accidental, but that was no reason to
rewind the action.
I may have been right I may have been wrong by allowing it, it was
funny to see happen and I felt sorry for the guy but ultimately I had
to make a decision.
Kevin M.
> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry.
> Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is
> revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
So you want me to tap Arika, drop a Computer Hacking onto the table while
stating "Arika Governs your Unaligned for... whoops <switch CH for GtU in
hand> Governs your Unaligned for 5." and be forced by your proposed rule to
bleed you with the CH?
Is this what you really want, Chris?
> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences
> should not be encouraged.
The negative consequences are that you have revealed information. The
negative consequences are that your friends will tease you a bit about being
a bad player.
The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make
players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better
through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay
to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc).
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> librarian wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> librarian wrote:
>>>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get
>>>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a
>>>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>>>>
>>>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only
>>>> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your
>>>> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's
>>>> vampire?
>>>>
>>>> That's a BadIdea(tm).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Why? Honestly, why?
>>
>> It's been tried.
>>
>> It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha
>> game about the game.
>>
>
>
> Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally
> played, but it ousts the person playing it.
"legally played" is debatable.
As written, the case could be made that the action was illegal: that the action
announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when, in fact, the
Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played.
> Should we let the player
> back up? It seems like you say yes, but I'm not sure.
If it was improperly played, there is no choice (well, you could look for some
other remedy if you feel that enough has transpired to make picking up the
Feeding Razor impractical).
As a judge, I've done exactly this (well, the card in question was a
Saturday-Night Special, but otherwise the details are the same).
> Maybe you are
> just clearing up a hole I left in my argument. My feeling is mental
> errors are part of every game, and shouldn't those who do not make
> mental errors benefit, and those who make mental errors should bear the
> consequences?
No benefit has been gained. Consequences are borne.
>> Google bright lights.
>>
>> or
>>
>> The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't
>> playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple.
>
>
> Ok, that's a subtle difference from my statement of "legally played,
> must be played." And it's one I can live with. Legally played as
> declared then. If not legally played, then penalty in regards to
> showing cards out of hand should be applied, and play backed up to
> proper place prior to illegal play, etc etc. Still doesn't apply to the
> example being discussed, or do you feel like it does?
It applies if the declared action is illegal (as in a no-cost Razor).
>>>>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences
>>>>> should not be encouraged.
>>>>
>>>> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative
>>>> consequences?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I ever said that.
>>
>> And so....?
>
>
> I still feel that allowing sloppy or stupid legal play to have no
> negative consequences should not be encouraged.
And it is not encouraged and is not being encouraged. So that works out well.
Oortje
It was a long time ago during a final in amsterdam. there were three
players left. Me, Peter bouwman and Tobias op den Brouw. I was
calculation my bleed and I expected a block or deflect of my prey. I
came to the conclusion that it couldnt be enough. Then I bled with
every vamp except the last guy. In my mind I had failed to oust my
prey and decided to get an ivory bow. Leaving my prey on 1. It was one
of the first finals I played and I was very nervous. I became 3rd
instead of the supposed easy 1st.
I have no clue how I couyld forget it.
Greetz,
Oortje
librarian
> librarian wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> librarian wrote:
>>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>>> librarian wrote:
>>>>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get
>>>>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if
>>>>>> a card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has
>>>>> only inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of
>>>>> your vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone
>>>>> else's vampire?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a BadIdea(tm).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? Why? Honestly, why?
>>>
>>> It's been tried.
>>>
>>> It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha
>>> game about the game.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally
>> played, but it ousts the person playing it.
>
> "legally played" is debatable.
>
> As written, the case could be made that the action was illegal: that the
> action announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when,
> in fact, the Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played.
An equal case could be made that the action was legal, yet stupidly
played. I guess it's up to the judge to decide whether it's stupidity
(let the action continue) or impropriety (back up and restore game state
as much as possible and apply penalties as necessary). And that's where
I'm going to leave it. Which was probably your goal all along - it's up
to the judge to judge.
best -
chris
librarian
> librarian wrote:
>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry.
>> Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is
>> revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>
> So you want me to tap Arika, drop a Computer Hacking onto the table while
> stating "Arika Governs your Unaligned for... whoops <switch CH for GtU in
> hand> Governs your Unaligned for 5." and be forced by your proposed rule to
> bleed you with the CH?
>
> Is this what you really want, Chris?
>
If the declaration is a GTU, and the wrong card is shown, then a penalty
should be assessed for displaying the wrong card (CH). Perhaps the
penalty is a warning, or more, depends of course. I already answered
LSJ on that point.
>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences
>> should not be encouraged.
>
> The negative consequences are that you have revealed information. The
> negative consequences are that your friends will tease you a bit about being
> a bad player.
>
> The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make
> players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better
> through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay
> to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc).
I guess it's a different viewpoint. I feel like folks learn better from
their mistakes when they have to live with those mistakes, especially in
a game where the mistakes aren't that important (in relative terms to
bad things that can happen in RL). And I am all for legal play, which
includes proper declaration of play as well. And if they don't match,
then I suppose that my position is the declaration should take
precedence. Maybe others feel differently. Maybe others feel that the
"optimal" play should take precedence, I don't know.
Ultimately it seems to boil down to letting the judge judge, ain't that
always the case.
best -
chris
Matthew T. Morgan
> I guess it's a different viewpoint. I feel like folks learn better from
> their mistakes when they have to live with those mistakes, especially in a
> game where the mistakes aren't that important (in relative terms to bad
> things that can happen in RL). And I am all for legal play, which includes
> proper declaration of play as well. And if they don't match, then I suppose
> that my position is the declaration should take precedence. Maybe others
> feel differently. Maybe others feel that the "optimal" play should take
> precedence, I don't know.
You can turn vtes into a gotcha game. What fun.
Or you can develop good habits and get everyone to fully and correctly
declare actions.
Instead of "HAHAHAHAYOUSCREWEDUPROYCECAN'TPLAYSUPERIORGOVERN!!!!11" make
players declare the action correctly. If it isn't a legal action, back up
(issue a warning if necessary). If the player is attempting to gain some
advantage by repeatedly attempting illegal actions, a judge should
intervene.
It's not really that hard. Apply it to the original example:
"Smudge gets Aaron's Feeding Razor at 1 stealth paying zero and not
ousting me." Illegal declaration. Back up.
"Smudge gets Aaron's Feeding Razor at 1 stealth paying 1 pool, ousting
me." Legal declaration. Player is ousted.
Matt Morgan
joscha...@gmx.de
> All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me
> feel better by sharing your blunders.
Playing Tension in the ranks in a pure Warghouldeck relying on Jake
W.s :o/ .
Rehlow
> It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha game about
> the game.
>
> Google bright lights.
>
What were we supposed to find? All I found was ...
A film journal named Bright Lights
A Nebraska non-profit organization
Music lyrics containing the words bright lights
Bright Lights is a discipleship group to train young ladies in
godliness (maybe I'll check this out after work) ;)
A bunch of stuff on page 2 of Google results that didn't seem relevant
and then I got bored of looking.
Later,
~Rehlow
librarian
Even searching in google on just this NG results in:
This discussion here.
Caitiff Newsletter from 2004
A Josh Duffin post about going to GenCon
Followers of Set NL from 2003 talking about vampiric aversion to bright
lights
Body of Sun guy giving off bright lights for a Beefcake deck (post 2000)
A huge story by Frederic Genest from 1998 based (I think) on a JOL game
A legbiter Gangrel! newsletter from 2001 mentions bright lights in a story
best -
chris
A mention that the UK National cup in 2005 was moved to the "bright
Lights" of Watford
best -
chris
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Instead of "HAHAHAHAYOUSCREWEDUPROYCECAN'TPLAYSUPERIORGOVERN!!!!11" make
> players declare the action correctly.
What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's
Feeding Razor."?
I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint
stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone,
including myself as part of declaring an action. If this is the case,
every tournament I have ever played in has been illegal.
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make
> players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better
> through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay
> to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc).
There was nothing misstated in the play of the original example. The
play was legal, clearly declared, the minion was tapped, the card was
placed on the table.
This was a preliminary round of a National Championship game. At what
point do you believe it's ok to stop encouraging people and start
letting them feel the consequences of their actions?
Would you have allowed a take-back if it were the final?
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> > Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally
> > played, but it ousts the person playing it.
>
> "legally played" is debatable.
>
> As written, the case could be made that the action was illegal: that the action
> announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when, in fact, the
> Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played.
I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the
player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in
that position would reasonably oust themselves?
Are you saying the legality is debatable because of an illegal
declaration, or are you saying that the very act of ousting yourself
accidentally is somehow a contravention of the rules?
LSJ
> What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's
> Feeding Razor."?
The failure to declare the 1-pool cost and the undirectedness and the stealth.
> I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint
> stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone,
> including myself as part of declaring an action.
for actions, there's
6.2.1. Announce the Action
All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including
the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc.
and for all cards in general, there's
1.6.1.1. Playing Cards
The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played.
LSJ
>> The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make
>> players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better
>> through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay
>> to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc).
>
> There was nothing misstated in the play of the original example. The
> play was legal, clearly declared, the minion was tapped, the card was
> placed on the table.
The example as given in this thread omitted the cost and at least plausibly
allows that the player playing the card overlooked the cost altogether.
> This was a preliminary round of a National Championship game. At what
> point do you believe it's ok to stop encouraging people and start
> letting them feel the consequences of their actions?
Moot. If it was a misplay (improperly announced), the misplay should be
corrected (picking up the improperly played card and playing on from that point).
> Would you have allowed a take-back if it were the final?
I would not allow an infraction in the final, no.
LSJ
> I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the
> player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in
> that position would reasonably oust themselves?
Zero cost is assumed because it is the default.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> > What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's
> > Feeding Razor."?
>
> The failure to declare the 1-pool cost and the undirectedness and the stealth.
OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a
card I must state
Who is playing it
What it costs
Whether the action is undirected or directed
Whether the action has inherint stealth
What it's effects are (presumably reading all lines of text on the
card so as not to make error by paraphrasing), both immediate and
pertaining to change of game state (ie, if you don't block this it
will oust you)
so instead of
(tap minion, look at prey)
"Bleed you with a Govern."
we must
(tap minion)
"Minion X attempts to bleed you with a Govern the Unaligned at a cost
of 1 blood. This is a directed Action at zero stealth. If successful,
you will lose 3 pool."
Do you not believe this is an unreasonable expectation as far as two
hour limit games are concerned?
Do you not believe that players being forced to restate what is
already laid down in the rules and should already be understood by
everyone at the table (ie, bleeds are Directed, equip actions are not)
would be both tedious and time consuming?
jase
The Lasombra
How do you get to that?
The cost of Aaron's Feeding is 1 pool, always has been.
Its printed right there on the card.
The default cost of equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor is 1 pool.
In the event in question, there is no misplay.
The player is ousted.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
Now also selling boxes and individual cards.
LSJ
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:50:54 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
>> jason...@iinet.net.au wrote:
>>> I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the
>>> player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in
>>> that position would reasonably oust themselves?
>
>> Zero cost is assumed because it is the default.
>
> How do you get to that?
Because it's true. All actions (and all cards) have no cost unless otherwise stated.
> The cost of Aaron's Feeding is 1 pool, always has been.
> Its printed right there on the card.
Yes. It is printed. It needs to be printed in order to override the default.
Contrast Grenade, which does not need to print "0" for its cost.
> The default cost of equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor is 1 pool.
Correct. And hunting has a default of 1 stealth whereas actions have a default
of zero stealth.
> In the event in question, there is no misplay.
Incorrect. The player didn't announce the cost *and*, more importantly, seemed
to play it as a zero-cost card. (Or, at least, it's up to a judge to determine
which case occurred).
> The player is ousted.
Incorrect.
LSJ
>>> What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's
>>> Feeding Razor."?
>> The failure to declare the 1-pool cost and the undirectedness and the stealth.
>
> OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a
> card I must state
>
I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If
the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay.
Peter D Bakija
> OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a
> card I must state
>
> Who is playing it
> What it costs
> Whether the action is undirected or directed
> Whether the action has inherint stealth
> What it's effects are (presumably reading all lines of text on the
> card so as not to make error by paraphrasing), both immediate and
> pertaining to change of game state (ie, if you don't block this it
> will oust you)
Well, or, you could just declare what is obvious, and then assume that
if something goes amiss, you back up and fix it as needed ...
> Do you not believe that players being forced to restate what is
> already laid down in the rules and should already be understood by
> everyone at the table (ie, bleeds are Directed, equip actions are not)
> would be both tedious and time consuming?
Yes, it would. Which is why it is reasonable to let people fix obvious
errors when they accidentally come up.
-Peter
jason...@iinet.net.au
> I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If
> the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay.
Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable
expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned?
Because "fully and properly declared" would seem to dictate that cards
need to read, verbatim, every time they are played. Cost, Directed or
Undirected, base stealth, full effect, etc.
I would also be curious to know if ANYONE currently playing VTES,
anywhere in the world, actually does this. Because if not, the entire
world is misplaying this game.
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Well, or, you could just declare what is obvious, and then assume that
> if something goes amiss, you back up and fix it as needed ...
Yeah but this is a misplay, if I understand what I'm reading from LSJ.
Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying nothing can be assumed.
> Yes, it would. Which is why it is reasonable to let people fix obvious
> errors when they accidentally come up.
Yeah dude, I'm not saying that PoV is unreasonable. But I don't think
that the "no take-backs in tournament" PoV is unreasonable either.
Maybe that's just me. I think we'd established that the call is up to
individual judges.
I'm more concerned about the door this policy is opening. It would
seem that unless people start reading text verbatim every time they
play a card, then any play they make is subject to take-back on the
basis of misplay.
"Beast rushes Afifa."
"Anna wakes and blocks."
"Oh wait, I didn't declare that it was a D Action. Misplay. I take it
back."
jase
The Lasombra
> >>> player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in
> >>> that position would reasonably oust themselves?
> >> Zero cost is assumed because it is the default.
> > How do you get to that?
> Because it's true. All actions (and all cards) have no cost unless otherwise stated.
And this equipment is explicitly stated on the card.
There can be no confusion.
> > The cost of Aaron's Feeding is 1 pool, always has been.
> > Its printed right there on the card.
> Yes. It is printed. It needs to be printed in order to override the default.
Irrelevant.
> Contrast Grenade, which does not need to print "0" for its cost.
Irrelevant.
> > The default cost of equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor is 1 pool.
>
> Correct. And hunting has a default of 1 stealth whereas actions have a default
> of zero stealth.
> > In the event in question, there is no misplay.
> Incorrect.
You're wrong there Scott. The player intended to equip a minion with
an Aaron's Feeding Razor.
That was the announced action. There is no misplay.
>The player didn't announce the cost *and*, more importantly, seemed
> to play it as a zero-cost card. (Or, at least, it's up to a judge to determine
> which case occurred).
The cost of actions is printed on the card. It isn't variable (in the
case of this equipment).
There is no benefit to announcing the cost that is printed on the card
nor is there any potential for misplay.
> > The player is ousted.
> Incorrect.
It think is demonstrated fact that the player is ousted.
This is not in dispute.
Carpe noctem.
LSJ
>> I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If
>> the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay.
>
> Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable
> expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4464dfe330ee0
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0aa9248618fe2d92
LSJ
[snip spurious contrariness]
>>> In the event in question, there is no misplay.
>
>> Incorrect.
>
> You're wrong there Scott. The player intended to equip a minion with
> an Aaron's Feeding Razor.
> That was the announced action. There is no misplay.
Back to my bit in this merry-quote-round, Jeff: he didn't announce the action's
cost and could plausibly be considered to be announcing it as a zero-cost action
(more plainly plausible given his pool level), which would make it an improper
declaration.
The details are all here in this thread now (several times). No need to keep
spinning 'em.
The Lasombra
1) Was the minion prohibited from having equipment? No.
2) Could the cost of the action be paid when it was attempted? Yes.
The action was announced and blockers were requested, per the standard
of play of the local playgroup.
There is no misplay.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Curevei
> OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a
> card I must state
>
> Who is playing it
> What it costs
> Whether the action is undirected or directed
> Whether the action has inherint stealth
> What it's effects are (presumably reading all lines of text on the
> card so as not to make error by paraphrasing), both immediate and
> pertaining to change of game state (ie, if you don't block this it
> will oust you)
>
> so instead of
>
> (tap minion, look at prey)
> "Bleed you with a Govern."
>
> we must
>
> (tap minion)
> "Minion X attempts to bleed you with a Govern the Unaligned at a cost
> of 1 blood. This is a directed Action at zero stealth. If successful,
> you will lose 3 pool."
I constantly see people:
1. Not declare who is taking an action;
2. Not make it clear what sort of action they are taking;
3. Not declare what level they are taking the action at;
4. Declaring an incorrect bleed amount, even when nothing would
change the amount, but especially when something would;
5. Not declaring the stealth;
6. Declaring the wrong amount of stealth.
Do I want to see people fully declare every single aspect of what they
are doing? Of course not. I do want people to declare who is doing
an action, what sort of action it is, what level it's at if it
requires a discipline, how much a bleed is for. I also want people to
declare stealth whenever it isn't the normal level of stealth for the
action type.
I've gotten grief from someone in a tournament for making a comment as
a bystander because the amount of bleed being declared was
inaccurate. That's a whole separate kettle of fish, but if people
would actually declare what the hell they were doing in a reasonably
informative way, errors would decrease dramatically.
So, the declaration on a Govern bleed should be something like:
Elisabetta bleeds for 3 with Govern; or, Elisabetta Govern bleeds you
for 3; if you control a FoS, Elisabetta, Govern bleed, bleeding you
for 4; if Elisabetta has Clan Impersonated to HoS and has the Erebus
Mask and you control a FoS, Elisabetta Govern bleeds you for 4 at 1
stealth. For a superior Govern, something like: Cassandra superior
Governs to this minion; with The Sargon Fragment and Ex Nihilo,
Cassandra Governs at superior to this minion at 2 stealth, losers.
That's not terribly cumbersome. If people don't know what Govern does
at superior, they maybe shouldn't be playing in a tournament*, so this
level of precision below spelling everything out isn't going to matter
as much. But, of course, any time something is not normal for the
action - bleed, stealth, who can block - or when someone doesn't know
what a card does, then it's imperative that it be made clear what's
going on.
* Same with people who don't know that employing, recruiting,
hunting, equipping are at stealth. Etc.
dasei...@hotmail.com
> seem that unless people start reading text verbatim every time they
> play a card, then any play they make is subject to take-back on the
> basis of misplay.
>
> "Beast rushes Afifa."
> "Anna wakes and blocks."
> "Oh wait, I didn't declare that it was a D Action. Misplay. I take it
> back."
Jason I am sad to inform you that this is exactly the case. I
discovered this to my great annoyance in the finals table of a
tournament. I was being bled by Lucita with a Conditioning. I had Laz
out ready and untapped, and my prey had a couple of Tzimisce; one was
a 5 cap, one was an 8 cap. Laz played Deflection to send the bleed to
my prey. My prey says “5 cap Tzimisce plays Forced Awakening and
blocks”. I laughed and said “you’ll need intercept, or you fail to
block and burn blood. Younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when
trying to block her.” My predator looks sad and apologises to his
grandprey who looks like he might be taking a bleed for 4. My prey
goes “oh crap! Can I take that back and wake the other guy?” My
predator obviously wanted to let him, I obviously protested and called
a judge, since this was blatant cheating as far as I was concerned.
Judge came over and ruled AGAINST me, saying that my prey could take
back his Wake and change his mind about who to wake and block with,
since my predator hadn’t announced to the table, when he bled ME, (and
I didn’t even control a younger Sabbat vampire, my guy was a 10 cap,
so it was completely irrelevant) that younger Sabbat vampires get -1
intercept on her actions. You can imagine how happy I was. The Tzim
guy felt really bad and decided not to take back the Wake despite the
ruling, but still, you can imagine how happy I was.
I went straight to the newsgroup the next day and was told by LSJ that
the judge was correct. Apparently when you announce an action you have
to declare all “relevant details” about the action. Which apparently
encompasses pretty much everything. So apparently any time Lucita
acts, you have to tell people her special, or you are breaking the
rules. Even if her special doesn’t apply to any eligible blockers. Or
for instance if you are taking any actions with Francis Milliner, you
have to politely inform the table that Francis will get +1 strength in
combat with a Toreador or Toreador Antitribu. Even if there aren’t any
eligible blockers on the table that meet the criteria. How great is
that?
I’m not making this crap up. Just search the newsgroup for lucita
sabbat author:Dasein and you'll find it.
Yes I believe this is a complete and utter load of sh1t. I have
considered abusing this rule but have decided that it is unethical.
But yeah if you want to make sure you never make a mistake in a
tournament again, just remember this old trick. I'm sure you can find
*something* that wasn't announced.
“Oh crap, I didn’t notice that Cailean had an Eternal Vigilance and a
Sports Bike on him, now he’s going to block my bleeder and kill me…
um… oh wait, when I played this Fiendish Tongue I forgot to inform the
table that anarch vampires get -1 intercept on the action. Not that
you have any anarch vampires in play. But yeah that is theoretically
possibly relevant. Maybe there’s an invisible crosstable anarch who
was considering Eagle Sighting my bleed and he wouldn’t have been
informed about this -1 intercept business. So anyway yeah, damn I’m
forced to take this action back, and I think I’ll, um, do nothing this
turn. Whew, that was a close one!”.
Great stuff huh?
jason...@iinet.net.au
> > Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable
> > expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned?
>
>"If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced."
You cannot expect player X to know what player Y does/does not know.
Ergo, it would be safe for player X to assume that player Y does not
know how any given card works to avoid violations of this misplay
rule. Which would lead to:
a) At worst, verbatim reading of every card that is played in the game
b) At best, a query after every play of every card, asking if everyone
at the table knows what it does.
Honestly Scott, do you play VTES this way?
>"In practice (the slippery slope), it is common to announce only what needs to be announced (as determined by the table -- that is, to announce whatever needs to be announced so that everyone at the table is fully aware of all the pertinent aspects of the card)."
"What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that
what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as
chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every
judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider
announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that
the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary.
However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game
consider it a misplay.
It's a bit of a worry that everyone I've ever played with is playing
this game wrong.
Is there anyone out there who actually plays VTES this way?
jase
jason...@iinet.net.au
>But, of course, any time something is not normal for the
> action - bleed, stealth, who can block - or when someone doesn't know
> what a card does, then it's imperative that it be made clear what's
> going on.
I agree. And if a player is uncertain, there is always the opportunity
to ask for clarification/explanation or to read the card.
My concern is that LSJ is stating that "normal" effects, such as
inherint +1 stealth on an equip action, still need to be stated as the
card is played to avoid misplay. Which means I and everyone I know
have been misplaying this game for years.
jase
Juggernaut1981
> > > Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable
> > > expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned?
>
> >"If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced."
>
> You cannot expect player X to know what player Y does/does not know.
> Ergo, it would be safe for player X to assume that player Y does not
> know how any given card works to avoid violations of this misplay
> rule. Which would lead to:
>
> a) At worst, verbatim reading of every card that is played in the game
> b) At best, a query after every play of every card, asking if everyone
> at the table knows what it does.
>
> Honestly Scott, do you play VTES this way?
>
> >"In practice (the slippery slope), it is common to announce only what needs to be announced (as determined by the table -- that is, to announce whatever needs to be announced so that everyone at the table is fully aware of all the pertinent aspects of the card)."
>
> "What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that
> what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as
> chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every
> judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider
> announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that
> the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary.
> However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game
> consider it a misplay.
>
> It's a bit of a worry that everyone I've ever played with is playing
> this game wrong.
>
> Is there anyone out there who actually plays VTES this way?
>
> jase
LSJ: If I declare an action to use Vast Wealth (with no modifiers and
nobody blocks me**), knowing that ANY piece of equipment left in my
libaray WILL oust me allows me to search through... declare it stupid
when I find a flame-thrower and shuffle my library? (Because nobody
blocked me, and I haven't really gained any advantage and I'll just
untap that vampire)
If not, then my solution to the whole situation of "Oops equipping
this will oust me" situation is simple....
Drink a cup of concrete/cement and harden up princess....
Then shuffle your deck and play the next game.
Seriously... this whole debate is heading to the point where I nearly
have to declare what I ate last Thursday and was it at stealth... I
don't want to be playing in tournaments where I have to read every
card out, its cost and the potentially 9000 other details on the
card... I can deal with asking the table "Does anyone have a (insert
relevant vampire feature here)? If so then (card name) will have this
effect on you... (read effect)" But reading all the text from every
card that may potentially affect the situation if I manage to somehow
get my bleeding vampire flicked to a minion on Table 34...
[** Possibly because they are all chumps and haven't seen anyone Vast
Wealth/Magic of the Smith, etc a Bowl of Convergence onto Arika or
maybe an Assault Rifle]
jason...@iinet.net.au
> saying that my prey could take
> back his Wake and change his mind about who to wake and block with,
> since my predator hadn’t announced to the table, when he bled ME, (and
> I didn’t even control a younger Sabbat vampire, my guy was a 10 cap,
> so it was completely irrelevant) that younger Sabbat vampires get -1
> intercept on her actions.
My opinion: It is not up to your predator to hold his grand-prey's
hand throughout the game. It is up to your prey to pay enough
attention to what's happening across table to be appraised of the
situation enough to act accordingly, should play of his GP affect him.
If he is unsure, he should ask before he acts/reacts.
Be responsible, pay attention and take responsibility for your own
action/inaction.
This is what concerns me. The legality of every tournament I've ever
played in, but more importantly judged, is called into question by
this revelation.
jase
mike.p...@gmail.com
> All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me
> feel better by sharing your blunders.
On Feb 25, 11:07 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me
> feel better by sharing your blunders.
The worst one I remember was misplaying an Awe during a final; back
when Kindred Restructure was legal, I was going to move out from under
the Malkavian Sneak'n'Bleed threat, and decided I'd count table votes
when I played the card. So, the conversation went something like:
"I'll play Awe, for 3...and those 4 over there...and those others over
there."
"No you won't."
"Oh. Well, $&%# then."
So, instead of a likely 2nd place (again, back when 3rd-5th existed),
I was ousted at the 25-minute mark.
In the "chronically stupid" file, I have left dozens of VP on the
table, by forgetting to claim pool for the Edge, transfer off a Blood
Doll/Vessel, etc.
Christian C
rhymes with gotcha, anyway?)
However, could someone move that discusion about rules somewhere else?
I kind of like stories of degradation far better...
dasei...@hotmail.com
> > saying that my prey could take
> > back his Wake and change his mind about who to wake and block with,
> > since my predator hadn’t announced to the table, when he bled ME, (and
> > I didn’t even control a younger Sabbat vampire, my guy was a 10 cap,
> > so it was completely irrelevant) that younger Sabbat vampires get -1
> > intercept on her actions.
>
> My opinion: It is not up to your predator to hold his grand-prey's
> hand throughout the game. It is up to your prey to pay enough
> attention to what's happening across table to be appraised of the
> situation enough to act accordingly, should play of his GP affect him.
> If he is unsure, he should ask before he acts/reacts.
> Be responsible, pay attention and take responsibility for your own
> action/inaction.
I agree 100%! If you're not sure who's bleeding you, and what their
specials are, ask!
If you block a deflected bleed, don't start complaining if they turn
out to have +1 strength. It's YOUR job when choosing a blocker to make
a sensible and informed decision, and not just wave around a reaction
card hoping for the best without even looking at who is coming your
way.
> This is what concerns me. The legality of every tournament I've ever
> played in, but more importantly judged, is called into question by
> this revelation.
I agree also. Especially because there is such a hugely grey area
around what constitutes "relevant information": on an action.
When Lucita bled me, I had no younger Sabbat vampires. But I deflected
the bleed, and my prey did have younger Sabbat vampires.
So when is her special "relevant"? All the time, apparently, assuming
there is at least one ready younger Sabbat vampire on the table.
(bleeds might get flicked, people might play Eagle Sight or Falcon's
Eye, etc).
Same with say Francis Milliner's special. Your predator or prey might
not have any Tore/!Tore. But what if you get blocked crosstable, or a !
Salubri sends you off into combat with Anson via Blissful Agony, or
whatever. It's impossible to determine what is or isn't relevant. So
either you announce everything and the game slows to a crawl, or you
play like we normally do, and everyone has the chance to take back any
mistakes and claim that they didn't give or receive enough
information. How crap.
Juggernaut1981
The direction that is heading is far closer to state everything, on
every card, at all times, even (or possibly especially) when it is
irrelevant to the table/game-state at hand.
Apparently declaring the name of a standard non-card required action,
Vampire X hunts. You must declare Vampire X hunts, when Vampire X is
in combat with a Baali its hand strikes are aggravated, Vampire X
gains an option maneuver when in combat with an Ally and Vampire X of
Capacity K has ((list of disciplines)).
This is in contrast to how games are practically run where you would
hear... "Constanza Vinti hunts" (don't mention the hand strength cause
there are no Ventrue on the table) or "I use Black Horse's Special
text" (without reading verbatim what that special is) or "Elihu bleeds
you for 2 with Enchant Kindred" (and don't mention anything of his
special weapon text, or the fact he's carrying a Sengir Dagger)...
I agree with the concept of being accountable for your choices. If
you aren't sure who or if you're going to block... ask the questions
you want answers to! It's not hard to say "Can you just read out
Elihu's text?" or "He's got a Sengir Dagger right?"
So back to the previous moment... if you do something dumb because you
weren't paying attention enough to ask the question.. then drink that
cup of concrete and harden up. In the end its a game, and some of the
most convincing lessons I've learned (or delivered) have been by
taking full advantage of someone's bad mistakes.
I ousted someone on the turn after I made a deal with them not to go
forward because I got the KRC I needed to oust them and they had no
way to block me. Lesson learned: Only trust your predator as far as
you can block him...
I got myself ousted by going massively hard at my prey and fell short
by 1 pool, and got ousted myself. Lesson Learned: Unless it's a sure-
kill, don't leave yourself wide open when you could get ousted
yourself.
There are valuable lessons to be learned in playing VTES precisely by
getting boned by your Predator. Those Predators who aren't willing to
absolutely mangle their Prey when the ideal opportunity presents
itself... aren't playing hard enough in game.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> librarian wrote:
>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get
>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a
>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"?
>>
>> So you want me to tap Arika, drop a Computer Hacking onto the table
>> while stating "Arika Governs your Unaligned for... whoops <switch CH
>> for GtU in hand> Governs your Unaligned for 5." and be forced by
>> your proposed rule to bleed you with the CH?
>>
>> Is this what you really want, Chris?
>
> If the declaration is a GTU, and the wrong card is shown, then a
> penalty should be assessed for displaying the wrong card (CH). Perhaps the
> penalty is a warning, or more, depends of course.
I know you may not be able to come, Chris, but seriously, you need to come
to Origins, so that you can actually ENJOY playing VTES. =) I haven't
assessed, nor seen the need to assess a penalty in NINE YEARS of
tournaments.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
Kevin M.
Is this really the constructive reason that you post on this newsgroup,
Jase? To ask questions such as this? To pose scenarios such as you pose
here, and have posed in the past?
I'm desperately trying to understand what makes a VTES player invent bizzare
scenarios and then *share them* with the community at-large while attempting
to pass them off as reasonable discussion.
(And no, your question wasn't worth answering.)
Kevin M.
> My opinion: It is not up to your predator to hold his grand-prey's
> hand throughout the game. It is up to your prey to pay enough
> attention to what's happening across table to be appraised of the
> situation enough to act accordingly, should play of his GP affect him.
> If he is unsure, he should ask before he acts/reacts.
>
> Be responsible, pay attention and take responsibility for your own
> action/inaction.
>
> This is what concerns me. The legality of every tournament I've ever
> played in, but more importantly judged, is called into question by
> this revelation.
You might then want to take LSJ's advice to silly players like yourself:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4464dfe330ee0
It'd certainly make the newsgroup easier to read. Certainly it'd make your
playgroup happier. And who knows? When you start hanging out with your new
friends, you might even be a happier guy, too.
Good luck. I'll pray for you.