Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
LSJ wrote:
> "Emmit Svenson" <emmitsvenson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109082763.067441.186030@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > tobinator wrote:
> > > Unfortunately we had a family emergency pull one of our players
out
> > > this past Saturd ay. He had 15 pool, and a couple of vamps out at
the
> > > time...
> > >
> > > Please advise.
> >
> > It's not a perfect solution, but in a situation like that where he
had
> > the chance to put pressure on his prey and take pressure from his
> > predator, I suggest handling it like a withdrawal, with the VP he
would
> > normally get for withdrawing being lost or, if keeping the count
> > consistent is importatant, going to the table winner.
> >
> > That way the unluckly methuselah's predator and prey imm ediately
begin
> > putting pressure on each other, making it fair for the cross-table
> > people, if any. Nobody gets a cakewalk VP, either.
>
>
> Not fair if the withdrawn person had only 1 pool and no ready minions
> just as his predator started his u ntap phase (and having put no
> pressure on his prey, who now has 40 pool).
>
> Better for the judge to inspect the table and come up with a
> fair solution based on the particular game.
>
> --
> LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
let me assure you that this was not adjudicated this way in our game.
i'm not sure 6 judges were even ever assigned in the "multijudge
system" (big mistake #1.) the only judge who wasn't at our table did
not come and carefully inspect the situation; in fact, the player who
had an emergency had already picked up all their cards and pool etc,
and split. upon hearing a couple players describe the situation, his
"ruling" was that we had 2 ways to go: ghost player/empty seat with 15
pool, or award the VP but not the pool. i was still looking at the
rules to try to support my idea that he should just get his 6 and VP,
and when i got back to the table, i was informed, primarily by the
ghostplayer's pred and prey, that we'd pretty much decided that we'd go
with the "ghost-player" idea (which was, as has been guessed, borrowed
from the on-line game.) i asked when we'd decided that, and was told
that although we hadn't had a formal vote, that seemed best. i still
tried to say that it didn't seem best to me because of the weirdness
that would be caused by a pile of pool as the prey/pred of 2 of the
playerrs. (btw, i favored the 1VP/6pool solution although it was my
prey who would get it, because i strongly disliked the ghostplayer
idea.) when i re-iterated that a solution that actually removed the
player who had received a game loss was my preference, i was told
somewhat brusquely that it wasn't my decisioin, that only the judge
from the other table could make the ruling. i replied somewhat
brusquely back that i was still just stating my opinion, since i didn't
think the judge from the other table had even given us a clear
direction, (we still had a choice.) the predator of the ghost-player
made the statement that he'd rush his "grandprey" as often as possible,
and bleed his "prey" at least once a turn til he was gone, and that
that should keep either of them from taking too much advantage of
non-pressure,etc. with considerably less grumbling, we agreed to this
arrangement. he lived up to that, and it helped, but we still fudged
things (like when someone called Reins of Power and we counted the pred
and prey of the ghostplayer as each others' pred&prey.) let me
strongly suggest to individual judges that this solution is never used,
and possibly prohibited as a solution by the powers that be. it was
bizarre at best, and i'm sure it could've been worse.
-sporemage, the not-too-sore mage
great new cards, by the way.a
"
The main thing
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram