Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Qualifier Irregularities

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 5:57:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of
irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis.
Please note that I bring up these issues *not* for the purpose of
whining or complaining. Instead I think the issues warrant some
discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments
and qualifiers.



#1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the
event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit. However
midway through the tournament the time limit was changed - the first
two rounds had a time limit of 2.5 hours but the third round and the
final had a time limit of 2 hours. After the first round, I had heard
some talk about changing the time limits for the remaining rounds but
since the second round still had a 2.5 time limit, I thought the notion
had been dismissed. Prior to the third round I was not aware that the
time limits had changed. Perhaps other individuals heard such an
announcement or maybe I had stepped away during that moment, but I did
not hear any such announcement. I only learned that the time limit had
changed midway through the game when there was only one hour left. At
that point I immediately began to take a more aggressive position in
the game because I knew that time would be an issue. Although I tried
to emphasize to the other players to play quickly, on at least one
occasion I was rebuffed with the response that the player had the right
to take his time with his turn.

The frustrating thing is that if the second round had been shorter (2
hours instead of 2.5 hours) then that would have resulted in a game win
for me. Alternatively, if the third round had been longer (2.5 hours
instead of 2 hours) then I also would have had a game win for me. I
think the change in time limits was highly irregular and can't help
but feel that I was screwed by it.

Now I am aware that the tournament started late and there was some
concern about the weather. However, having flown into D.C. from Chicago
and carpooled from D.C. to Northfield, I will say that the weather
wasn't really that bad at all.

In addition, I believe that having a game win (if the second round had
been shorter or the third round had been longer) would have made a
significant difference. I ended up placing 6th place. Ben Peal was in
the finals but was already qualified, meaning that the next top four
players would qualify (thus I was right at the brink of qualification).
Truth be told, it's not that big of an issue to me anymore since I
qualified in Boston, though perhaps whoever placed 9th in Boston might
want to put a word or two in (e.g. if I had qualified in New Jersey,
then the 9th place person would have qualified in Boston).

Even if there is nothing in the tournament rules against changing time
limits in the middle of a tournament, it does seem abnormal. In
addition, this also opens the door to potential abuse. For example, one
could advertise the event as having a 2 hour time limit but then in the
middle of the tournament, change the time limit to 1000 hours. This
would then in turn give the locals a major home advantage (they
wouldn't have long drive times or have to worry about catching
flights). Granted that's an extreme corner-case scenario but still.
Also, changing time limits midway may improperly favor some deck
archetypes over others. If I choose a slower-building wall deck on the
knowledge that there's a sizable time limit, I'll definitely get
screwed if the time limit is abruptly shortened.



#2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
was initially a problem because a handful of players had included
reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks
(the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none
of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet).
Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of
the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. No
one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it and we
spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like what
particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure the
cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor,
Mylan Horseed, etc. When it turned out to be mainly commons and
uncommons, Scott and I suggested that to avoid any sense of
impropriety, it might be easier to just find legal copies of those
cards and sub them in. Fortunately Scott happened to have legal copies
of most of those cards so the situation was quickly rectified.

The lesson from this experience is to please please please understand
what cards are tournament legal and which ones are not (especially in
regards to new expansions and sets). This is something that both
players and organizers should be well aware of prior to playing in a
tournament. Another minor issue is that it is my understanding that
there were actually a handful of other individuals who were
uncomfortable about the situation. However the requirement to speak out
if they had a problem, in such an open forum, would make them feel
awkward. Instead they should be permitted to lodge a complaint in
private, if necessary.



#3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not
witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of
what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel
free to provide elaboration and/or corrections:

The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C

It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts
in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the
Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and
some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything
else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all
his cards and pack up (putting his hand into his library, taking all of
his vampires in torpor and from the ready region).

The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning
to play it when Player C was going to die. Since Player C had a lot of
minions (some in torpor, some not), and was preemptively packing up,
Player A felt that it would be impossible to reconstruct the game state
if he did not stop Player C. Player A told Player C to not pack up and
that he had a way to save him. In response, Player B used Le Dinh Tho
to make Player A discard his Life Boon.

Thus because Player C improperly packed up his cards before he was
actually ousted, Player A was forced to reveal his hand and was
unfairly penalized as a result.

* Please also note that Player A was playing an Anson Anarch Revolt
deck, so a Life Boon wasn't completely out of left field.

Now I understand that this is a difficult situation. If it were to
happen again, this is what I would suggest: Player A does not say
anything about having a way to save Player C, and simply allows Player
C to pack up. When Player B ends his turn, and the Anarch Revolts would
oust Player C, Player A plays the Life Boon. Reconstruct the game state
as best as possible but if the previous game state could not be fully
established then just let Player C sit there as a pool buffer. Since
Player C had already given up, treat him as if he were not going to
bother taking any actions or blocking.

This was significant because Player B was close to being ousted and if
Player C had not prematurely packed up, then there is a good chance
that Player A would have gotten a game win. This would have meant that
Player A would have qualified and that he/she would have made the
finals as well.

The lesson from this experience is please please please don't
completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really do
want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during
your turn if you miraculously do survive.



#4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I
am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now
please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I
was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took
out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3
or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually
constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most
of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my
fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the
time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled
out. Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other
hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having
previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly
familiar with most of the cards we were drafting. There were some
individuals however who were taking a great deal of time reading every
single new card. Now I certainly am not begrudging these individuals
for taking the time to read the cards. But I don't think it's right
that I got all the flak for taking too much time sleeving my cards when
other individuals took just as much time, if not more, reading cards
and drafting.



Once again I want to emphasize that the purpose of this post was not to
bitch and moan. I had a great time at both qualifier events and want to
applaud all of the organizers for a job well done. There's always
room for improvement however, so by bringing some of these issues to
the forefront, I'm hoping we can all have a constructive
conversation.


With regards,
- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:42:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

reyda wrote:
> > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all
of
> > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak
up. No
> > one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it
and we
> > spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like
what
> > particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure
the
> > cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor,
> > Mylan Horseed, etc.
>
> This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D 
> Govern the unaligned is scarier than Alastor in my book !
> Can yoiu explain me the difference for you between commons and
uncommons
> ? just curious.

my guess is that, if everyone packed some hard-to-find rares, there´d
be rouble finding legal copies of said cards, thus rending several
people´s decks completely illegal and then disqualifying them for
play, which would´ve been really counter-climatic and bogus.

cheers
Luciano "The Baital" de Sampaio
VEKN Anarch Baron de Curitiba
VEKN Official Baali Clan Newsletter Editor
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:01:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:
> Instead I think the issues warrant some
> discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future
tournaments
> and qualifiers.

> #1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the
> event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit.
However
> midway through the tournament the time limit was changed

[clip how the time limit personally affected you]

> Even if there is nothing in the tournament rules against changing
time
> limits in the middle of a tournament, it does seem abnormal.

"The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round
may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option."

The tournament rules don't really specify whether the time limit for
all rounds must be announced before the first round of play begins or
whether it can be announced before each round (Or it does specify but
it can be read in more than one way). I seem to remember a time when
"time limit" was something that was one of the things that had to be
advertised in advance of the event.

I think I would prefer that time limits for all rounds were announced
before the event begins.

> #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts,
there
> was initially a problem because a handful of players had included
> reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks
> (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that
none
> of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal
yet).

Of course, the tournament rules already cover this.

> Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of
> the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up.

This sounds like one of those nice things that we judges do to not come
across as though we're on some kind of powertrip. However, it always
seems to bite me in the arse when I do stuff like this. It's always
better to just stick to the rules. Some might think you are overly
strict but hopefully they'll grow to appreciate the integrity of your
events.

> However the requirement to speak out
> if they had a problem, in such an open forum, would make them feel
> awkward.
[clip]
> Instead they should be permitted to lodge a complaint in
> private, if necessary.

I guess if you're going down the path of allowing something you
shouldn't allow, private would be better than public. The issue is
probably better avoided in the first place by not allowing the banned
cards.

> #3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts,
there
> was one other irregularity that I was concerned about.
[clip]
> The lesson from this experience is please please please don't
> completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really
do
> want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during
> your turn if you miraculously do survive.

This is similar to playing out Withdraw Deals. If you don't play them
out, it doesn't allow someone to break the deal...and then it looks
funny when someone suggests that they play out a withdrawal deal after
having never done so in the past.

A good lesson for all of us judges. Don't allow people to pickup until
they are ousted and no life boon is played.

> #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier,
I
> am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction.

[clip]
> Once again I want to emphasize that the purpose of this post was not
to
> bitch and moan.

Item #4 sounds more like a "bitch and moan" to me. :-) No real issues
to discuss on this one, IMO. Different people have different
tolerances for how much time is enough time.

-Robert
Related resources
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:50:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1109893800.106996.97290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I think I would prefer that time limits for all rounds were announced
> before the event begins.

I think I would prefer if time limits were advertised with the sanctioning
of the tournament and not normally changed on the spot. What deck people
bring may take into account the time limit adveritised.

Of course, I know stuff happens, weather, facility issues, etc.
Sometimes it's just not reasonable to expect the time limit to
be set in stone. But there should be a good reason, if so. It should
never be changed capriciously.

Fred
March 3, 2005 10:40:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

<echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109890661.143116.264440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>

<snip discussion of NJ timing issues>

> Now I am aware that the tournament started late and there was some
> concern about the weather. However, having flown into D.C. from Chicago
> and carpooled from D.C. to Northfield, I will say that the weather
> wasn't really that bad at all.
>

I'm glad you guys didn't have any trouble from D.C., but it was plenty bad
for lots of people to the north and/or west. The only reason I point this
out is that it's worth considering holding the NJ qualifier a little later
in the year in future. :) 

> In addition, I believe that having a game win (if the second round had
> been shorter or the third round had been longer) would have made a
> significant difference. I ended up placing 6th place. Ben Peal was in
> the finals but was already qualified, meaning that the next top four
> players would qualify (thus I was right at the brink of qualification).
> Truth be told, it's not that big of an issue to me anymore since I
> qualified in Boston, though perhaps whoever placed 9th in Boston might
> want to put a word or two in (e.g. if I had qualified in New Jersey,
> then the 9th place person would have qualified in Boston).
>

That 9th place person would be I, sadly. :) 

> #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
>
<snip accurate discussion of banned cards issue>

I actually had a problem with the initial proposal to "let it slide," but I
didn't feel like standing up in a public forum and potentially starting an
argument with 30 other players. The tournament organizer did state that the
cards were "common" or "nothing special" or something like that, which I
guess was code for "It's not a Call the Great Beast deck," but it really
wasn't fair to the players who paid attention to the rules and made certain
to bring only legal decks. I'm glad this decision was reversed, thanks to
you & Scott for taking the initiative.

> #3.

<snippage>

No comment except that I feel sorry for Player A. In retrospect, it's easy
for us to say he should have waited for C to state that he was ousted, even
after C packed up, but I can see how the pressure of the unusual situation
made him give away his strategy.

> #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I
> am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now
> please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I
> was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took
> out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3
> or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually
> constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most
> of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my
> fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the
> time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled
> out. Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other

I'll cop to being one of the players who objected... though I would
characterize it as "loudly" rather than "*strongly*." :) 

But, Eric, dude, you singled yourself out when you were still sleeving while
16 other players were shuffled, cut, dealt, etc. I'm an obsessive sleever,
too, but even I don't sleeve draft decks. :) 

Lesson learned for you: construct after the draft even quicker if you're
going to sleeve before round one. Or sleeve your precon deck immediately so
you just have to sleeve the new stuff. Or get sponsored so you can give the
cards away and not have to worry about taking care of them. Lotsa options
available to you. :) 

> single new card. Now I certainly am not begrudging these individuals
> for taking the time to read the cards. But I don't think it's right
> that I got all the flak for taking too much time sleeving my cards when
> other individuals took just as much time, if not more, reading cards
> and drafting.

Have to disagree with you here. You have to read the cards to play, but the
sleeving's not so much a requirement.

> I had a great time at both qualifier events and want to
> applaud all of the organizers for a job well done.

Second that! Great job at the NERQ, Josh! Thanks again to you & Ben & the
rest of the fantastic hosts in Boston!

> With regards,
> - Eric Chiang
>

- Pat
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:46:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:

> Another minor issue is that it is my understanding that
> there were actually a handful of other individuals who were
> uncomfortable about the situation. However the requirement to speak out
> if they had a problem, in such an open forum, would make them feel
> awkward. Instead they should be permitted to lodge a complaint in
> private, if necessary.

You always have an opprtunity to lodge a complaint in private--it seems
highly likely that if anyone had lodged a complaint either publicly or
privately, it would have been rectified. As it was.

For my money, I understand why even reprinted new release cards are not
allowed for 30 days, as they might have different text that would cause some
confusion. This makes sense to me. This being said, I am completely
unconcerned with whether or not my opponents have, like, extra hard to get
rares or more Blood Dolls as the result of them being in not yet allowed
starters, or whatever, and for my money, I'd be perfectly happy if you could
use new reprints immediately. But understanding the problem that could be
caused by new wording on cards, I accept the current plan (although, it
isn't any more confusing to use non re-worded old cards, like Jyhad Wakes,
or whatever). In the situation as it occured, I was perfectly happy to see
people play with the cards they were using, even if they were from the new
set, as it made everyone's life easier. I would have expected someone who
had a problem with it, however, to make their concerns known. And someone
did, and it was fixed.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:56:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Pat wrote:

> I actually had a problem with the initial proposal to "let it slide," but I
> didn't feel like standing up in a public forum and potentially starting an
> argument with 30 other players. The tournament organizer did state that the
> cards were "common" or "nothing special" or something like that, which I
> guess was code for "It's not a Call the Great Beast deck," but it really
> wasn't fair to the players who paid attention to the rules and made certain
> to bring only legal decks. I'm glad this decision was reversed, thanks to
> you & Scott for taking the initiative.

Yeah, see, I certainly wouldn't have argued with you in a public forum--if
anyone had stood up and said "Hey. I don't like this." in regards to the
suggestion, I would have been completely ok with that, and likely would have
defended them saying that if anyone took issue with it, as it is the actual
rules, as that is why the actual rules are there.

This being said, in this forum, where it isn't actually an issue, why would
you have a problem with letting it slide, given that it simply made the
tournament work better? Heck, even if it *was* a deck using 6 KMW Call the
Great Beasts?

I suspect that most of the illegal cards were things like Blood Doll and
whatever (my pal Steve needed some cards for his deck right before the
tournament, picked up a KMW starter to get some, like, Swallowed by the
Nights or whatever, realized right before the gig that they were illegal and
swapped for non illegal copies, but I suspect that a bunch of people did the
same thing except without the realization and trading), but even if they
weren't, really, how is that a problem?


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
March 3, 2005 11:26:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:BE4D1C64.1DF2E%pdb6@lightlink.com...
> Pat wrote:
>
>> I actually had a problem with the initial proposal to "let it slide," but
>> I
>> didn't feel like standing up in a public forum and potentially starting
>> an
>> argument with 30 other players. The tournament organizer did state that
>> the
>> cards were "common" or "nothing special" or something like that, which I
>> guess was code for "It's not a Call the Great Beast deck," but it really
>> wasn't fair to the players who paid attention to the rules and made
>> certain
>> to bring only legal decks. I'm glad this decision was reversed, thanks to
>> you & Scott for taking the initiative.
>
> Yeah, see, I certainly wouldn't have argued with you in a public forum--if
> anyone had stood up and said "Hey. I don't like this." in regards to the
> suggestion, I would have been completely ok with that, and likely would
> have
> defended them saying that if anyone took issue with it, as it is the
> actual
> rules, as that is why the actual rules are there.
>
> This being said, in this forum, where it isn't actually an issue, why
> would
> you have a problem with letting it slide, given that it simply made the
> tournament work better? Heck, even if it *was* a deck using 6 KMW Call the
> Great Beasts?
>

It's as simple as this: There are published rules. Regardless of the logic
of the rules on this issue, the rules are clear. Ten minutes prior to the
start of a tournament is not the time to debate or change these rules. A
sanctioned tournament, particularly a continental qualifier, should follow
the rules.

As to why I didn't complain on the scene before Eric & Scott took action,
think of the number of "name" players who were in attendance... I've been
playing for roughly 5 years but am a relative noob on the tournament scene.
I'm not going to stand up and make myself look like a jerk in front of that
many people who are so much more experienced than I. Nor am I going to
bother to protest in private to the organizer, who has better things to do
than listen to me when he's trying to get the first round started.

- Pat
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Pat wrote:

> It's as simple as this: There are published rules. Regardless of the logic
> of the rules on this issue, the rules are clear. Ten minutes prior to the
> start of a tournament is not the time to debate or change these rules. A
> sanctioned tournament, particularly a continental qualifier, should follow
> the rules.

Once again, I'm totally with you. I don't think that wanting the rules to be
consistient is unreasonable. And I would never have argued that they
shouldn't in reality.

But in an absolute sense, really, what difference does it make?

> As to why I didn't complain on the scene before Eric & Scott took action,
> think of the number of "name" players who were in attendance... I've been
> playing for roughly 5 years but am a relative noob on the tournament scene.
> I'm not going to stand up and make myself look like a jerk in front of that
> many people who are so much more experienced than I. Nor am I going to
> bother to protest in private to the organizer, who has better things to do
> than listen to me when he's trying to get the first round started.

I mean, yeah, I guess, but really, if a single person had a legitimate
complaint, which the complaint in question was certainly legitimate, I
couldn't for the life of me see anyone having a leg to stand on otherwise
(i.e. if anyone had said "yeah, that isn't ok", no one was going to argue,
and if they did, there are enough people who are sane to support the side
that has the leg to stand on, i.e. the "that isn't ok" side). The situation
that occurred was entierly a situation of "some guy has 3 or 4 Blood Dolls
or something with the wrong set symbol on them", and the solution suggested
was simply "lets just make the game work in the name of it being easy and it
not really mattering", and again, if someone had an issue, it would make
total sense to simply say "yeah, that's not how the rules work", and no one
really could have argued.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:59:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:

> #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
> was initially a problem because a handful of players had included
> reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks
> (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none
> of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet).

I waffled on this issue because I really felt bad having to tell players,
"You have a Kindred Most Wanted version of Blur in your deck, therefore
you are disqualified and can not play."
Especially since one player stated to me that he specifically went out of
his way to replace all of his older versions with the KMW versions where
he could that morning, just so that his deck would "look more up to date".

I understand the reasons for KMW-printing cards not being legal; but when
I saw which cards they were in each of the "offending" decks, I chose to
"let it slide but let everyone know" for time-saving reasons.
However, when people *did* voice their concern and came to me, the situation
was taken care of, and no KMW-printing cards were in players' decks when
play began.

Yes, people should absolutely know the vekn deck construction rules before
arriving at a tournament, and yes I will be more strict about it the next
time I'm running a Continental Qualifier the week after the release of a
new set that includes reprints.


> #3 [The Life Boon Situation]

There was really nothing that could have been done differently, after
the player began scooping up his belongings. He shouldn't have done so, but
if table-talk reveals that there's a Life Boon in someone's hand, there's
nothing illegal about other players taking advantage of that knowledge...

And just because "Anson Anarch Revolt" screams out "There is probably a Life
Boon in his hand" to many players, doesn't mean you can fault the scooping
player for not drawing that conclusion; different players have different
levels of experience and expertise with the game.

> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft]

As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any
V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun
and the acquisition of "free stuff".
I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before
beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck.
The other players were itching to begin, so I gave that player's table
a few extra minutes to their 2 hour round, which they ended up not needing
anyway.

This was a learning experience for me, as my first large-scale event as
Prince. I'm glad that things went as smoothly as they did but I know
I can do certain things better next time.

Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein
Prince of Boston
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:59:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:BuCdnZmFcYiKQLrfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft]
>
> As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any
> V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun
> and the acquisition of "free stuff".
> I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before
> beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck.

Well, the obvious question is, if all this is being run extremely informally,
couldn't you wait a few minutes for the player sleeving his deck?

Of course, one thing that seems strange: I don't think of deck sleeving as
an activitity that takes more than a few minutes. So if Eric was done building
his deck ahead of some of the other players, one would think it would hardly
add any time at all if he started sleeving right away - no?

Fred
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:56:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

You've never sat and watched Eric sleeve. I think he has to sterilize
each sleeve before he lets them touch his cards.

Oh, and it's very distracting to him if he plays a card on one of your
vamps and you take it out of its sleeve and touch it while he's taking
his turn. Not that I would ever do that. ;)  Although it's odd, I
haven't seen him play with Charnas the Imp lately...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:27:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:

(snip #1)
[...]
I understand your feeling of being screwed for the time limit change.
I think something should be done to maintain it uniform during the
prelims. More time in the final is ok for me, but giving different T.L.
for each round is something confusing. It should not be changed during
the tournament, imo. The more information we players have,the better.


> #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
> was initially a problem because a handful of players had included
> reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks
> (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none
> of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet).

this kind of problem also frequently appears, and people show at a
tourney with an illegal deck... Again, information is the key.

> Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all of
> the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak up. No
> one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it and we
> spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like what
> particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure the
> cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast, Alastor,
> Mylan Horseed, etc.

This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D 
Govern the unaligned is scarier than Alastor in my book !
Can yoiu explain me the difference for you between commons and uncommons
? just curious.


> #3. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
> was one other irregularity that I was concerned about. Now I did not
> witness this event directly and this is only my second-hand account of
> what happened. Those who were involved in the situation should feel
> free to provide elaboration and/or corrections:
>
> The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C
>
> It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts
> in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the
> Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and
> some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything
> else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all
> his cards and pack up
>
> The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning
> to play it when Player C was going to die. [...] In response, Player B
> used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon.

Improper play from player C, but even more serious mistake from B : he
should have said to C "don't pack up yet, i did not finish my turn".
With cards like life boon and extremis boon, you can't really be sure.
Plus, Le din tho's last action could have been blocked, putting B in a
difficult position. Why the acting meth would admit that something
supposed to happen after his turn ends, would happen before instead ? I
would not let my prey pack his card, the same way i would not let him
utap, play a blood doll etc.. while i have yet not finished with my turn.
What should the judge do ?
i think your answer provides something faire and swuare :) 


(snip bitch and moan from #4 )
interesting, except the #4 ;) 

great comments otherwise.
reyda
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:19:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:
> At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of
> irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis.
> Please note that I bring up these issues *not* for the purpose of
> whining or complaining. Instead I think the issues warrant some
> discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments
> and qualifiers.
>
>
> #1.

The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the
time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final
may have a different time limit -- but that difference should
still be set in advance of the tournament).

[VEKN 3.1.1]

> #2.

Players are not permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents.
[VEKN 2.3]

This would include prohibiting having all players waive the penalty en
masse unless someone steps forward.

> #3.

Good lesson, and good suggestion.

> #4.

The time limit for deck construction is 30 minutes, not set by the
players. [VEKN 7.5.3].
The time limit for drafting in table draft is set by the judge.
[VEKN 7.7].
The time spent in booster draft is more in the players' hands [VEKN 7.6]

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:33:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Frederick Scott <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

> "Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
> news:BuCdnZmFcYiKQLrfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>>> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft]
>>
>> As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any
>> V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun
>> and the acquisition of "free stuff".
>> I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before
>> beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck.

> Well, the obvious question is, if all this is being run extremely informally,
> couldn't you wait a few minutes for the player sleeving his deck?

It was the last day of a 3 day convention.
It was a "fun" event.
Many of us were running on very little sleep (I personally did not go to bed
until 4am both nights of the convention, and crashed on a pull-out couch
instead of driving home).
Some players wanted to be finished as soon as possible so they could take
their long trips back home.
All but one player were rearing to go.

The sleeving player was not in any rush to finish sleeving his deck.
So his table was given some extra time; and that round they didn't time out
so it was not a big deal.
In the long run, it didn't matter.
I apologize if it made Eric feel uncomfortable, but I'm sure that the
remarks about his sleeving speed were all in good fun and the spirit of
the friendly community of VTES. No more harmful than the loud cries of
"Jared Strait is a dirty dealbreaker!"

Josh
who can get overly defensive and then start babbling
March 4, 2005 9:37:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:HuRVd.2246$Ru.1536@okepread06...
>
> "Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
> news:BuCdnZmFcYiKQLrfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>>> #4 [Issues with the Sunday Draft]
>>
>> As this was billed as a Prerelease, it wasn't under the governance of any
>> V:EKN rules. I ran it extremely informally, as it was entirely for fun
>> and the acquisition of "free stuff".
>> I made sure that everyone was finished constructing their decks before
>> beginning, except for the one issue of a player sleeving his draft deck.
>
> Well, the obvious question is, if all this is being run extremely
> informally,
> couldn't you wait a few minutes for the player sleeving his deck?
>

We waited a few minutes... then we waited a few more minutes... then Eric
came to the table and hadn't shuffled his newly-sleeved deck yet...

It was all forgotten as soon as we started playing, and our table wound up
finishing well before time for the round (we were a 4-player, and one of the
others was a 5), but at the time it was going on, it was a little
frustrating.

BTW, no arguments at all with how Josh handled the situation... given that
it was non-sanctioned, it was totally appropriate for everybody else to
start and to just give us a couple extra minutes if we needed (which we
didn't).

- Pat
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:40:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
>
> The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament,

I've always thought so. However, 3.1.1 doesn't say that. However the
sanctioning request form does ask for the info.

"3.1.1. Round Time Limits
Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit
used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced
before play begins. The final round may last longer than the
preliminary rounds, at the judge's option."

[clip]

-Robert
March 4, 2005 9:43:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:BuCdnZmFcYiKQLrfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Yes, people should absolutely know the vekn deck construction rules before
> arriving at a tournament, and yes I will be more strict about it the next
> time I'm running a Continental Qualifier the week after the release of a
> new set that includes reprints.
>

Guaranteed to happen in Feb 2008, mark your calendar. :) 

Josh - You did a super job with the TotalCon weekend, it was a great time
and overall everything was really smooth... don't let any of this
discussion/bitching/moaning give you the wrong impression.

- Pat
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:15:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

The_Baital wrote:
> reyda wrote:
> > > Initially the tournament organizer announced the situation to all
> of
> > > the participants and said that if anyone had a problem, to speak
> up. No
> > > one spoke up. Scott Gomes and I were a little concerned about it
> and we
> > > spoke to the tournament organizer to get some more details, like
> what
> > > particular cards were at issue. I personally wanted to make sure
> the
> > > cards weren't hard-to-get rares like Call the Great Beast,
Alastor,
> > > Mylan Horseed, etc.
> >
> > This i don't understand ? are you afraid to face rare cards ? :D 
> > Govern the unaligned is scarier than Alastor in my book !
> > Can yoiu explain me the difference for you between commons and
> uncommons
> > ? just curious.
>
> my guess is that, if everyone packed some hard-to-find rares,
there´d
> be rouble finding legal copies of said cards, thus rending several
> people´s decks completely illegal and then disqualifying them for
> play, which would´ve been really counter-climatic and bogus.



Yes, that is correct. If someone had 20 not-yet-legal copies of
Information Highway, that personally wouldn't be a big deal to me. Info
Highway is a common enough card and if push comes to shove, it
shouldn't be too hard for an individual to borrow 20 copies of Info
Highway. However, say it was a case of 20 not-yet-legal copies of War
Ghoul. Excluding Trey and the Lasombra, I think I'd have a hard time
borrowing 20 War Ghouls from all the players that I know - even if I
contacted players across the country (and I imagine most other players
would have difficulty borrowing 20 War Ghouls as well). And then at
that case, then what's the difference between the not-yet-legal cards
and proxies? Why should the player with a deck using 20 not-yet-legal
cards be allowed to play when someone who has the exact same deck
(except those 20 cards are proxies) cannot? And allowing proxies in a
sanctioned non-limited tournament opens a different can of worms.



- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:20:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> "Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message
news:1109947234.548937.294530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > LSJ wrote:
> > >
> > > The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament,
> >
> > I've always thought so. However, 3.1.1 doesn't say that. However
the
> > sanctioning request form does ask for the info.
> >
> > "3.1.1. Round Time Limits
> > Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time
limit
> > used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced
> > before play begins. The final round may last longer than the
> > preliminary rounds, at the judge's option."
>
>
> ?
> "before play begins", right.

Well yeah. "Announcing the time limit before play begins" is "in
advance of the tournament". However, I had always interpreted that to
mean something more like what is said about set restrictions
("advertised prior").

-Robert
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:24:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:
> The situation cannot be really solved, it´s a big mess. I understand

> that player A told player C not to pack up, and it was indeed as
strong
> hint that he has a Life Boon in hand. On the other hand it was also
> likely that player B was about to use Le Dinh Tho against player A
just
> because that is usually a good action to take and in case of Anson/AR

> deck LB is likely. So you cannot (as the judge) forbid player B to
use
> Le Dinh Tho, but you also cannot guarantee that he would have used
him
> for sure. So probably it was the cause of player A not getting the
game
> win probably it was not, if you can´t tell for sure you cannot do
much
> about the situation.
>
> Solutions: Introduce a rather hard penalty for packing up ahead of
time,
> like a game loss for the next round. Only pain makes people learn
something.


>From what I hear, after the game Player B told Player A that he "might
have" used Le Dinh Tho's ability anyway. Though at this point we have
to wander into counterfactual "what if" scenarios - I guess we'll never
truly know what would have happened otherwise.

Then again, at one of my rounds in the Qualifier, my grandpredator (a
different player) brought out Le Dinh Tho and used him several times
against my predator. However, he never used Le Dinh Tho against any
other player, even after he and I had ousted our respective preys
(making him my new predator). He was playing Giovanni bleed and I was
sitting for around 3 or 4 turns with a key Retribution in my hand,
knowing that card would be gone if he used Le Dinh Tho. Up till the
very end of the game, when I managed to squeak out a game win, he never
bothered to look at my hand at all.

So I guess the lesson is that when it comes to Le Dinh Tho, who knows
what's gonna happen!



- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:40:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:
> So the tournament was against V:EKN rules, correct?
> Therefore the sanctioned status must be removed now and no one is
> qualified, gets rating points etc.., correct?

I'm also very curious about whether or not these issues will (or
should) make the tournament 'invalid' under 9.4 of the event rules...

(And not just because it'll affect whether or not certain people count
as already qualified for the purposes of my own region's Qualifier next
month. :p  )

> johannes walch

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> For my money, I understand why even reprinted new release cards are
not
> allowed for 30 days, as they might have different text that would
cause some
> confusion. This makes sense to me. This being said, I am completely
> unconcerned with whether or not my opponents have, like, extra hard
to get
> rares or more Blood Dolls as the result of them being in not yet
allowed
> starters, or whatever, and for my money, I'd be perfectly happy if
you could
> use new reprints immediately. But understanding the problem that
could be
> caused by new wording on cards, I accept the current plan (although,
it
> isn't any more confusing to use non re-worded old cards, like Jyhad
Wakes,
> or whatever). In the situation as it occured, I was perfectly happy
to see
> people play with the cards they were using, even if they were from
the new
> set, as it made everyone's life easier. I would have expected someone
who
> had a problem with it, however, to make their concerns known. And
someone
> did, and it was fixed.


Yes, I definitely agree with you (and the current rules) regarding not
allowing new cards (including reprinted ones) to be legal for 30 days.

#1. As you noted, the most important is regarding any text changes. New
copies with new text might be very confusing.

#2. Allowing *some* of the new set cards to be used but not others (say
allowing reprinted cards to be used but not "new" ones) can be
problematic. Especially if there's confusion, "I *thought* this card
was a reprint..." It's easier to just have a blanket "don't use cards
with this expansion symbol" rule (with an exception to some promos that
might have been released earlier).

#3. 30 days is a reasonable amount of time to ensure everyone has
sufficient time to access the new cards. It might have seemed odd if
right after Heidelberg, someone showed up with an Army of Nephandi deck
using the new not-yet-legal version. Or if someone attends a Saturday
Pre-Release and then plays in a Saturday night tournament using all of
the new reprints. (Not only is he using cards that aren't legal yet,
but they aren't even officially released yet!). Etc.


In short, the 30-day rule is there for a good reason and I definitely
think it should stay in place.



- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:00:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, LSJ wrote:

> The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the
> time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final
> may have a different time limit -- but that difference should
> still be set in advance of the tournament).
>
> [VEKN 3.1.1]

Cutting out the part about limited play, 3.1.1 reads:

"Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit
used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before
play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds,
at the judge's option.

<limited stuff>

"The judge must announce when only 5 minutes remain in the current round.
When the round is over the judge will direct all players to put their
cards down. All play must immediately cease."

It's certainly logical that all preliminary rounds would be of the same
length, but I don't get that out of "each round in the tournament has a
time limit." That doesn't say "each round has the same time limit" to me
so much as says "each round will end at some point." "The time limit must
be announced" part could be interpreted as meaning "the time limit for
each round must be announced before play of those rounds begin."

In fact, that's what the judge for that event thought it did mean. When a
player objected to the shortened round, the judge stated that he'd
announced the time limit prior to the round beginning (true - I'd heard
him even if everyone else hadn't) and quoted 3.1.1 to support his
decision.

Regardless of whether a mistake was made, 3.1.1 could probably be more
clear.

Additionally, if we're going to be sticklers, I only rarely hear the five
minute warning at tournaments and that's usually only when someone asks.

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:01:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Johannes Walch wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>
> >Let's change the rules to allow reprints to be used ASAP.
>
> That would be a welcome simplification without any real
disadvantages,
> as far as I judge it.

Agreed.

> johannes walch

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:06:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

John Flournoy wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
> > So the tournament was against V:EKN rules, correct?
> > Therefore the sanctioned status must be removed now and no one is
> > qualified, gets rating points etc.., correct?
>
> I'm also very curious about whether or not these issues will (or
> should) make the tournament 'invalid' under 9.4 of the event rules...
>
> (And not just because it'll affect whether or not certain people
count
> as already qualified for the purposes of my own region's Qualifier
next
> month. :p  )


The main reason I brought up the issues is that I feel that Qualifiers
(and Championships) should have a higher bar when it comes to
standards.

Now I do understand that most tournaments probably aren't going to be
perfect, and something irregular may occur.

I think that a violation should not automatically make a tournament
"invalid." Doing so would have a serious negative impact on tournament
attendence. Since most of these matters are well out of the control of
the players, it does not seem fair that they would be penalized based
on a decision that was out of their hands. In addition, if such an
event (like the NJ qualifier) *were* made invalid, players might think
"why bother even attending an event? I can do really well and win the
tournament but if someone else goofed up, then everything is for
naught!"



- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
> > Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other
> > hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having
> > previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly
> > familiar with most of the cards we were drafting.
>
> I think though that you had an unfair advantage here. Nobody should
> be allowed to participate in more than a single prerelease event
for
> any given set. Your example is good to show that being acquainted
> with the set gives you an unfair advantage over the other players.



I disagree that this constitutes an "unfair advantage." I knew several
of the other players at the event who had also attended two KMW
pre-releases.

Restricting players to a single pre-release is a bad idea for several
reasons.

- Since pre-releases are non-sanctioned (and there may be a variation
of rules/procedures/format), not a lot of detailed record-keeping is
done. Requiring detailed reports to make sure players don't attend
multiple events just adds to the work overhead that White Wolf and VEKN
already have to deal with.

- Such a restriction would decrease participation and weaken the
relationships between different playgroups. At least in my area, there
was quite a lot of proliferation among different playgroups for the
different pre-releases. It really helps in building bridges and
reaching out to other groups.



In addition, being "acquainted with the set" as a result of playing in
a pair of pre-releases isn't necessarily a significant advantage. A
different player could easily gather as much info by reading the
spoilers on the newsgroup. Should players also be banned from accessing
the newsgroup prior to such an event? Hmmm...maybe the best solution is
to require players to remain in a sensory deprivation chamber for 30
days prior to the event. That way they won't be able to gain an unfair
advantage...

To further elaborate, why is it an "unfair advantage" to have attended
previous events? On that basis, maybe Josh Duffin and Ben Peal should
be banned from all limited draft events. Since they have played so many
limited games, surely they have an "unfair advantage", especially if
they play in a limited event with a newbie. ::sighs::





- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Derek Ray wrote:
> Doesn't matter, though. As soon as anyone speaks up to prevent the
guy
> from packing his stuff, you've drawn attention and let player B know
> that "Something is going to happen". Packing your stuff up before
your
> turn starts in that situation is an eminently logical thing to do,
since
> obviously player B will not ever do anything HIMSELF to prevent your
> being ousted.
>
> The only real solution is for player A to sit there, watch it happen,
> and then say "You're still alive -- now let's reconstruct the state."
> Otherwise, he tips his hand no matter what he does.


Yep. Sometimes when I'm bored I play Yahoo Chess. In Yahoo Chess, if
you make a mistake, you can request a takeback. In that case, a box
appears on your opponent's screen telling him that you're requesting a
takeback and he has the option to allow it or not.

Whenever someone requests a takeback, it's a red flag for something out
of the ordinary. There have been plenty of times when I did not
initially realize that my opponent had made a critical mistake. But
then when he asks for a takeback, I think "hey, something is up" which
makes me scrutinize the situation more carefully.

As a result, whenever I make a mistake of my own, I find it's better to
just hope that my opponent misses it, as opposed to alerting him that
something is out of the ordinary and putting me at the mercy of whether
he'll let me take back the move. (Since this is Chess, note that these
are PLAY mistakes, not RULE mistakes).



- Eric Chiang
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Robert Goudie" <robertg@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1109947234.548937.294530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament,
>
> I've always thought so. However, 3.1.1 doesn't say that. However the
> sanctioning request form does ask for the info.
>
> "3.1.1. Round Time Limits
> Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit
> used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced
> before play begins. The final round may last longer than the
> preliminary rounds, at the judge's option."


?
"before play begins", right.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> I imagine there are mistakes made in every tournament.

Especially in how I play lately, sheesh!

> So long as the mistakes are unintentional (and not "gross
negligence",
> etc.), I don't see any purpose served by retroactively unsanctioning
> all of them.

Sounds good to me.

> LSJ

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:18:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Matthew T. Morgan" <farquar@io.com> wrote in message news:20050304084954.U6595@eris.io.com...
> Cutting out the part about limited play, 3.1.1 reads:
>
> "Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit
> used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before
> play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds,
> at the judge's option.
>
> It's certainly logical that all preliminary rounds would be of the same
> length, but I don't get that out of "each round in the tournament has a
> time limit." That doesn't say "each round has the same time limit" to me
> so much as says "each round will end at some point." "The time limit must
> be announced" part could be interpreted as meaning "the time limit for
> each round must be announced before play of those rounds begin."

"The time limit" must be announced, yes.

And a provision is made that the final may be longer (but not shorter)
than the preliminary rounds.

No provision is made for the preliminary rounds to vary.

And the time limit must be announced before play begins. Not "between
rounds" (after some play).

> Regardless of whether a mistake was made, 3.1.1 could probably be more
> clear.

Yes.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Emmit Svenson wrote:
>
> > Eric, next time consider asking people who are idle to help you
sleeve.
> > Maybe people will volunteer to help next time instead of just
griping.
>
> They may volunteer, but unless they brought along their body-condoms
I
> doubt the offer would be accepted.
>
> Yes, Eric, I'm calling you a nut. But an extremely well-dressed one.
;) 

When I'd heard the name "The Little Tailor" applied to Eric I was
cracking up. IMO, it's a perfect nickname for him.

-Robert
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Chris Berger wrote:
> You've never sat and watched Eric sleeve. I think
> he has to sterilize each sleeve before he lets them
> touch his cards.

This is true.

> Oh, and it's very distracting to him if he plays a card
> on one of your vamps and you take it out of its sleeve
> and touch it while he's taking his turn. Not that I

If you have been eating food within the last, even if you have wiped
your hands thoroughly, it also adds additional fun to the scene.

> would ever do that. ;)  Although it's odd, I
> haven't seen him play with Charnas the Imp lately...

Heh.


Xian
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:39:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:

> #2. Allowing *some* of the new set cards to be used but not others (say
> allowing reprinted cards to be used but not "new" ones) can be
> problematic. Especially if there's confusion, "I *thought* this card
> was a reprint..." It's easier to just have a blanket "don't use cards
> with this expansion symbol" rule (with an exception to some promos that
> might have been released earlier).

The reason I originally wanted to let it go this past weekend was that
I knew exactly which cards they were, and that none of them were
hard-to-find pre-KMW (except maybe one Dreams of the Sphinx, for which
a replacement was found immediately anyway).
Also some people had paid significant money to be there, and I didn't want
to invalidate their travel expenses because of a minor screwup.

However, I am fully supportive of the rule in general. It is especially
sticky with things that have changed rarity, and things like Anarch Revolt,
where they are technically "reprints" but functionally different.

I was actually hoping that the KMW release would be delayed for a few days
so that the Sunday event could have been a true Prerelease. Alas, I was
still able to call it one, but it would have saved us from this problem
if the cards had not been in circulation at all :) 
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:47:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 14:57:41 -0800, <echiang777@yahoo.com> wrote:

> #1. At the 2005 East Central Qualifier in Northfield, New Jersey the
> event was initially advertised as having a 2.5 hour time limit. However
> midway through the tournament the time limit was changed - the first
> two rounds had a time limit of 2.5 hours but the third round and the
> final had a time limit of 2 hours.

Bad thing. Should not happen. I strongly suggest you file a complaint
to VEKN so that they destroy the sanctioned status of the tournament
due to this irredularity.

> In addition, I believe that having a game win (if the second round had
> been shorter or the third round had been longer) would have made a
> significant difference. I ended up placing 6th place. Ben Peal was in
> the finals but was already qualified, meaning that the next top four
> players would qualify (thus I was right at the brink of qualification).
> Truth be told, it's not that big of an issue to me anymore since I
> qualified in Boston, though perhaps whoever placed 9th in Boston might
> want to put a word or two in (e.g. if I had qualified in New Jersey,
> then the 9th place person would have qualified in Boston).

Well, the 5th player in New Jersey got lucky, and the 9th in Boston got
unlucky. All because of you... Shame.

> #2. At the 2005 Northeast Qualifier in Mansfield, Massachusetts, there
> was initially a problem because a handful of players had included
> reprinted cards from the Kindred Most Wanted expansion in their decks
> (the cards were reprints from the starters but the problem is that none
> of the Kindred Most Wanted cards, even reprinted ones, were legal yet).

I cannot disagree with this enough. Why would anyone in their right mind
complain about reprints? They are the same cards, only with different
layouts and expansion symbols. Seems pretty childish to me. (Not you in
general, just the behaviour).

> Now I understand that this is a difficult situation. If it were to
> happen again, this is what I would suggest: Player A does not say
> anything about having a way to save Player C, and simply allows Player
> C to pack up. When Player B ends his turn, and the Anarch Revolts would
> oust Player C, Player A plays the Life Boon. Reconstruct the game state
> as best as possible but if the previous game state could not be fully
> established then just let Player C sit there as a pool buffer. Since
> Player C had already given up, treat him as if he were not going to
> bother taking any actions or blocking.

Fair enough. Though the player controlling Le Din could've foreseen it,
and preemptively check to see the master deck's hand, just as the ousted
player could've anticipated it.

> The lesson from this experience is please please please don't
> completely pack up unless you are actually ousted. Or if you really do
> want to give up and pack up, be okay with "doing nothing" during
> your turn if you miraculously do survive.

Or just transfer out. Don't pack unless you are ousted; if you see no
chance, wait for your turn, and then transfer out. Or offer to concede
the game. There are options.

> #4. During the Starter/Draft event following the Northeast Qualifier, I
> am not sure if sufficient time was given for deck construction. Now
> please note that I *was* on time for the event (surprise, surprise). I
> was playing the Alastors deck and I didn't make many changes (took
> out 3 library cards and 1 crypt card, added a dozen library cards and 3
> or 4 crypt cards) so I *know* I did not spend a lot of time actually
> constructing my deck. Instead, I knew that I would have to spend most
> of the deck construction time sleeving my deck instead. Now some of my
> fellow players *strongly* expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the
> time I was taking to sleeve my deck. I feel that I was unfairly singled
> out.

Well, it is hard to judge this without knowing how much time was
*objectively* spent on this. Did you somehow offend the players who
"singled you out"? It is possible that they were just frustrated by
you somehow, and found an excuse. I'm not sure, I don't like draft,
and I don't really like being mean to others before the games. (During
the game, I sometimes do those things, but not before - I like fellow
VTES players, even if I can sometimes be a bit tenser at a game table.)

> Yes, I did need some time to fully prepare my deck. On the other
> hand however, I am an extremely fast and efficient drafter. Having
> previously played in two KMW pre-releases, I was already fairly
> familiar with most of the cards we were drafting.

I think though that you had an unfair advantage here. Nobody should
be allowed to participate in more than a single prerelease event for
any given set. Your example is good to show that being acquainted
with the set gives you an unfair advantage over the other players.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:49:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Emmit Svenson wrote:

> Eric, next time consider asking people who are idle to help you sleeve.
> Maybe people will volunteer to help next time instead of just griping.

They may volunteer, but unless they brought along their body-condoms I
doubt the offer would be accepted.

Yes, Eric, I'm calling you a nut. But an extremely well-dressed one. ;) 

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Matthew T. Morgan" <farquar@io.com> wrote in message
news:20050304084954.U6595@eris.io.com...
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, LSJ wrote:
>> The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the
>> time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final
>> may have a different time limit -- but that difference should
>> still be set in advance of the tournament).
>>
>> [VEKN 3.1.1]
>
> Cutting out the part about limited play, 3.1.1 reads:
>
> "Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit
> used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before
> play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds,
> at the judge's option.
....
> It's certainly logical that all preliminary rounds would be of the same
> length, but I don't get that out of "each round in the tournament has a
> time limit." That doesn't say "each round has the same time limit" to me
> so much as says "each round will end at some point."

I agree that it could be worded that way straight out, not by inference,
and it would be much more clear. But if there's a sentence that reads,
"The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds", that pretty
much seems to also infer: 1) The final round may not have a SHORTER time
limit than any of the preliminary rounds; and 2) Any preliminary round may
NOT be longer than any (other) preliminary round. I'm not sure what else
that sentence is suppose to mean. And it must mean something, so those
two things seem to be it.

> "The time limit must
> be announced" part could be interpreted as meaning "the time limit for
> each round must be announced before play of those rounds begin."

That's adding something that just plain isn't there. You shouldn't do
that.

> Regardless of whether a mistake was made, 3.1.1 could probably be more clear.

The misinterpretation was certainly a mistake. Still, I agree with you.
Where common and easily understandable mistakes occur, why not type in a
few more words and avoid them? And this seems like a good example.

Fred
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:02:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I imagine there are mistakes made in every tournament.

So long as the mistakes are unintentional (and not "gross negligence",
etc.), I don't see any purpose served by retroactively unsanctioning
all of them.


--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:25:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> That would be a welcome simplification without any real disadvantages,
> as far as I judge it.

I think it could be pretty bad. After all, what if someone doesn't
remember what was and wasn't a reprint? The people who are making these
mistakes are people who aren't careful enough to bring legal decks to the
table to begin with. What makes you think that one mistake is less likely
than the other?

Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 4:25:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Ankur Gupta" <agupta@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:p ine.GSO.4.62.0503041324190.20922@peso.cs.duke.edu...
>> That would be a welcome simplification without any real disadvantages,
>> as far as I judge it.
>
> I think it could be pretty bad. After all, what if someone doesn't
> remember what was and wasn't a reprint?

What if people don't remember that an old card has new text?

This kind of "what if" doesn't concern me. Players need to take a
moment to understand tournament rules deck construction. It's not
difficult, with or without such a change. If they can't do that,
then they're going to have problems either way so I don't care.
Besides, I also don't think it's much of an "attractive nuisance"
anyway.

> What makes you think that one mistake is less likely
> than the other?

I don't know about others but for me, it's not so much an issue
of eliminating the potential for mistakes. It's more an issue
of, why does this rule even need to exist? The reasons for it
I can think of don't strike me as being very good ones.

Fred
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:03:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:Ka2Wd.2649$Ru.1086@okepread06...
>
> "Ankur Gupta" <agupta@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
> news:p ine.GSO.4.62.0503041324190.20922@peso.cs.duke.edu...

> > What makes you think that one mistake is less likely
> > than the other?
>
> I don't know about others but for me, it's not so much an issue
> of eliminating the potential for mistakes. It's more an issue
> of, why does this rule even need to exist? The reasons for it
> I can think of don't strike me as being very good ones.

It seems to me that the reason for the "no cards, even reprints, within 30
days of set release" rule is mainly that in any given set, WW *could* change
the cardtext of *all* the reprints. Sure, it's not terribly hard to
remember that Anarch Revolt and Heart of Darkness were changed in KMW, and
so those copies of new cards wouldn't be legal until 30 days out while the
rest would - but it does have the potential to be a problem, if more cards
are changed.

Also, while I think you're right that the existence of *earlier* printings
that don't do what they say is almost as bad as newer printings that don't
(yet) do what they say, it seems to me that this problem (cards not doing
what they say) is one that it's better not to exacerbate any more than
necessary. (I probably wouldn't have changed Heart of Darkness's text, if
it were up to me, for example. ;-)


Josh

unreprintable
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:25:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

>> The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C
>>
>> It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts
>> in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the
>> Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and
>> some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything
>> else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all
>> his cards and pack up
>> The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning
>> to play it when Player C was going to die. [...] In response, Player B
>> used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon.
>
>
> Improper play from player C, but even more serious mistake from B : he
> should have said to C "don't pack up yet, i did not finish my turn".
> With cards like life boon and extremis boon, you can't really be sure.
> Plus, Le din tho's last action could have been blocked, putting B in a
> difficult position. Why the acting meth would admit that something
> supposed to happen after his turn ends, would happen before instead ? I
> would not let my prey pack his card, the same way i would not let him
> utap, play a blood doll etc.. while i have yet not finished with my turn.
> What should the judge do ?
> i think your answer provides something faire and swuare :) 

The situation cannot be really solved, it´s a big mess. I understand
that player A told player C not to pack up, and it was indeed as strong
hint that he has a Life Boon in hand. On the other hand it was also
likely that player B was about to use Le Dinh Tho against player A just
because that is usually a good action to take and in case of Anson/AR
deck LB is likely. So you cannot (as the judge) forbid player B to use
Le Dinh Tho, but you also cannot guarantee that he would have used him
for sure. So probably it was the cause of player A not getting the game
win probably it was not, if you can´t tell for sure you cannot do much
about the situation.

Solutions: Introduce a rather hard penalty for packing up ahead of time,
like a game loss for the next round. Only pain makes people learn something.

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:25:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:25:58 +0100, Johannes Walch
<johannes.walch@vekn.de> wrote:

>>> The game is down to: Player A --> Player B --> Player C
>>>
>>> It is Player B's turn. Player C has 1 pool left and 2 Anarch Revolts
>>> in play, so Player B is not going to bother bleeding C out, since the
>>> Anarch Revolts will kill him next turn. Player B has Le Dinh Tho and
>>> some Shambling Hordes out and is deciding if he wants to do anything
>>> else. Since Player C believes he is dead, he begins to gather up all
>>> his cards and pack up
>>> The problem is that Player A has a Life Boon in hand and was planning
>>> to play it when Player C was going to die. [...] In response, Player B
>>> used Le Dinh Tho to make Player A discard his Life Boon.
>>
>>
>> Improper play from player C, but even more serious mistake from B : he
>> should have said to C "don't pack up yet, i did not finish my turn".
>> With cards like life boon and extremis boon, you can't really be sure.
>> Plus, Le din tho's last action could have been blocked, putting B in a
>> difficult position. Why the acting meth would admit that something
>> supposed to happen after his turn ends, would happen before instead ? I
>> would not let my prey pack his card, the same way i would not let him
>> utap, play a blood doll etc.. while i have yet not finished with my
>> turn.
>> What should the judge do ?
>> i think your answer provides something faire and swuare :) 
>
> The situation cannot be really solved, it´s a big mess. I understand
> that player A told player C not to pack up, and it was indeed as strong
> hint that he has a Life Boon in hand. On the other hand it was also
> likely that player B was about to use Le Dinh Tho against player A just
> because that is usually a good action to take and in case of Anson/AR
> deck LB is likely. So you cannot (as the judge) forbid player B to use
> Le Dinh Tho, but you also cannot guarantee that he would have used him
> for sure. So probably it was the cause of player A not getting the game
> win probably it was not, if you can´t tell for sure you cannot do much
> about the situation.
>
> Solutions: Introduce a rather hard penalty for packing up ahead of time,
> like a game loss for the next round. Only pain makes people learn
> something.

I disagree.

1) Penalizing the next game is a poor idea that is not fair, and also
naturally fails to work in about a third/half of the cases.

2) This is a game we play for fun. Packing up ahead of time may not be
nice, as the pending VP can theoretically go any way, but for the player
packing up the game is mostly over anyway. Kind of like transfering out.
So while I don't encourage it, I don't think that harsh penalizing is of
any use. Maybe milder penalties can be issued, so that the player
realizes that his actions weren't exactly nice.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:30:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 4 Mar 2005 09:01:59 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Johannes Walch wrote:
>> Daneel wrote:
>>
>> >Let's change the rules to allow reprints to be used ASAP.
>>
>> That would be a welcome simplification without any real
>disadvantages,
>> as far as I judge it.
>
>Agreed.
>> johannes walch
>-John Flournoy

Me too (not to change this thread in any form of signature list).

It's more intuitive a solution. Every time I tell a player that new
rules cards take 30 days to be legal to play, most assume that it does
not include reprints of old ones.

The worst scenario I see is some organizer/judge/prince getting
confused with when each card was released ("Approximation of
Loyalty... is it a new card?") because they couldn't keep up with the
latest releases. That is left for them to resolve, though - they
*should* know or print cardlistings...

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:41:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> At the two most recent U.S. qualifiers, I have noticed a handful of
>> irregularities that I feel necessitate some discussion and analysis.
>> Please note that I bring up these issues *not* for the purpose of
>> whining or complaining. Instead I think the issues warrant some
>> discussion so that these problems can be avoided in future tournaments
>> and qualifiers.
>>
>>
>> #1.
>
>
> The time limits must be set in advance of the tournament, and the
> time limit must be the same for all rounds (except that the final
> may have a different time limit -- but that difference should
> still be set in advance of the tournament).
>

So the tournament was against V:EKN rules, correct?
Therefore the sanctioned status must be removed now and no one is
qualified, gets rating points etc.., correct?

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:44:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:+2bxL6iIENKCFw2M@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> Certainly, changing timings on a whim is bad, but at the same time it's
> something that can need to happen.

Agreed, as I indicated in my response to Robert Goudie's post. Keeping
the time limit as announced is the ideal. But occasionally stuff happens
that requires it to take a back seat to another priority.

I've just gotten annoyed by certain organizers I've run across in the
past (in Magic tournaments more than Jyhad) who seem oblivious to the
notion that changing tournament rules, conditions, formats or whatever
from what had been advertised beforehand is a bad thing that ought to
be avoided just for its own sake.

Fred
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:15:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Robert Goudie wrote:

> When I'd heard the name "The Little Tailor" applied to Eric I was
> cracking up. IMO, it's a perfect nickname for him.

Yeah, if Little Tailor ever gets advanced, I nominate a likeness of Eric
for the artwork.

On second thought, maybe we can just use his face, but dress him up in a
zipper-infested 1980's fashion abortion. Jeff Thompson shouldn't be the
only one who has to suffer.

:) 

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:16:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> The situation that occurred was entierly a situation of "some
> guy has 3 or 4 Blood Dolls or something with the wrong set symbol
> on them", and the solution suggested was simply "lets just make
> the game work in the name of it being easy and it not really
> mattering", and again, if someone had an issue, it would make
> total sense to simply say "yeah, that's not how the rules work",
> and no one really could have argued.

I agree with Peter. If I had been the judge I would have spanked the
infringing player and ruled that the reprints were proxies for the cards
that they reprinted - if replacements couldn't be found. Seems to
resolve the situation with minimal fuss.

Of course, it would be different if the infringing player was trying to
gain some kind of advantage from a confusing reprint and/or did the same
thing next tournament.

I think it's one of those "moving a vampire to ready region before
finishing influencing" type-of-errors : easily correctable by acting as
if the rule had been obeyed.

--
* lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:51:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:

> In short, the 30-day rule is there for a good reason and I definitely
> think it should stay in place.

Don't get me wrong here--I have no problem with this rule (no reprints for
30 days, along with the new cards), and certainly don't think that right
before a tournament starts is a good time to challenge the status quo.

This being said, I don't think what happened at the Qualifier was a problem,
nor did I think it was a problem at the time. We have judges. I trust their
judgement (otherwise, the whole concept of a judge is pointless). At the
time, the judgement of the judges was "Well, technically, it is illegal that
a couple guys have some KMW copies of Swallowed by the Night and Blood Doll,
or whaveter, but in the name of getting the game started and no one getting
DQ'ed pointlessly, let's just not worry about it...", which strikes me as
perfectly reasonable.

As I said earlier, if anyone had expressed their displeasure with this call
publicly, I would have defended them, 'cause in the end, they would be
right. But in the end, I can't see why anyone would care, it being against
the rules or no. Some rules it is important to adhere to, as it has an
effect on the game. Other rules, like this one in particular, it doesn't
strike me at all as unreasonable to work around in some circumstances, in
the name of making the tournament go.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:53:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:

> The main reason I brought up the issues is that I feel that Qualifiers
> (and Championships) should have a higher bar when it comes to
> standards.

I completely agree. But I also think that certain situations warrant a
certain amount of leeway, especially in situations where, in the end, there
is no negative effect on anything or anyone (like the KMW reprint
situation).


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
!