SP Region SAC Qualifier, quick report

G

Guest

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

Hi,

I just couldn't wait for an official report from the Prince (forgive
me Marlo), 'cause I'm all to happy with our Qualifier last weekend -
be it for the good level of organization and great attendance at the
SP SAC Qualifier or for my performance on it.

42 players, 40 non-qualified, showed up in our biggest SAC Qualifier
to date. It was great fun with plenty of variety in strategies, from
simple sneaky bleed to weenie decks, from fierce combat to Camarilla
vote, from indie tricks to Gangrel Force of Will + Movement of the
Slow Body + Rapid Healing, and the return of the 'Roaches at the hands
of another player.

These were the top 5 players in the preliminary rounds:

1. Cassio ('Roaches Final Solution, or !Toreador + Embraces, Palla
Grande, Foundation Exhibit, Gehenna Events) - 3 GW + 14 VPs
2. Pedro Serrano (Toreador group 1/2 with many masters, intercept,
Obedience) - 3 GW + 11 VPs
3. Fabio Sooner (Ravnos group 4 don't pay for Chimestry and Tumnimos)
- 3 GW + 10,5 VPs
4. Giovanni Cisterna (EuroBrujah with Beast) - 2 GW + 9 VPs
5. Irwin (said Gangrels Force of Will and come back from torpor with
even more blood) - 2 GWs + 8 VPs

The final table ended up like this:

Irwin (Gangrels) ->
Pedro (Toreador) ->
Fabio (Ravnos) ->
Giovanni (EuroBrujah) ->
Cassio ('Roaches)

I've taken the stance of doing nothing but conserving pool until
something was done to my intercept-y predator - I could generate at
most 3 stealth per action, easily blockable with a 2nd Tradition and a
token intercept location. To makes things worse, he got Anneke as
first vampire and KRCG and WMRH in the first two rounds. I announced
early that I was not going to bleed my prey no matter how little
intercept he had until Anneke was out - I was simply not going to
attract my prey's Beast and Theo Bell attention just to ease things
for my predator and let him pick two easy VPs. At the worst, acting as
wall in front of him would grant me 3rd place.

Cassio was in a bad position, being rushed by a predator with no
pressure, but he didn't help me playing Slow Withering and Port
Authority very early. I couldn't call for Fatuus Mastery - my predator
wouldn't let me most of the time - and even if I could, I would be
burning extra blood for the most needed effects - Sens. Dep and Mirror
Image. So I persisted on keepin' all 4 minions I had untapped and
stripping the blood out of them via Tribute to the Master. (the
minions were Tatiana Stepanova, Paul Forrest, Gharston Roland and
Devyn).

To make things worse for Cassio, Giovanni kept asking for the extra
intercept from WMRH to keep the !Toreadors from making "babies"
(Embraces) and torporizing them with +1 strength and Disarm. I
should've told him to keep playing Gehenna cards and stop influencing
out more minions, but nobody knew at the time if Giovanni had Dominate
modifiers - for the rest of the entire game we didn't see any.

The Slow Withering was also seriously hampering Irwin, who couldn't
make the most out of his stuff - he needed most superior effects, and
though Movement and Rapid Healing didn't cost nothing, it negated his
ability to keep coming back from torpor with no blood loss. He also
had to pay double to bounce - he had Iliana just for that - and kept
hunting most of the time.

I've struck a deal with Giovanni for him to use the freedom he had to
split the table with me, hoping he could do so in time to come to my
predator and cripple him, making 3 VPs and lefting the 2 remaining for
me. But then Cassio played Fall of the Camarilla, and Pedro was
somewhat stuck also. He couldn't bleed without being blocked, he
couldn't vote - the only votes left were Zayatt's 2, controlled by his
predator, Irwin - and he couldn't play 2nd Tradition. So he kept using
Minion Taps and getting them back via Anthelios, also played by
Cassio, and the second master phase action granted by Anson.

With Anneke, Anson, Alexandra and Masika ready at my back, I could do
nothing except to discard and wait for the next untap to try to draw
more Tributes, but Pedro helped me much with a single Gehenna card:
Nightmares Upon Nightmares. With 5 Gehenna cards at the table, 3 out
of 4 of my ready minions would need discarding to keep untapped, which
granted me 3 "free discards" every untap phase. Thanks to that, I
could ditch out every undirected action I had - Tumnimos, part of the
Patshivs, part of the Fatuus Mastery, Tasha Morgan etc. - and keep
drawing a Tribute to the Master and/or a master to swap for a Tribute
on my ash heap via Anthelios. That kept me alive, maintaing pool on
the 15-16 range for most of the game, even if I was not acting lest
for a hunt every two turns when I saw that I would not be blocked.

Giovanni left Cassio with one empty minion ready and 4 pool, but felt
it would be no good for him to oust his prey and see the Camarilla
back. Seeing how good Pedro was at poolgain and influencing big
minions, he started rushing him. We had a minor discussion with the
judge if it was legal play or not - Giovanni had a good "barrier" with
15 pool between him and his target; his prey was almost dead; and his
next prey had only 5 pool. The play was allowed based on the Camarilla
issue - Pedro also had a Elysium: Arboretum, which would be hard to
run around once the Camarilla was back. Giovanni used mainly Immortal
Grapples - I've seen no Psyche! at all - so it was a good excuse, I
think.

He torporized Masika with Theo Bell after Beast being told to
Obedience, with prevented Pedro from taking back another Minion Tap
and gain at least 6-7 pool - Zayatt, the voting man, diablerized the
annoying Toreador.

So we had only 10 minutes left. Seeing that my prey had only 6 pool,
all minions tapped, was not able to fulfill his part of the deal
ousting 3 preys, and I had the chance to try the lone VP that would
win me the tournament, I broke the table split deal and tried to bleed
Giovanni out. At worst, I'd be blocked by Anneke, would be rushed once
or twice, and could survive the endgame with still 15 pool and two or
three minions to block 3 Toreadors. This scenario would also prove
that I was right all the time - better to survive and end 3rd place
than to throw myself on the wall, tap a bunch of minions, get bled and
be ousted, ending in 5th place.

Of course, Anneke blocked me at the final bleed, and I was so in a
rush to tap her out of the way to the point of playing Red Herring -
and forgetting that I couldn't bleed anymore with my two minions left!
Bad move, but later Pedro confessed that he had an Obedience in hand,
so Anneke wouldn't be tapped anyway regardless of letting her block or
not.

As I imagined, Giovanni proceeded to guarantee his VP and torporize
Tatiana, but that was all before the end of the table by timeout.

So Giovanni Cisterna won with 1 VP, Pedro was 2nd, me 3rd, Irwin 4th,
and Cassio 5th.

Barring the tension at the finals, it was a great tournament overall,
and the region placed 13 players in SAC (10 qualified in here, 2 in
the Vitoria Qualifier, and 1 from last year's finals). Let's see if
this year we can manage to win - it's been three years in a row with
players from Rio grabbing the Championship in our own turf! ;-)

Next stop: the SAC,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
 
G

Guest

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

Photo pages:

http://paginas.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/eventos/fotosqualiSP05.htm

Takes a while to load each page, with 10 to 14 pictures/0.5 MB worth
of download per page.

Please ignore the left menu, it leads to other sections that don't
have links for the photo pages. They're meant to be there just for a
few days until they move to another site.

"1a Rodada" means "1st round";
"Gerais" means "General";
and "Final -1", "Final - 2" are easy to understand ;-)

For what it's worth, I'm the guy with a black soccer shirt in the
finals' pages.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
G

Guest

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

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in
message news:28sh811ii8gd8ok75f7jogbf6q4igopvhk@4ax.com...
> Cassio was in a bad position, being rushed by a predator with no
> pressure, but he didn't help me playing Slow Withering and Port
> Authority very early.

What Gehenna card was already on the table, allowing him to play
The Slow Withering? (Presumedly, it was also in Cassio's deck
unless he was very lucky.)

Fred
 
G

Guest

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

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:28sh811ii8gd8ok75f7jogbf6q4igopvhk@4ax.com...
> Giovanni left Cassio with one empty minion ready and 4 pool, but felt
> it would be no good for him to oust his prey and see the Camarilla
> back. Seeing how good Pedro was at poolgain and influencing big
> minions, he started rushing him. We had a minor discussion with the
> judge if it was legal play or not - Giovanni had a good "barrier" with
> 15 pool between him and his target; his prey was almost dead; and his
> next prey had only 5 pool.

Of course it's legal. What would be illegal about it?

You have to play to win the game overall. Every single action and card
play doesn't have to pursue the direct goal of ousting your prey or
disabling you predator. How could anyone question Giovanni setting up
his chain of prey to fall any way he sees fit?

The play-to-win rule exists to stop a player from playing outside of
that motivation. Not to dictate to him how he shall acheive that goal
and ESPECIALLY not to make him play a certain way that one or more of
his opponents happen to find convenient. From the way you phrased the
above and from the circumstances, it appears to me that someone must have
questioned Giovanni's strategy based on what they wanted Giovanni to do
at that moment and not because they truly suspected he wasn't playing to
win.

Fred
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:04:19 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>
>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in
>message news:28sh811ii8gd8ok75f7jogbf6q4igopvhk@4ax.com...
>> Cassio was in a bad position, being rushed by a predator with no
>> pressure, but he didn't help me playing Slow Withering and Port
>> Authority very early.
>
>What Gehenna card was already on the table, allowing him to play
>The Slow Withering? (Presumedly, it was also in Cassio's deck
>unless he was very lucky.)
>Fred

Anthelios was the first, I believe in the first or second turn.
He played Blood Trade early also, but I'm not sure if he did before or
after Slow Withering. Anyway, Anthelios is enough.
And I remember the Camarilla fell right after I influenced out my 4th
vampire. Since I spent 20 pool influencing vampires out and started
with 3 transfers, it took me 6 turns to do it. So he played it on turn
7 or 8. I was impressed on how quick the Camarilla fell.

The only Gehenna card played that was not from Cassio's deck was the
mentioned Nightmares Upon Nightmares from Pedro's deck. At the time,
the Camarilla was already out. So I guess the order was Anthelios ->
Fortschritt Library (to get the Fall) -> Slow Withering -> Blood Trade
-> Fall of the Camarilla -> Nightmares Upon Nightmares.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
 
G

Guest

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:48:35 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\""
<fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> scrawled:


>and "Final -1", "Final - 2" are easy to understand ;-)
>
>For what it's worth, I'm the guy with a black soccer shirt in the
>finals' pages.

that's it, you're all disqualified. none of you were tapping 90
degrees!

:p

(you could have put some tables together sideways, you know, if you
needed room! :)


salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:41:27 +1000, salem
<salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:48:35 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\""
><fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> scrawled:
>
>>and "Final -1", "Final - 2" are easy to understand ;-)
>>
>>For what it's worth, I'm the guy with a black soccer shirt in the
>>finals' pages.
>
>that's it, you're all disqualified. none of you were tapping 90
>degrees!
>:p

Damn! :D

I must say, this is a general bad habit of local players, me included.


>(you could have put some tables together sideways, you know, if you
>needed room! :)

You don't know the venue, man... ;)

They were so kind to provide a printer, a zip drive, a clock and a
couple of extra prizes - anniversary sets - but they're usually very
strict with closing time. In fact, we were locked inside during the
finals. No one would remember to get more tables together in the hurry
we were to begin the damn game. I'm still feeling the lack of nicotine
during that day, been smoking double since then ;)

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:22:53 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>
>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>news:28sh811ii8gd8ok75f7jogbf6q4igopvhk@4ax.com...
>> Giovanni left Cassio with one empty minion ready and 4 pool, but felt
>> it would be no good for him to oust his prey and see the Camarilla
>> back. Seeing how good Pedro was at poolgain and influencing big
>> minions, he started rushing him. We had a minor discussion with the
>> judge if it was legal play or not - Giovanni had a good "barrier" with
>> 15 pool between him and his target; his prey was almost dead; and his
>> next prey had only 5 pool.
>
>Of course it's legal. What would be illegal about it?
>
>You have to play to win the game overall. Every single action and card
>play doesn't have to pursue the direct goal of ousting your prey or
>disabling you predator. How could anyone question Giovanni setting up
>his chain of prey to fall any way he sees fit?
>The play-to-win rule exists to stop a player from playing outside of
>that motivation. Not to dictate to him how he shall acheive that goal
>and ESPECIALLY not to make him play a certain way that one or more of
>his opponents happen to find convenient. From the way you phrased the
>above and from the circumstances, it appears to me that someone must have
>questioned Giovanni's strategy based on what they wanted Giovanni to do
>at that moment and not because they truly suspected he wasn't playing to
>win.
>Fred

I understand, I also think it was perfectly legal - and was ruled that
way. But in a way it was also in my best interests for him to cripple
Pedro - of course he was not stupid enough to rush Anneke, because she
would be surely his savior if needed. As she was indeed.

But letting Pedro with two or less minions would certainly make things
easier for me to oust Giovanni - and if I did that, I would certainly
make the GW in no short order. Both Cassio and Irwin had no single
intercept available.

Maybe that's why the judge called for him to explain why he was going
cross-table - that could potentially give a GW to another player. Of
course, he couldn't judge against stupid play, but maybe he suspected
something like collusion.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
 
G

Guest

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

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:lm9n81db5gtj0nv0d05vp26e6tmhi57cdm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:22:53 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>>news:28sh811ii8gd8ok75f7jogbf6q4igopvhk@4ax.com...
>>> Giovanni left Cassio with one empty minion ready and 4 pool, but felt
>>> it would be no good for him to oust his prey and see the Camarilla
>>> back. Seeing how good Pedro was at poolgain and influencing big
>>> minions, he started rushing him. We had a minor discussion with the
>>> judge if it was legal play or not - Giovanni had a good "barrier" with
>>> 15 pool between him and his target; his prey was almost dead; and his
>>> next prey had only 5 pool.
>>
>> Of course it's legal. What would be illegal about it?
....
>> How could anyone question Giovanni setting up his chain of prey to fall
>> any way he sees fit?
>>
>>The play-to-win rule exists to stop a player from playing outside of
>>that motivation. Not to dictate to him how he shall acheive that goal
>>and ESPECIALLY not to make him play a certain way that one or more of
>>his opponents happen to find convenient.
>
> I understand, I also think it was perfectly legal - and was ruled that
> way. But in a way it was also in my best interests for him to cripple
> Pedro...
....
> ...letting Pedro with two or less minions would certainly make things
> easier for me to oust Giovanni - and if I did that, I would certainly
> make the GW in no short order. Both Cassio and Irwin had no single
> intercept available.

Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is only, what is in Giovanni's
best interests. If that happens to be in your interests - or not - at
the same time is only material if someone is alleging that Giovanni is
acting as your agent for out-of-game reasons.

> Maybe that's why the judge called for him to explain why he was going
> cross-table - that could potentially give a GW to another player.

But that by itself is not a reason. I've done a million things in my
games that "could potentially give a game win to another player". Some
of them actually *have* given games to another player - not on purpose
but because the decision turned out badly for some reason or another.
It is not against the rules to do such a thing so Giovanni did not owe
the judge any such explanation. Only if someone was claiming Giovanni
was not acting in his own interests. And in this case, I'd want to hear
that guy make a good explanation as to why Giovanni was not acting in
his own interests AT ALL (not just that in someone's opinion Giovanni's
strategy was "sub-optimal") before I start making Giovanni explain
himself.

This is the point some of the other posters have been making from time
to time about this rule. It does not empower the judge to start
questioning marginal strategy decisions by players or worry about who
else a strategy decision by some player happens to favor. The intent is
to prevent players from doing something that makes no sense whatsoever -
because they're not actually playing to win.

Fred
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 18 May 2005 15:28:01 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>news:lm9n81db5gtj0nv0d05vp26e6tmhi57cdm@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:22:53 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
>> <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>>>news:28sh811ii8gd8ok75f7jogbf6q4igopvhk@4ax.com...
>>>> Giovanni left Cassio with one empty minion ready and 4 pool, but felt
>>>> it would be no good for him to oust his prey and see the Camarilla
>>>> back. Seeing how good Pedro was at poolgain and influencing big
>>>> minions, he started rushing him. We had a minor discussion with the
>>>> judge if it was legal play or not - Giovanni had a good "barrier" with
>>>> 15 pool between him and his target; his prey was almost dead; and his
>>>> next prey had only 5 pool.
>>>
>>> Of course it's legal. What would be illegal about it?
>...
>>> How could anyone question Giovanni setting up his chain of prey to fall
>>> any way he sees fit?
>>>
>>>The play-to-win rule exists to stop a player from playing outside of
>>>that motivation. Not to dictate to him how he shall acheive that goal
>>>and ESPECIALLY not to make him play a certain way that one or more of
>>>his opponents happen to find convenient.
>>
>> I understand, I also think it was perfectly legal - and was ruled that
>> way. But in a way it was also in my best interests for him to cripple
>> Pedro...
>...
>> ...letting Pedro with two or less minions would certainly make things
>> easier for me to oust Giovanni - and if I did that, I would certainly
>> make the GW in no short order. Both Cassio and Irwin had no single
>> intercept available.
>
>Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is only, what is in Giovanni's
>best interests. If that happens to be in your interests - or not - at
>the same time is only material if someone is alleging that Giovanni is
>acting as your agent for out-of-game reasons.

Maybe that's what he thought. I struck a deal with Giovanni when the
rest of the table (and the judge) was paying attention to Cassio
playing some more Gehenna stuff, or Irwin was pulling the Force of
Will trick, or whatever. Pedro didn't notice that we had somewhat of a
truce it until a couple of turns later, per example.
Maybe the judge, not knowing that the deal was made right at the table
based on table situation, suspected a pre-game collusion or something.


>> Maybe that's why the judge called for him to explain why he was going
>> cross-table - that could potentially give a GW to another player.
>
>But that by itself is not a reason. I've done a million things in my
>games that "could potentially give a game win to another player". Some
>of them actually *have* given games to another player - not on purpose
>but because the decision turned out badly for some reason or another.
>It is not against the rules to do such a thing so Giovanni did not owe
>the judge any such explanation. Only if someone was claiming Giovanni
>was not acting in his own interests. And in this case, I'd want to hear
>that guy make a good explanation as to why Giovanni was not acting in
>his own interests AT ALL (not just that in someone's opinion Giovanni's
>strategy was "sub-optimal") before I start making Giovanni explain
>himself.

Of course. But as noted, the cross-table play could have seemed
another clue to support some impression that collusion was happening.
Once the play was properly explained - and it was declared to the
judge that we had a deal - the play went on.



>This is the point some of the other posters have been making from time
>to time about this rule. It does not empower the judge to start
>questioning marginal strategy decisions by players or worry about who
>else a strategy decision by some player happens to favor. The intent is
>to prevent players from doing something that makes no sense whatsoever -
>because they're not actually playing to win.
>Fred
>

Yeah. Once the explanation was given, the judge himself told about
"well, I can't judge stupid play" or something. That just gives weight
to the impression that he was not specifically worried about marginal
strategy decisions, as you said, but if these decisions were made for
some other out-of-game considerations. He knew he couldn't judge
"stupid play". Once the play was properly explained, he changed his
mind about the issue (I mean, he was now convinced that the decision
was totally made up by Giovanni on his mind, not to fulfill any
pre-game prize split arrangement) and we moved on.

Unfortunately, he had our share of confessed pre-game prize split
arrangements in the past, so I won't blame the judge for being
suspicious - even if me and Giovanni never had been involved with such
a thing.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/