Is revenge a valid reason of violating PTW?

[Guest]

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

I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
just to make things clear for my playgroup.

Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
such behavior be legal?
Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?

Thanks in advance,
Ector

 

[Guest]

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

The answer to your question: *BY THE RULES*, in this specific case, the
judge should punish the avenging player.

My personal opinion: break the neck of the F%$#ING traitor

Dragos


Ector wrote:
> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>
> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
> such behavior be legal?
> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ector

 

[Guest]

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

On 1 Jun 2005 08:56:06 -0700, "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:

>I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
>just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>
>Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
>enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
>can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
>such behavior be legal?
>Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
>to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
>to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
>and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
>for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
>Thanks in advance,
>Ector

I've asked something similar a few weeks before, with just a little
more emphasis on the dealbreaking and personal grudges issue.

As far as I understood from long-time judges and LSJ's responses in
that thread, 'revenge' alone is not an acceptable reason for violating
the PTW rule. The complications on the issue lay on determining what
is indeed playing to win in that particular case. Rushing a minion
cross-table is not a violation of the PTW rule per se as many players
believe - it's the table situation that matters. But most of the time
a player will have an acceptable reason for the rush other than mere
'revenge' - and judges can't legislate against stupid play (man, how I
like this motto ;-)

Even if the double-crossed player openly admits that he's going for
pure revenge, the circumstances of the broken deal could make the play
reasonable - like a PTO on a key vamp when leaving it alone was part
of the deal. How could torporizing the Inner Circle offender could NOT
be playing to win, even cross-table?

If the judge suspect there's more involved, like a personal grudge or
collusion, that's another matter. And a very difficult one to discern,
I must say. Ultimately, only table analysis can offer reliable
guidance in the issue - there's no "ideal formula" to sign on to.

best,

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

 

[Guest]

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

On 1 Jun 2005 09:54:18 -0700, "Dragos" <dragos@uol.com.br> wrote:

>The answer to your question: *BY THE RULES*, in this specific case, the
>judge should punish the avenging player.
>
>My personal opinion: break the neck of the F%$#ING traitor
>Dragos

Top-posting and schizophrenia: that's the Tzimisce way :-D

>Ector wrote:
>> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
>> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>>
>> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
>> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
>> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
>> such behavior be legal?
>> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
>> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
>> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
>> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
>> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ector


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

 

[Guest]

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

Ector wrote:

>If a legal deal was broken, can the "victim" violate
>PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would such
>behavior be legal?

I'm not sure what the answer to your question is.
However, your play group should know that the
ultimate way to avenge such treachery is to earn
the Game Win in spite of it.

Jay

 

[Guest]

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

Stefan Ferenci wrote:

> if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
> and not try and win it.
> if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
>
> stefan

Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal. Really
dead situations aren't very frequent, and if you still can *avenge*
somebody, you're obviously not dead yet
What do you think about this?

Ector

 

[Guest]

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

Ector wrote:
> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>
> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
> such behavior be legal?
> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ector
>


if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
and not try and win it.
if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game

stefan

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan Ferenci wrote:
| Ector wrote:
|
|> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
|> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
|> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
|> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
|> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
|
| if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
| and not try and win it.
| if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game

And if someone breaks a deal with you and still leaves room for you to
conduct any sort of effective "revenge" against them, then they made a
really stupid play by breaking the deal... cf. Machiavelli's _Prince_.
If you're going to kick people in the nuts, KICK, don't just wave your foot.

In the above situation, I'd (at least temporarily) disallow the action
and say "no,... play to win." Nothing like having the player outright
admit that he's violating the rules to make things simple for the judge.
~ =)

That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.

Sadly, the situation is never actually this cut-and-dried.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCnjvKtQZlu3o7QpERAuVdAKDeZvo9ynZ1h0mk8Iy58U6Y+pv6vQCdE5OK
6qJc5O0dsni3mvy4oTpOzTo=
=u1mG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

Derek Ray a écrit :

> That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
> ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
> justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
> vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
> to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.

I sens hatred i you ...

 

[Guest]

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

Ector a écrit :
>
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>
>>if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
>>and not try and win it.
>>if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
>>
>>stefan
>
>
> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.

Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
i doubt so

 

[Guest]

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

In message <429e9c94$0$22368$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda
<true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
>Ector a écrit :
>> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
>> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
>
>Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
>i doubt so

If your baseline is attacking for revenge and going out with zero VP,
then one VP is, at least, less stupid. Certainly, it could easily be
the tie-breaker that lifts you out of a mass of 0Vps into the 1, 2 or 3
VP (across multiple rounds) area that gets you into the final in a small
tournament.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

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

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht
news:sG94HUNdLrnCFweE@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <429e9c94$0$22368$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Ector a écrit :
>>> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
>>> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
>>
>>Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
>>i doubt so
>
> If your baseline is attacking for revenge and going out with zero VP,
> then one VP is, at least, less stupid. Certainly, it could easily be
> the tie-breaker that lifts you out of a mass of 0Vps into the 1, 2 or 3
> VP (across multiple rounds) area that gets you into the final in a small
> tournament.
>
Well, often a deal of 1 VP for you, one for me can be very good in a
tournement. Especially on a slow table, and sometimes tables can 'lock
down'. the 1-1 deal can both speed up the game and get the table out of
such a lock. It's also a good way of removing decks you can't handle by
yourself.

 

[Guest]

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

In message <1117690890.745728.147520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
>Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
>tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal. Really

Take a pad. Make some notes. Go back over the situation afterwards,
and discuss what different people thought should happen.

Many players will not improve (as rapidly) if they're just putting decks
together and playing them. Having some sort of critical dialogue about
a situation, seeing what different people's views are, seeing why they
make the decisions they do, could be useful.

Be wary of teaching people that 1VP is a "good" outcome, though.
Typically, they should be playing for table-wins, not a single easy VP.
If you get into the mindset of "Wow, a VP!" it can be difficult to move
on. You can often build a deck which will be practically guaranteed one
VP, but which won't get any further, which can halt the learning curve
rather rapidly.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

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

Johannes Walch wrote:

> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
> allowed.
>
> --
> johannes walch

Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
deal? And why do you think that you can "keep your part of the deal"
when it's already broken? BTW, do you really WANT to play a game where
each deal would have threats of both sides?
LSJ, if you are reading this, please provide a clear answer to Johannes
Walch, since the same suggestion was proposed in my playgroup.

Thanks in advance,
Ector

 

[Guest]

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

Ector wrote:
> Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
> deal?

Making deals and making threats are both methods of playing to win.
Neither would be a good tool for influencing other players' decisions
if the play to win rule forbade following through on deals or threats.

 

[Guest]

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

Ector wrote:
> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>
> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not?


Not. (ob English: he would be avenging himself (or his honor), not the
traitor).

Would
> such behavior be legal?

Only if it conformed to the PTW rule.

> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?

If the activity is illegal, the judge should prevent it (correct the
player and require the player to follow the rules).


--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> Ector wrote:
>
>> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
>> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>>
>> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
>> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
>> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not?
>
>
>
> Not. (ob English: he would be avenging himself (or his honor), not the
> traitor).
>
> Would
>
>> such behavior be legal?
>
>
> Only if it conformed to the PTW rule.

What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
allowed.

--
johannes walch

 

[Guest]

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

Johannes Walch wrote:
> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
> allowed.

No.

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

In article <C0Mne.13012$M36.4789@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
<vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:

>Johannes Walch wrote:
>> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
>> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
>> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
>> allowed.
>
>No.

How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?

--
charles lechasseur - danov@novideospamtron.ca

 

[Guest]

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

"Charles Lechasseur" <danov@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message
news:danov-0206051922530001@192.168.1.4...
> In article <C0Mne.13012$M36.4789@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
> <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>>Johannes Walch wrote:
>>> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
>>> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
>>> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
>>> allowed.
>>
>>No.
>
> How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
> torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
> thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
> always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?

I'm trying to figure out what you're asking, here. Are you trying to
figure out a way to violate play-to-win by violating it as the payback
for not being cowed by a threat? Obviously, that doesn't work or it would
become easy to skirt PTW: "If you don't launch yourself out of that chair
and touch the moon RIGHT NOW, I will rush and torporize your minion."

Can we back up a bit and figure out what the issue is? Violating play-to-
win is not like playing Jeopardy where you simply have to phrase your
violation in the form of question.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Charles Lechasseur" <danov@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message
>>How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
>>torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
>>thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
>>always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?
>
>
> I'm trying to figure out what you're asking, here. Are you trying to
> figure out a way to violate play-to-win by violating it as the payback
> for not being cowed by a threat? Obviously, that doesn't work or it would
> become easy to skirt PTW: "If you don't launch yourself out of that chair
> and touch the moon RIGHT NOW, I will rush and torporize your minion."
>
> Can we back up a bit and figure out what the issue is? Violating play-to-
> win is not like playing Jeopardy where you simply have to phrase your
> violation in the form of question.

Correct.

Threats are not deals.

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

LSJ wrote:
> Threats are not deals.

But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
real is also play to win.

Example: Randomly attacking your grand preadator, who has not done any
harm to you, who is not strong and will not easy win the game, would be
usually not playing to win. But if i threat him, that i will rush him,
if he will not instantly make pressure on my predator, that would make
the rush afterwards a play to win strategy even if it is counter
productive. Because if your play relies on threads, the worst case is,
that no one believes your thread. So even a absolutely senseless rush
will become play to win, if it shows that you make your threads real.

 

[Guest]

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

In message <danov-0206051922530001@192.168.1.4>, Charles Lechasseur
<danov@novideospamtron.ca> writes:
>How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
>torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
>thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks.

Possibly the most common example of this is someone talking to a stealth
bleed predator:

- Hold off bleeding me for the next two turns, and I won't rush you.

In both cases, the play could be seen as play-to-win for the rush deck.

Creating a deal which leads to you not being bled is likely to be a
strong deal for you. If they are bleeding you, rushing them to get rid
of them could also be seen as playing-to-win. (It may not be the best
possible move, since destroying your predator may gift an easy path to
your grand-predator. But the play-to-win rule in no way legislates
against tactically questionable way.)



--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

reyda wrote:
| Derek Ray a écrit :
|
|> That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
|> ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
|> justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
|> vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
|> to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.
|
| I sens hatred i you ...

Hm? Not especially; I'm not part of the rabid PTO-Must-Die-At-All-Cost
crowd, although I think it's patently obvious that the effect is
disproportionate to the cost. It's more of a direct strategy thing...

1) I have vampires that can be burned with PTO.
2) I have seen that one deck contains PTOs.
(2.5) Possibly, one of those PTOs has already been used on me.)
3) As soon as I become a threat, the deck will PTO at least one of my
vamps.
4) I should pre-emptively remove the deck's ability to call PTO.

Often it's a question of timing. You don't, for example, want to nuke
your grandpredator's Arika the turn he brings her out. Go ahead and let
your predator get some whippin' near the start of the game. But don't
think that Arika isn't going to nuke your Goratrix before she actually
becomes your predator (so you can't easily block), either -- since you
know it's going to happen like that, you can take action at the
appropriate time. Or maybe you can't, in which case you're boned.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCoE6YtQZlu3o7QpERAtSyAJ9lHjK4OPpCJxPiVH82cLCKOwUcJACg1Iz7
fgo09skYSnjZkKBkPuGdTcM=
=gMNc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

x5mofr@gmx.de wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
>>Threats are not deals.
>
> But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
> real is also play to win.

If the activity is play-to-win in itself, then it is legal to do
(with regard to the ptw rule) whether you had threatened to do it
or not.

It's the non-ptw activity that is under question -- whether
threatening to do it suddenly grants it immunity from the ptw
rule. It doesn't.

> Example: Randomly attacking your grand preadator, who has not done any
> harm to you, who is not strong and will not easy win the game, would be
> usually not playing to win. But if i threat him, that i will rush him,
> if he will not instantly make pressure on my predator, that would make
> the rush afterwards a play to win strategy even if it is counter
> productive. Because if your play relies on threads, the worst case is,
> that no one believes your thread. So even a absolutely senseless rush
> will become play to win, if it shows that you make your threads real.

Showing that you are capable of violating the rules doesn't make
violating the rules legal.

You could threaten to cheat in other ways as well if he doesn't
do such-and-such. That doesn't grant you leave to do so (in the
eyes of the rule you'd be violating) if he doesn't do such-and-such.

So to ensure that your threats are real, only threaten to do
what would be legal to do.

--
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/