Proxies and the VEKN

Bakija has a slippery slope argument... Mine is more simple.

If we are going to have a list, and we want it to be practical, to be easily remembered by tournament judges and to make the potential copyright issues simple... we need to have a sufficient but short list.

If we make our list "every card printed", then we are going to be fighting a royalty/licencing issue on copyright.

If we make our list very short, say 15 or less cards, then is this list going to remain relatively static or is it going to change on a monthly/quarterly/half-yearly basis?

What are we supposed to do about proxies that may leave the list? Will these cards that cannot currently be printed for proxies (but were in the past) still legal for tournament play?

Will there be a simple effective process for nominating cards to be on the proxy list? I'm not trying to determine HOW the cards get to the list, just how we the players can suggest cards for the list. I'm happy for the card list to be determined by whatever method deemed appropriate by the Inner Council and possibly other key figures.


I am still of the opinion that this will cause untold copyright issues for VEKN if they try pursue it, and that we are best returning to a policy of 'no proxies for tournaments'.

Suoli wrote:

No it won't. The slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason.

The issue is not "slippery slope". It is that what cards fit the nebulous definition presented is very, very large. "In high demand and low availability". Any rare from the last 3 sets. Any new common from KoT on. Any rare from an older set.

Why proxy Villein and Enkil Cog, but not Ephor and New Carthage? And if you are going to proxy Ephor and New Carthage, why not Warsaw Station? I'm not looking for a slippery slope. I'm looking for a legitimate rational for proxying cards that are hard to get and desirable and not proxying other cards that are also hard to get and desirable.

The ruling body doesn't need absolute mathematical accuracy to make a good judgment call. We don't need to blindly follow that call to the end of the world.

It isn't a matter of absolute mathematical accuracy. It is a matter of why is it necessary to proxy Villein and Enkil Cog and Ashur Tablets, but not other cards that are hard to get but people want. Why are, say, Villein and Enkil Cog and Ashur Tablets so important to the game environment that we need to invent new rules to make sure everyone has all of the copies they could ever want to use, but not other cards that are just as hard to get ahold of and people want to use?

bakija wrote:

The issue is not "slippery slope". It is that what cards fit the nebulous definition presented is very, very large. "In high demand and low availability". Any rare from the last 3 sets. Any new common from KoT on. Any rare from an older set.

There is no sense in setting in stone any strict definition. The decision should be made on a case by case basis for every nominated card.

Why proxy Villein and Enkil Cog, but not Ephor and New Carthage? And if you are going to proxy Ephor and New Carthage, why not Warsaw Station? I'm not looking for a slippery slope. I'm looking for a legitimate rational for proxying cards that are hard to get and desirable and not proxying other cards that are also hard to get and desirable.

Every card is not equally desirable in equal numbers and equally hard to get.

It isn't a matter of absolute mathematical accuracy. It is a matter of why is it necessary to proxy Villein and Enkil Cog and Ashur Tablets, but not other cards that are hard to get but people want. Why are, say, Villein and Enkil Cog and Ashur Tablets so important to the game environment that we need to invent new rules to make sure everyone has all of the copies they could ever want to use,

I wouldn't necessarily lump Enkil Cog in there. Villein should be more widely available because not being able to use it places an unreasonable restriction on the number of decks one can play in tournaments.

but not other cards that are just as hard to get ahold of and people want to use?

Are the other cards exactly as available and exactly as desired in exactly in the same numbers as Villein? If they are, they should probably be allowed as proxies.

Suoli wrote:

Villein should be more widely available because not being able to use it places an unreasonable restriction on the number of decks one can play in tournaments.

I don't know that it does. Yes. Villein is a very good card. But it is very easy to make tournament contender decks that don't have Villein, and won't suffer due to a lack of Villein, and won't have troubles if other people have Villeins and you don't.

I mean, if the issue here is "let's make Villein available as a proxy", end of story, then sure, whatever. But if it is "let's make cards that we think are important and are hard to get available as proxies", what makes something important and hard to get is a very inexact science.

Are the other cards exactly as available and exactly as desired in exactly in the same numbers as Villein? If they are, they should probably be allowed as proxies.

How do you determine how available something is? I have plenty of Villeins (20?). I have 1 New Carthage. I need more New Carthage, but it is easier for me to get more Villeins than it is New Carthages (I full well realize this is me, but everyone is going to be in their own situation). How do you determine how desired something is? I don't need any more Villeins. I need more New Carthages. Yet following this discussion, Villein is top of whatever this hypothetical list is.

bakija wrote:

How do you determine how available something is? I have plenty of Villeins (20?). I have 1 New Carthage. I need more New Carthage, but it is easier for me to get more Villeins than it is New Carthages (I full well realize this is me, but everyone is going to be in their own situation). How do you determine how desired something is? I don't need any more Villeins. I need more New Carthages. Yet following this discussion, Villein is top of whatever this hypothetical list is.

If only there was someplace for you to get in contact with somebody who wanted Villeins and had a New Carthage to trade...

bakija wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Villein should be more widely available because not being able to use it places an unreasonable restriction on the number of decks one can play in tournaments.

I don't know that it does. Yes. Villein is a very good card. But it is very easy to make tournament contender decks that don't have Villein, and won't suffer due to a lack of Villein, and won't have troubles if other people have Villeins and you don't.

It's a deck diversity issue. It's very easy to make a tournament winning deck without Villeins but too many deck types are unplayable without Villein.

I mean, if the issue here is "let's make Villein available as a proxy", end of story, then sure, whatever. But if it is "let's make cards that we think are important and are hard to get available as proxies", what makes something important and hard to get is a very inexact science.

Honestly, Villein and Ashur Tablets are the only cards I would allow. And Ashur Tablets only barely.

How do you determine how available something is? I have plenty of Villeins (20?). I have 1 New Carthage. I need more New Carthage, but it is easier for me to get more Villeins than it is New Carthages (I full well realize this is me, but everyone is going to be in their own situation). How do you determine how desired something is? I don't need any more Villeins. I need more New Carthages. Yet following this discussion, Villein is top of whatever this hypothetical list is.

You ask around playgroups, read online discussions and make educated estimations.