Game of Malkav!

So I accidentally picked up a big handfull of Game of Malkavs on ebay for, like, nothing (10 for a buck or something). As a result I put together a deck to reliably play Game of Malkav (a G1/2 weenie obf/aus deck revolving around the 4x3 caps with aus/obf and 2 each of Zoe and Victoria) that is using 4 or 5 of them for multiple plays a game. So I'm trying to figure out how to best utilize Game of Malkav in a way that limits the randomosity of it (Game of Malkav is the one where everyone puts between 1-5 pool in their hands, I put 1-6 pool in my hand, we all reveal, and if anyone picks exactly 1 less than you, you lose that much pool, otherwise you gain that much pool). So the basic Game of Malkav theory likely goes like this: -Somone is bound to pick 1, as you can't lose if you pick 1. -Because somone is picking 1, no one will pick 2. -Because no one will pick 2, someone is gonna pick 3. Which makes 4 right out, but 5 probably pretty good, meaning 6 is probably not really a good idea either. So that is likely the basic concept of the game. But then you can second and third guess people ("I'm gonna pick 2 just to screw all the people who pick 3!") Which goes mad. So assuming I'm playing Game of Malkav, and not doing so specifically to piss everyone off, do I: A) Pick 1. B) Pick some other number that isn't 1. C) Pick a random number by rolling a die. Clearly, if I play the card more than once, I gotta do something different every time. Or something. Any ideas? Then--is there a way to make the card less random, like you can with the other one ("You! Pick 4! I call you have, uh, 2!")? I don't think there really is, as if you try and announce something, someone will clearly screw with everyone ("Hey! Everyone pick 5 pool so we all gain 5 pool!" "I picked 4...") -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Then--is there a way to make the card less random, like you can with > the other one ("You! Pick 4! I call you have, uh, 2!")? I don't think > there really is, as if you try and announce something, someone will > clearly screw with everyone ("Hey! Everyone pick 5 pool so we all gain > 5 pool!" "I picked 4...") > > -Peter I agree there isn't *really*. Buu-uut, you could use the Monocle of Clarity to get into people's heads. Revelations, too. The idea would be to change the nature of the Game by asking the hypothetical: "If I play a Game of Malkave during my Master Phase, will you chose three?". While the answer isn't binding, it changes the game from "How many do I choose?" to "Do I lie or not?". Given how well you know the other person, you might be able to better guess what they will pick. Of course, that's only one person at the table. It might solicit more 'safe' picks of one than anything else.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1166570852....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > So I accidentally picked up a big handfull of Game of Malkavs on ebay > for, like, nothing (10 for a buck or something). As a result I put > together a deck to reliably play Game of Malkav (a G1/2 weenie obf/aus > deck revolving around the 4x3 caps with aus/obf and 2 each of Zoe and > Victoria) that is using 4 or 5 of them for multiple plays a game. > Could you maybe accidentally run them through your Staples MAILMATE(tm) Junk Mail Shredder (as featured on "The Office") instead? Thanks in advance. :) - Pat

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > C) Pick a random number by rolling a die. That is not allowed if I remember correctly. I used to do it a lot, but some time ago it was ruled that determining X through dice rolls is not allow within the game. -- johannes walch

Wookie813 wrote: > I agree there isn't *really*. Buu-uut, you could use the Monocle of > Clarity to get into people's heads. Revelations, too. > > The idea would be to change the nature of the Game by asking the > hypothetical: "If I play a Game of Malkave during my Master Phase, will > you chose three?". Ooh! That is intriguing--the Monocle of Clarity and all. Well, maybe. I don't think the Monocle can ask about the future, and when I ask about the next Game of Malkav, it is in the future. Hmm. -Peter

Pat wrote: > Could you maybe accidentally run them through your Staples MAILMATE(tm) Junk > Mail Shredder (as featured on "The Office") instead? I hear those can even shred CDs! Awsome! (note to self: Self, next time you are at an event with Pat, make *sure* to play deck with multiple Games of Malkav...) -Peter

Johannes Walch wrote: > That is not allowed if I remember correctly. I used to do it a lot, but > some time ago it was ruled that determining X through dice rolls is not > allow within the game. I can't for the life of me figure how this could be a legitimate ruling. How can there be a determination on how I (i.e. the person playing the card) comes up with number X? I could roll a die in the open, or concealed, or pick a number using counters in my pocket, or flip coins, or ask someone across the room, or whatever. Even if someone, somehow decided that dice rolling was somehow illegal, there are countless other ways that one could determine a random numer. Are you sure this wasn't just a local judge trying to get your goat? :-) -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1166576973....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You're gonna be the life of TotalCon! [*] :) - Pat [*] Or maybe some NJ/NY-esque qualifier [**] if such were to happen before mid-February? [**] Question for the new god-king of Boston V:TES: will TotalCon be the New England qualifier again this year?

Pat wrote: > You're gonna be the life of TotalCon! [*] :) Woo hoo! > [**] Question for the new god-king of Boston V:TES: will TotalCon be the New > England qualifier again this year? I'm pretty certain it is at Templecon in RI like last year (Feb, like, 17th or whatever that Saturday is). -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Wookie813 wrote: > > you could use the Monocle of Clarity > Ooh! That is intriguing--the Monocle of Clarity and all. Well, maybe. I > don't think the Monocle can ask about the future, and when I ask about > the next Game of Malkav, it is in the future. Hmm. > > -Peter Monocle of Clarity Type: Equipment Unique equipment. During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes or no question pertaining to the game (this is not an action and cannot be blocked). He or she must answer "yes" or "no" truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding. You CAN ask about the future. Like I said, it would just be a mind game. At the very least, you could ask a player if they have a Sudden Reversal...

Pat wrote: > [**] Question for the new god-king of Boston V:TES: will TotalCon be the New > England qualifier again this year? I'm totally not him, but I think maybe if I run enough petty errands for him I can garner the title of Honorary Gecko. The NERQ will be at TempleCon this year, like it was last year. For details, go here: http://templecon.org/ Note that there's an .org at the end there, not a .com. (Please don't ask why...) John Eno

Peter D Bakija wrote: > So assuming I'm playing Game of Malkav, and not doing so specifically > to piss everyone off, do I: > > A) Pick 1. > B) Pick some other number that isn't 1. > C) Pick a random number by rolling a die. D) Just play V:TES, instead. :) John Eno

> (note to self: Self, next time you are at an event with Pat, make > *sure* to play deck with multiple Games of Malkav...) Since it sounds like your next game with Pat will likely be at Templecon, you're going to have to find some way to use Game of Malkav in a rush deck then. We're talking serious hardcoreitude here. Rush decks all weekend. If any one of us chickens out, the other 2 get to beat him up. Jesse

On Dec 20, 1:27 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: -SNIP lucid explantion and examination of statistical analysis of random organic critters otherwise known as vtes players- I have a method...... It consists of picturing a big dial in my head, marked "Psy power levels". (Yes, it goes all the way to eleven...:) I crank it to full in my head. I then pick the amount no one else picks one less of. This is usually one. YMMV You could always do this the triply evil way. Play Leandro with presence vote and prince support, pass a Rumours of gehenna, and play a parthenon. When you play 3 games a turn, you get a pretty good idea of what people will do. Also allows you to see who will keep a deal, and who not.

Peter D Bakija schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I think it was LSJ, but I must admit upon searching the newsgroup I couldn´t find it. Determining a random number for yourself is, of course okay, but rolling a die includes a public information to the other players (unless you roll it secretly). Anyway, I used to do the following tactic. I played a deck with 25 Malkavian pranks. On the first 2-3 I rolled the numbers. And then when everyone was picking 5 because they thought I would roll I just picked 5 for everybody, keeping the die in my hand. And I am pretty sure that I read some ruling which declared such play illegal, because I remember being disappointed about it ;-) Perhaps LSJ can have a little Direct Intervention and lighten things up... -- johannes walch

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message news:1166595338.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Good thing I had already decided that my next qualifier deck was going to be 90 Fortitude cards. Bring it, crazy potence boys. ;) - Pat

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166589691.6...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Pat wrote: >> [**] Question for the new god-king of Boston V:TES: will TotalCon be the >> New >> England qualifier again this year? > > I'm totally not him, but I think maybe if I run enough petty errands > for him I can garner the title of Honorary Gecko. > > The NERQ will be at TempleCon this year, like it was last year. > TempleCon, TotalCon, why must you New Englanders confuse me so with your vaguely similar-sounding T-Con names!? Oy. TempleCon was a blast last year, should be great fun again this year. Thx for the info. :) - Pat [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Play some kind of malk rush deck and threaten everyone that choses 5 :-)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > So assuming I'm playing Game of Malkav, and not doing so specifically > to piss everyone off, do I: > > A) Pick 1. > B) Pick some other number that isn't 1. > C) Pick a random number by rolling a die. > > Clearly, if I play the card more than once, I gotta do something > different every time. Or something. Any ideas? > > Then--is there a way to make the card less random, like you can with > the other one ("You! Pick 4! I call you have, uh, 2!")? I don't think > there really is, as if you try and announce something, someone will > clearly screw with everyone ("Hey! Everyone pick 5 pool so we all gain > 5 pool!" "I picked 4...") Not really important for most situations, but if you play Game of Malkav with just one other Methuselah remaining, then you can treat it as a zero-sum game (although it's not really zero-sum; you have to fudge and treat the "score" as the difference in pool gain (or loss) -- so the numbers only work if both players have "sufficient" pool) But anyway... If there are only 2p and the game is treated as a zero-sum game with a score based only on the net pool gain compared to your opponent, the optimal strategy for the Methuselah who played the GoM is: 00.00% : 1 44.99% : 2 14.27% : 3 31.96% : 4 00.00% : 5 08.78% : 6 For the opponent, the optimal strategy is: 00.00% : 1 25.19% : 2 28.07% : 3 27.44% : 4 19.30% : 5 The expected (average) outcome if both players play optimally is a 0.5517 net gain for the Methuselah who played the GoM. Note that neither player should ever choose 1. Even though this is the "safe" choice, it usually means a loss when considered against what the other player gains, so much so that it is never a choice in "optimal" play (optimal with the caveats above).

Johannes Walch wrote: > Peter D Bakija schrieb: >> Johannes Walch wrote: >>> That is not allowed if I remember correctly. I used to do it a lot, but >>> some time ago it was ruled that determining X through dice rolls is not >>> allow within the game. >> >> I can't for the life of me figure how this could be a legitimate >> ruling. How can there be a determination on how I (i.e. the person >> playing the card) comes up with number X? I could roll a die in the >> open, or concealed, or pick a number using counters in my pocket, or >> flip coins, or ask someone across the room, or whatever. Even if >> someone, somehow decided that dice rolling was somehow illegal, there >> are countless other ways that one could determine a random numer. Are >> you sure this wasn't just a local judge trying to get your goat? > > I think it was LSJ, but I must admit upon searching the newsgroup I > couldn´t find it. When deciding among two or more more-or-less equally-play-to-win choices, a die roll is permitted. I've ruled before that having a deal for "let's you and I kill all the other players, then use a coin to determine who self-ousts" is not legal -- hinging PTW on a coin toss. > Determining a random number for yourself is, of course okay, but rolling > a die includes a public information to the other players (unless you > roll it secretly). Clearly, you should roll it secretly. > Anyway, I used to do the following tactic. I played a deck with 25 > Malkavian pranks. On the first 2-3 I rolled the numbers. And then when > everyone was picking 5 because they thought I would roll I just picked 5 > for everybody, keeping the die in my hand. And I am pretty sure that I > read some ruling which declared such play illegal, because I remember > being disappointed about it ;-) It's illegal to hold 5 for a prank, but otherwise it sounds OK.

On Dec 19, 11:42 pm, "Kushiel" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > D) Just play V:TES, instead. :) Oh, it's not just VTES...it's CRAZY VTES! -Peter

On Dec 20, 1:15 am, "CthuluKitty" <vtanarch...@riseup.net> wrote: > Since it sounds like your next game with Pat will likely be at > Templecon, you're going to have to find some way to use Game of Malkav > in a rush deck then. We're talking serious hardcoreitude here. Rush > decks all weekend. If any one of us chickens out, the other 2 get to > beat him up. Uhh, it's Malkavian Rush! Yeah! G3/4 Dem/Pot! With, uh, that, uh, Archbishop woman whose name I can't remember! And, uh, Eddie Gaines! And, uh, some actual Malkavians! Or something! -Peter

On Dec 20, 7:28 am, "Pat" <patrick.l...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: > Good thing I had already decided that my next qualifier deck was going to be > 90 Fortitude cards. Bring it, crazy potence boys. ;) Man. I played a Rush deck at Jesse's tournament this one time, and in both preliminary rounds, I quickly vaporized my initial prey, and then ran into (Ben and/or Matt) playing Blood Brothers "Cover Up My Head and Hide Behind Fortitude" decks. And then sat with Ben as my prey in the final. With Matt as my grand prey. It was *awsome*! Grumble... -Peter

On Dec 20, 8:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If there are only 2p and the game is treated as a zero-sum game with a score > based only on the net pool gain compared to your opponent, the optimal strategy > for the Methuselah who played the GoM is: > 00.00% : 1 > 44.99% : 2 > 14.27% : 3 > 31.96% : 4 > 00.00% : 5 > 08.78% : 6 > > For the opponent, the optimal strategy is: > 00.00% : 1 > 25.19% : 2 > 28.07% : 3 > 27.44% : 4 > 19.30% : 5 Interesting. So the guy playing it has an optimal strategy of picking 2 and the other guy has an optimal strategy of picking 3? Sounds like a plan... So apparently, there isn't a good way to game the Malkav when there are 5 players, huh? Oh well. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > On Dec 20, 8:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> If there are only 2p and the game is treated as a zero-sum game with a score >> based only on the net pool gain compared to your opponent, the optimal strategy >> for the Methuselah who played the GoM is: >> 00.00% : 1 >> 44.99% : 2 >> 14.27% : 3 >> 31.96% : 4 >> 00.00% : 5 >> 08.78% : 6 >> >> For the opponent, the optimal strategy is: >> 00.00% : 1 >> 25.19% : 2 >> 28.07% : 3 >> 27.44% : 4 >> 19.30% : 5 > > Interesting. So the guy playing it has an optimal strategy of picking 2 > and the other guy has an optimal strategy of picking 3? Sounds like a > plan... Not quite. Picking 2 is a losing plan, as then the other guy has an optimal strategy of picking 1 (for a net of 3) or 5 (for a net of 3). The table above is the plan. > So apparently, there isn't a good way to game the Malkav when there are > 5 players, huh? Oh well. Oh, I'm sure there is, it's just that mathematical game theory handles 2p zero-sum pretty well. Non-zero-sum can be fudged. Each player beyond 2 adds enormous complexity, however.

> Man. I played a Rush deck at Jesse's tournament this one time, and in > both preliminary rounds, I quickly vaporized my initial prey, and then > ran into (Ben and/or Matt) playing Blood Brothers "Cover Up My Head and > Hide Behind Fortitude" decks. And then sat with Ben as my prey in the > final. With Matt as my grand prey. It was *awsome*! > > Grumble... I have a pretty good memory, and from where I was sitting it looked your grandprey was Amber Kanner playing an Omaya deck with piles and piles of damage prevention. Same story, different name, I know. Jesse

On Dec 20, 9:06 am, "CthuluKitty" <vtanarch...@riseup.net> wrote: > > Grumble...I have a pretty good memory, and from where I was sitting it looked > your grandprey was Amber Kanner playing an Omaya deck with piles and > piles of damage prevention. Same story, different name, I know. Huh, yeah, I think you are right. I seemed to remember that Matt was in there too, just to add the insult to the injury. But yeah, it was in fact Amber. I think I managed to kill Ben (but had to exhaust my library to do it), and then got whacked by Scott or George. I think it was just that Matt was in that same seat at the same table in the previous round. That, and the horrible, horrible flashbacks. I can still hear the choppers!!!!!! -Peter

On Dec 19, 7:12 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > That is not allowed if I remember correctly. I used to do it a lot, but > > some time ago it was ruled that determining X through dice rolls is not > > allow within the game.I can't for the life of me figure how this could be a legitimate > ruling. How can there be a determination on how I (i.e. the person > playing the card) comes up with number X? I could roll a die in the > open, or concealed, or pick a number using counters in my pocket, or > flip coins, or ask someone across the room, or whatever. Even if > someone, somehow decided that dice rolling was somehow illegal, there > are countless other ways that one could determine a random numer. Are > you sure this wasn't just a local judge trying to get your goat? > > :-) > I got disqualified from a Magic tournament for using a die to determine who should concede, rather than get a draw (which seemed fine to both of us, especially since you only got further prizes if you went 4-0, so a draw was as bad as a loss). The reasoning we were given was that you could not use something outside the game state to determine/effect the game state. But that is a different game with different rules. Later, ~Rehlow

On Dec 20, 5:50 pm, "Rehlow" <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 7:12 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > That is not allowed if I remember correctly. I used to do it a lot, but > > > some time ago it was ruled that determining X through dice rolls is not > > > allow within the game.I can't for the life of me figure how this could be a legitimate > > ruling. How can there be a determination on how I (i.e. the person > > playing the card) comes up with number X? I could roll a die in the > > open, or concealed, or pick a number using counters in my pocket, or > > flip coins, or ask someone across the room, or whatever. Even if > > someone, somehow decided that dice rolling was somehow illegal, there > > are countless other ways that one could determine a random numer. Are > > you sure this wasn't just a local judge trying to get your goat? > > > :-)I got disqualified from a Magic tournament for using a die to determine > who should concede, rather than get a draw (which seemed fine to both > of us, especially since you only got further prizes if you went 4-0, so > a draw was as bad as a loss). The reasoning we were given was that you > could not use something outside the game state to determine/effect the > game state. But that is a different game with different rules. > > Later, > ~Rehlow But magic is one big coin toss anyway. So whats the problem (oh subtle subtle dig) not!

On Dec 20, 10:50 am, "Rehlow" <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: > I got disqualified from a Magic tournament for using a die to determine > who should concede, rather than get a draw (which seemed fine to both > of us, especially since you only got further prizes if you went 4-0, so > a draw was as bad as a loss). The reasoning we were given was that you > could not use something outside the game state to determine/effect the > game state. But that is a different game with different rules. But it is still kind of insane. I mean, like, how can someone justify that sort of thing? If you didn't use a die, you could have flipped a coin, or played RPS, or said "pick a number" and then looked at a clock to see who was closer or something. I mean, like, I can see someone ruling against someone conceeding arbitrarily (much in the same way that VTES has "play to win"), but I can't imagine for the life of me how someone could justifiably say "Oh! Dice are illegal for decision making!". 'Cause that is insane. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] To be fair, it sounds like this judge would have ruled that _any_ of the above methods would have been illegal (not just dice), as they were not based on game state. Whereas, making a decision based on who is the next player to draw a land card or whatever would seemingly be ok, as it would be based on game state. Which still seems a little nuts, but strictly falls in line with a "make decisions based on game state only" floor rule, which isn't totally nuts on the face of it (though it would be more reasonable to include exceptions, much like LSJ's post above where he says that die rolls between equally PTW decisions are fine, but presumably other decisions should be made based on game state). > -Peter witness1 -believe the lie

> I got disqualified from a Magic tournament for using a die to determine > who should concede, rather than get a draw (which seemed fine to both > of us, especially since you only got further prizes if you went 4-0, so > a draw was as bad as a loss). The reasoning we were given was that you > could not use something outside the game state to determine/effect the > game state. But that is a different game with different rules. That sounds like a bad ruling. The die did not affect the game state. The decision to concede affected the game state. The die was simply used to help make that decision. That said, it seems kind of weird that both of you thought your chances of winning the match were <50%. You'd think playing out the games would be a worthwhile way to figure out who won, rather than rolling a die. Isn't that sort of how tournaments work?

[ quoted text not captured ] "...rather than get a draw... " If the odds seemed something like 80% of getting a draw, then it's certainly reasonable to assume your odds of getting a win are <50%. witness1 -believe the lie

On Dec 20, 11:23 am, "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > On Dec 20, 10:50 am, "Rehlow" <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: > > > I got disqualified from a Magic tournament for using a die to determine > > > who should concede, rather than get a draw (which seemed fine to both > > > of us, especially since you only got further prizes if you went 4-0, so > > > a draw was as bad as a loss). The reasoning we were given was that you > > > could not use something outside the game state to determine/effect the > > > game state. But that is a different game with different rules. > > > But it is still kind of insane. I mean, like, how can someone justify > > that sort of thing? If you didn't use a die, you could have flipped a > > coin, or played RPS, or said "pick a number" and then looked at a clock > > to see who was closer or something. > > > I mean, like, I can see someone ruling against someone conceeding > > arbitrarily (much in the same way that VTES has "play to win"), but I > > can't imagine for the life of me how someone could justifiably say "Oh! > > Dice are illegal for decision making!". 'Cause that is insane.To be fair, it sounds like this judge would have ruled that _any_ of > the above methods would have been illegal (not just dice), as they were > not based on game state. Whereas, making a decision based on who is the > next player to draw a land card or whatever would seemingly be ok, as > it would be based on game state. > When the head judge explained why we were being disqualified I believe he also mentioned that any of those methods above also would have resulted in disqualification. He let us know if we had done something like look at the number of cards in play or the total power of all controlled creatures or anything else, however strange, that was part of the game state and used that to determine who would concede, that would be fine. Also, I think one of us just choosing to concede out of the blue would have been fine, too (you don't have to enforce play to win in 2 player games, except in the cases of collusion). The dirty little secret is that it still gets done (rolling to concede), it just doesn't get caught that often. Someone privately told me that he did the same thing first round in the back of room when he was about to tie. What really bugged me was how the situation was handled. Two judges were nearby the entire time it happened. It also didn't happen very fast. Before my opponent ended his last turn of the time extension, I told him to wait before ending so that we would not tie. I explained how a tie was a loss as far as further prizes were concerned. Then we agreed to determine who would concede with a die roll. Not once during any of this did a judge try to step in and both of them were milling around just waiting for the round to finish. It wasn't until after we turned in our result slips that we were then called up to the front. BTW, I lost the die roll, so the DQ was almost the same as the loss I conceded to. Later, ~Rehlow

On Dec 20, 11:54 am, "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > CthuluKitty wrote: > > die. Isn't that sort of how tournaments work?"...rather than get a draw... " > > If the odds seemed something like 80% of getting a draw, then it's > certainly reasonable to assume your odds of getting a win are <50%. > There was a 100% chance of a draw. ;) Time was called and there was a 3 turn each extension (or something like that) after which neither of us could win the game. Before he officially ended his turn, I stepped in with my die roll idea. I have heard that Upper Deck Entertainment games have no such thing as a draw, you have to either win or lose. Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] But, then you would have to play Vs or Yugioh or WoW (or Wizard in Training!). Sounds like a loss to me, regardless of game result. best - chris

[snip math stuff] > Not quite. Picking 2 is a losing plan, as then the other guy has an optimal > strategy of picking 1 (for a net of 3) or 5 (for a net of 3). > > The table above is the plan. > > > So apparently, there isn't a good way to game the Malkav when there are > > 5 players, huh? Oh well. > > Oh, I'm sure there is, it's just that mathematical game theory handles 2p > zero-sum pretty well. Non-zero-sum can be fudged. Each player beyond 2 adds > enormous complexity, however. It's always struck me as odd that cards like Game of Malkav and Malkavian Prank are allowed in tournaments. It doesn't seem like playing to win to play a card that creates a random effect which could result in your prey gaining pool. Whenever i've seen Malkavian Pranks being played most players end up with a net gain of pool. I've never seen it do the player any good. When i sit down to play Vtes in a tournament i expect players to make rational strategical and tactical choices in order to fulfill the aim of winning the game. How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i missing? Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] The (average) advantage gained.

In message <1166655152.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: >It's always struck me as odd that cards like Game of Malkav and >Malkavian Prank are allowed in tournaments. It doesn't seem like >playing to win to play a card that creates a random effect which could >result in your prey gaining pool. Whenever i've seen Malkavian Pranks >being played most players end up with a net gain of pool. I've never >seen it do the player any good. That your prey can benefit doesn't mean that the card is inherently not play-to-win, though. You can still benefit yourself, or you can aid other players cross-table to help them survive - and trading favours like that can certainly be play-to-win, or at least not actively not- play-to-win. Bear in mind that there are other cards which can cause your prey to gain pool, such as Ancient Influence (uh-oh, your prey is playing Arika), Consanguineous Boon (you're both playing Ventrue decks), Honor the Elders (you're both playing big vampires), and so on. In some ways, the random effect cards are better than those effects. Assuming you choose to play the card in a given situation, the non- random effects will help your prey, while the random effect cards only might help your prey. >When i sit down to play Vtes in a tournament i expect players to make >rational strategical and tactical choices in order to fulfill the aim >of winning the game. How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i >missing? With Malkavian Prank, they've quite possibly made a calculated decision to include it to negotiate with players cross-table. Me: Okay you - pick 4, and I'll guess 1, and you'll get pool. Okay? And I regard the negotiation as working out better for me than the alternative, and I reckon that on average you'll (where you = the player I want to negotiate with) do better than other Methuselahs on the table (at worst, no worse than), so it's a bonus for you. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > It's always struck me as odd that cards like Game of Malkav and > Malkavian Prank are allowed in tournaments. If you are going to remove, say, Game of Malkav from the environment, you are going to need to remove, like, Anicllae Empowerment and Anarchist Uprising and many other similar cards that often have very similar effects (I've been "accidentally" crosstible killed in competition far more often by Anarchist Uprising than I have by Game of Malkav) > How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i missing? As noted, Prank is a different situation than Game--Prank often is used specifically to give people pool to prop them up when needed (i.e. my grand prey is low on pool, I play Prank and say to him "Put 4 pool in your hand. I'm guessing 1.") And playing Prank never hurts the guy playing it directly, and often helps. Game, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, tends to be a tad more random, but again, hardly more disruptive to the game than a Ancilla Empowerment tends to be. -Peter

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166655152.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > chr...@comcen.com.au writes: > >It's always struck me as odd that cards like Game of Malkav and > >Malkavian Prank are allowed in tournaments. It doesn't seem like > >playing to win to play a card that creates a random effect which could > >result in your prey gaining pool. Whenever i've seen Malkavian Pranks > >being played most players end up with a net gain of pool. I've never > >seen it do the player any good. > > That your prey can benefit doesn't mean that the card is inherently not > play-to-win, though. You can still benefit yourself, or you can aid > other players cross-table to help them survive - and trading favours > like that can certainly be play-to-win, or at least not actively not- > play-to-win. > > Bear in mind that there are other cards which can cause your prey to > gain pool, such as Ancient Influence (uh-oh, your prey is playing > Arika), Consanguineous Boon (you're both playing Ventrue decks), Honor > the Elders (you're both playing big vampires), and so on. Yes but you know what vampires your prey has so you know what the effect will be when you play Ancient Influence. When you play it you are making a judgement call that the benefit you gain is worth whatever your prey might gain. You know exactly how the pool will be distributed after the vote. You don't know that with a Prank. > > In some ways, the random effect cards are better than those effects. > Assuming you choose to play the card in a given situation, the non- > random effects will help your prey, while the random effect cards only > might help your prey. > > > >When i sit down to play Vtes in a tournament i expect players to make > >rational strategical and tactical choices in order to fulfill the aim > >of winning the game. How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i > >missing? > > With Malkavian Prank, they've quite possibly made a calculated decision > to include it to negotiate with players cross-table. > > Me: Okay you - pick 4, and I'll guess 1, and you'll get pool. Okay? Yep i can see that angle and that's fine but what i don't like to see happening is other players being randomly boosted every turn. > > And I regard the negotiation as working out better for me than the > alternative, and I reckon that on average you'll (where you = the player > I want to negotiate with) do better than other Methuselahs on the table > (at worst, no worse than), so it's a bonus for you. Is there any situation when it might not be playing to win to play a Prank? Chris.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > It's always struck me as odd that cards like Game of Malkav and > > Malkavian Prank are allowed in tournaments. > > If you are going to remove, say, Game of Malkav from the environment, > you are going to need to remove, like, Anicllae Empowerment and > Anarchist Uprising and many other similar cards that often have very > similar effects (I've been "accidentally" crosstible killed in > competition far more often by Anarchist Uprising than I have by Game of > Malkav) Yes but as you know the outcome of one of those votes and can make a judgement call as to whether it's worth it. When you play a Prank you don't know what the outcome will be. > > > How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i missing? > > As noted, Prank is a different situation than Game--Prank often is used > specifically to give people pool to prop them up when needed (i.e. my > grand prey is low on pool, I play Prank and say to him "Put 4 pool in > your hand. I'm guessing 1.") And playing Prank never hurts the guy > playing it directly, and often helps. I can see it's benefit when propping up allies, it's the random part that i don't see should be part of the game. It might not hurt the player directly as in a direct loss of pool but it would hurt their position if their predator and prey gain four pool. Chris.

> > > > It's always struck me as odd that cards like Game of Malkav and > > Malkavian Prank are allowed in tournaments. It doesn't seem like > > playing to win to play a card that creates a random effect which could > > result in your prey gaining pool. Whenever i've seen Malkavian Pranks > > being played most players end up with a net gain of pool. I've never > > seen it do the player any good. > > > > When i sit down to play Vtes in a tournament i expect players to make > > rational strategical and tactical choices in order to fulfill the aim > > of winning the game. How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i > > missing? > > The (average) advantage gained. Ok. I don't suppose you could elaborate for us souls that haven't done any maths for 10 years? Do you mean that, on average, you will gain more than you lose? So, for example, a five player game where a Malkavian Prank is played once every four turns. After four turns the player, on average, will be in a better position (all other things being equal) than they were four turns ago? Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > Yes but as you know the outcome of one of those votes and can make a > judgement call as to whether it's worth it. When you play a Prank you > don't know what the outcome will be. Sure, but with Prank, it is never going to hurt you directly. With the Game, you can make it not hurt you directly by picking 1. If you want it to pay off more, you have to gamble. How is this any different than bleeding your prey for 6 and hoping they don't have a Deflection? > I can see it's benefit when propping up allies, it's the random part > that i don't see should be part of the game. Lots of the game is random. Maybe your prey has a Deflection or maybe not. Maybe you'll draw the card you need or not. I mean, like, I likely wouldn't try to rely on Game as a game winning strategy or anything, but it isn't any more random than a lot of the game. If you don't want it to hurt you, pick a number where you can't be hurt. > It might not hurt the player directly as in a direct loss of pool but it would hurt their > position if their predator and prey gain four pool. Sure. But the same thing happens when a bleed of 6 gets deflected to me randomly. Or when my "cross table ally" calls an Anarchist Uprising. The game has a ton of randomness. -Peter

In message <1166663703.6...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: >> And I regard the negotiation as working out better for me than the >> alternative, and I reckon that on average you'll (where you = the player >> I want to negotiate with) do better than other Methuselahs on the table >> (at worst, no worse than), so it's a bonus for you. > >Is there any situation when it might not be playing to win to play a >Prank? It's hard to envisage one, at least a serious one. Even when down to two players, you could be doing it to try to randomly guess the right number from your prey. Though certain uses of the card might facilitate (but not cause) collusion or non-play-to-win behaviour, such as if you (for some reason) decided to keep giving your predator pool. (See also Malkavian Game.) That certain cards can be used in a manner that might not be play-to-win isn't new, though. A non-PTW Methuselah can use Kindred Spirits for that, or bounce to an "inappropriate" Methuselah on a regular basis, rush the "wrong" vampire, or whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if the bleed gets deflected. If your cross table ally calls an Anarchist Uprising they know exaclty how much pool you'll be losing and therefore will be able to judge whether calling the vote is playing to win. I accept that there is randomness in seating and card shuffling but i don't see that a card should be able to create a random effect. Chris.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166663703.6...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > chr...@comcen.com.au writes: > >> And I regard the negotiation as working out better for me than the > >> alternative, and I reckon that on average you'll (where you = the player > >> I want to negotiate with) do better than other Methuselahs on the table > >> (at worst, no worse than), so it's a bonus for you. > > > >Is there any situation when it might not be playing to win to play a > >Prank? > > It's hard to envisage one, at least a serious one. Even when down to > two players, you could be doing it to try to randomly guess the right > number from your prey. Though certain uses of the card might facilitate > (but not cause) collusion or non-play-to-win behaviour, such as if you > (for some reason) decided to keep giving your predator pool. (See also > Malkavian Game.) > > > That certain cards can be used in a manner that might not be play-to-win > isn't new, though. A non-PTW Methuselah can use Kindred Spirits for > that, or bounce to an "inappropriate" Methuselah on a regular basis, > rush the "wrong" vampire, or whatever. Yes but a judge could be called in those situations and the judge could rule on whether the player is playing to win as they are deliberate actions. That's why I'm uncomfortable with Prank and Game as the judge can't really say the player isn't playing to win but the outcome of playing the card could randomly shift the balance in favour of another player. Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the > game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do > get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if > the bleed gets deflected. Or, they have decided that bleeding their prey for 6 is worth the risk of their prey maybe having a deflection, and their plan for if they do get deflected is "Uh oh. I've just ousted my grandprey..." > If your cross table ally calls an Anarchist Uprising they know exaclty > how much pool you'll be losing and therefore will be able to judge > whether calling the vote is playing to win. Calling the vote may very well be playing to win *for them* even if it is making *you* lose. That they are playing to win might be resulting in you losing, essentially randomly. > I accept that there is randomness in seating and card shuffling but i > don't see that a card should be able to create a random effect. Anarch Revolt (et al), even in its current state, produces a random effect (it makes people other than your prey lose pool, which generally has a random impact on the game state). Lots of cards produce essentially random effects. I'm not saying that these cards (Game/Prank) are necessarily a good idea if you are really playing competetively (but then, neither are lots of cards--I'd argue that playing a Werewolf Pack is arguably not playing to win...). But they aren't any more disruptive to the game than plenty of other cards. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Plausibly. I haven't done the math. I only know enough to know that it is an extremely complex problem to solve.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the > > game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do > > get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if > > the bleed gets deflected. > > Or, they have decided that bleeding their prey for 6 is worth the risk > of their prey maybe having a deflection, and their plan for if they do > get deflected is "Uh oh. I've just ousted my grandprey..." Well I would call that poor play. If that is analagous to Malkavian Prank does that mean playing a Malkavian Prank is poor play? > > > If your cross table ally calls an Anarchist Uprising they know exaclty > > how much pool you'll be losing and therefore will be able to judge > > whether calling the vote is playing to win. > > Calling the vote may very well be playing to win *for them* even if it > is making *you* lose. That they are playing to win might be resulting > in you losing, essentially randomly. It's not random from the perspective of the player playing the Anarchist Uprising. They're making a decision that ousting you is helping them win the game. > > > I accept that there is randomness in seating and card shuffling but i > > don't see that a card should be able to create a random effect. > > Anarch Revolt (et al), even in its current state, produces a random > effect (it makes people other than your prey lose pool, which generally > has a random impact on the game state). Lots of cards produce > essentially random effects. Anarch Revolt isn't random. It makes every player lose a pool unless they control an Anarch. The card may end up hurting players you don't want to hurt and as with blindly bleeding for six i would say that is poor play. > > I'm not saying that these cards (Game/Prank) are necessarily a good > idea if you are really playing competetively (but then, neither are > lots of cards--I'd argue that playing a Werewolf Pack is arguably not > playing to win...). But they aren't any more disruptive to the game > than plenty of other cards. I think they're pretty disruptive. When i've seen them played they've usually ended up benefitting everyone at the table and the game has timed out. How many other cards are that easy to play and that disruptive? I don't think you can compare Werewolf Pack with Prank. Werewolf Packs are bad for the player but they don't increase/decrease the pool of every player on the table. They could even be useful in a deck that wants to use the card Abomination. They're cheaper than Garous. Chris.

. > >>> > >>> When i sit down to play Vtes in a tournament i expect players to make > >>> rational strategical and tactical choices in order to fulfill the aim > >>> of winning the game. How does playing a Prank fit into that? What am i > >>> missing? > >> The (average) advantage gained. > > > > Ok. I don't suppose you could elaborate for us souls that haven't done > > any maths for 10 years? > > > > Do you mean that, on average, you will gain more than you lose? So, for > > example, a five player game where a Malkavian Prank is played once > > every four turns. After four turns the player, on average, will be in a > > better position (all other things being equal) than they were four > > turns ago? > > Plausibly. I haven't done the math. I only know enough to know that it is an > extremely complex problem to solve. It sounds like it. Should we ban them until someone has done the math and we know for sure that there is a gain rather than a loss? :) Chris. In a banning mood

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > I'm not saying that these cards (Game/Prank) are necessarily a good > > idea if you are really playing competetively (but then, neither are > > lots of cards--I'd argue that playing a Werewolf Pack is arguably not > > playing to win...). But they aren't any more disruptive to the game > > than plenty of other cards. > > I think they're pretty disruptive. When i've seen them played they've > usually ended up benefitting everyone at the table and the game has > timed out. How many other cards are that easy to play and that > disruptive? I agree. The last storyline my predator gave me 12 pool (unintentionally) from Pranks. "I didn't think you would choose 4!" In a tournament environment the card can be a problem when played carelessly. "Sorry I killed you cross table, guess I should have told you what number to choose." Or someone not playing to win (which is not always easy to stop with these types of cards) Nick

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Oh, it's not just VTES...it's CRAZY VTES! Man, I hate those cards. *grumble, grumble* John Eno

In message <1166666314....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: >If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the >game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do >get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if >the bleed gets deflected. Woe there. You're expecting players to be sensible. And this isn't the case, in a lot of situations. Players do do massive bleeds at stealth and, when bounced, shrug their shoulders and say "Well, I had to try." Or similar. Play-to-win does not mean that all players will be sensible. They do make imperfect decisions, based on all sorts of things. Say my prey has 40 cards in their ash-heap and 1 bounce card in there, and 40-50 cards left, and I need to oust them NOW, or I get ousted next turn by Smiling Jack (for example). So I bleed now, and end up bleeding at stealth, come what may, but I don't have enough stealth to wallop Jack because the player has a carpet of intercept. An entirely plausible scenario, whether my grand-prey can deal with it or not. Players do that sort of thing all the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1166670286.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: > >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: >> > If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the >> > game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do >> > get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if >> > the bleed gets deflected. >> >> Or, they have decided that bleeding their prey for 6 is worth the risk >> of their prey maybe having a deflection, and their plan for if they do >> get deflected is "Uh oh. I've just ousted my grandprey..." > >Well I would call that poor play. If that is analagous to Malkavian >Prank does that mean playing a Malkavian Prank is poor play? Playing Malkavian Prank badly would be poor play. However, co-operating to try to cause greater benefit for your allies could be seen as not poor play. In short, if you play badly, it's poor play, regardless of what cards you use. >It's not random from the perspective of the player playing the >Anarchist Uprising. They're making a decision that ousting you is >helping them win the game. So, a player is capable of deciding that a questionable Anarchist Uprising is helping them win but, for some reason, you seem to think that they can't make a similar decision with Malkavian Prank. Being able to give away pool in a controlled fashion is a very solid ability and, on average, you can give away more pool to the people you want to than to the people you don't - a calculated risk. Why do you think I can take a calculated risk with Anarchist Uprising, but not with Malkavian Prank? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 20, 10:04 pm, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > Well I would call that poor play. If that is analagous to Malkavian > Prank does that mean playing a Malkavian Prank is poor play? People do that (or things like that) all the time. It is often a calculated risk--I go do something to my prey and hope they can't defend against it. If it works, that is good. If it fails, that is bad. The bad might be me getting killed and then ousted, which throws the whole game off. Or it might be accidentally bleeding my prey for 5. These things happen, due to not having all the information all the time. If people only ever wait till they have all the information all the time before they do anything, the game goes nowhere. > It's not random from the perspective of the player playing the > Anarchist Uprising. They're making a decision that ousting you is > helping them win the game. >From their perspective, sure. From my perspective, I am getting randomly killed from across the table. > Anarch Revolt isn't random. The impact it has on the table often tends to be pretty random even if the actual effect is not. > It makes every player lose a pool unless > they control an Anarch. The card may end up hurting players you don't > want to hurt and as with blindly bleeding for six i would say that is > poor play. Sure. But you can't legislate against "poor play". Again, I'd never try and rely on Game of Malkav for a highly competetive winning strategy, as it is, as you point out, kind of random. But it isn't going to be more disruptive that many, many other cards and or actions that people use and take all the time. > When i've seen them played they've > usually ended up benefitting everyone at the table and the game has > timed out. How many other cards are that easy to play and that > disruptive? Disruptive in that they arbitrarily give people pool and potentially make the game never end? Anciallae Empowerment. Should that get removed from competeive play too? > I don't think you can compare Werewolf Pack with Prank. Sure you can. I play werewolf pack. I lose, what, 4 pool and gain nothing remotely useful. Both my predator and prey have now gained in position while I have lost in position. It is kind of like giving them pool. Not exactly, but still, I am playing a card that weakens my position and strengthens my opponent's positions relative to mine. Which is sometimes what Game of Malkav does. But at least with Game of Malkav, there is a chance that playing it will actually make my position better and my opponent's worse. Werewolf Pack? I *know* it is always going to make my position worse. -Peter

On Dec 21, 2:40 am, "Kushiel" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Man, I hate those cards. > > *grumble, grumble* Well, ya know, it isn't like I'm gonna play them in competion or anything. That is pretty much just dumb. -Peter

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166670286.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > chr...@comcen.com.au writes: > > > >Peter D Bakija wrote: > >> chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > >> > If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the > >> > game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do > >> > get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if > >> > the bleed gets deflected. > >> > >> Or, they have decided that bleeding their prey for 6 is worth the risk > >> of their prey maybe having a deflection, and their plan for if they do > >> get deflected is "Uh oh. I've just ousted my grandprey..." > > > >Well I would call that poor play. If that is analagous to Malkavian > >Prank does that mean playing a Malkavian Prank is poor play? > > Playing Malkavian Prank badly would be poor play. However, co-operating > to try to cause greater benefit for your allies could be seen as not > poor play. > > In short, if you play badly, it's poor play, regardless of what cards > you use. My point is that I've never seen it played well. Whether another card is played well or not will depend on the circumstances but playing Malkavian Prank is always poor play. I know you can give pool to your allies but you can also end up giving pool to your enemies as well. I've never seen a deck that uses it gain more than they lose. > > >It's not random from the perspective of the player playing the > >Anarchist Uprising. They're making a decision that ousting you is > >helping them win the game. > > So, a player is capable of deciding that a questionable Anarchist > Uprising is helping them win but, for some reason, you seem to think > that they can't make a similar decision with Malkavian Prank. > > Being able to give away pool in a controlled fashion is a very solid > ability and, on average, you can give away more pool to the people you > want to than to the people you don't - a calculated risk. > > Why do you think I can take a calculated risk with Anarchist Uprising, > but not with Malkavian Prank? There is no risk with Anarchist Uprising. You know how much pool everyone will have after the vote. You don't know how much pool everyone will have after a Prank. Why don't you see the difference? Chris.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Dec 20, 10:04 pm, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > Well I would call that poor play. If that is analagous to Malkavian > > Prank does that mean playing a Malkavian Prank is poor play? > > People do that (or things like that) all the time. It is often a > calculated risk--I go do something to my prey and hope they can't > defend against it. If it works, that is good. If it fails, that is bad. > The bad might be me getting killed and then ousted, which throws the > whole game off. Or it might be accidentally bleeding my prey for 5. > These things happen, due to not having all the information all the > time. If people only ever wait till they have all the information all > the time before they do anything, the game goes nowhere. Yes risks must be taken. Soemtimes they backfire but what you're talking about is an interaction between vampires with lots of cards played. What i don't like is that Prank is one card, a master at that, which can have a large effect on the table i.e. it changes every players pool. It's too strong an effect for a single master card. The worst part is that because it is random it is not subject to the play to win rule. If you play an Anarchist Uprising and oust someone cross table a judge could be called over to adjudicate on whether you are playing to win. If you oust someone cross table with a Prank nothing can be done about it. > > > Anarch Revolt isn't random. > > The impact it has on the table often tends to be pretty random even if > the actual effect is not. Anarch Revolt is mitigated by the fact that you can avoid it by going anarch and voting it down but yes the effect can be random and i've seen that played pretty badly as well. > > > It makes every player lose a pool unless > > they control an Anarch. The card may end up hurting players you don't > > want to hurt and as with blindly bleeding for six i would say that is > > poor play. > > Sure. But you can't legislate against "poor play". Again, I'd never try > and rely on Game of Malkav for a highly competetive winning strategy, > as it is, as you point out, kind of random. But it isn't going to be > more disruptive that many, many other cards and or actions that people > use and take all the time. I haven't seen many cards that are as disruptive as those. Which ones are you thinking about? > > > When i've seen them played they've > > usually ended up benefitting everyone at the table and the game has > > timed out. How many other cards are that easy to play and that > > disruptive? > > Disruptive in that they arbitrarily give people pool and potentially > make the game never end? Anciallae Empowerment. Should that get removed > from competeive play too? When you are deciding whether to play Ancilla Empowerment you know how much pool everyone will have after the vote, with Prank you don't. Also AE is a vote which can be blocked, voted down etc. Prank is a master card. > > > I don't think you can compare Werewolf Pack with Prank. > > Sure you can. I play werewolf pack. I lose, what, 4 pool and gain > nothing remotely useful. Both my predator and prey have now gained in > position while I have lost in position. It is kind of like giving them > pool. Not exactly, but still, I am playing a card that weakens my > position and strengthens my opponent's positions relative to mine. > Which is sometimes what Game of Malkav does. But at least with Game of > Malkav, there is a chance that playing it will actually make my > position better and my opponent's worse. Werewolf Pack? I *know* it is > always going to make my position worse. As I mentioned though it might not be a bad play if you have the Abomination card in your hand at the same time. Prank is always bad play. Chris.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166666314....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > chr...@comcen.com.au writes: > >If someone bleeds for six i would expect that they would have taken the > >game state into account and that they have some kind of plan if they do > >get deflected. E.g. They check with grandprey that they can block if > >the bleed gets deflected. > > Woe there. You're expecting players to be sensible. And this isn't the > case, in a lot of situations. Players do do massive bleeds at stealth > and, when bounced, shrug their shoulders and say "Well, I had to try." > Or similar. > > Play-to-win does not mean that all players will be sensible. They do > make imperfect decisions, based on all sorts of things. Say my prey has > 40 cards in their ash-heap and 1 bounce card in there, and 40-50 cards > left, and I need to oust them NOW, or I get ousted next turn by Smiling > Jack (for example). So I bleed now, and end up bleeding at stealth, > come what may, but I don't have enough stealth to wallop Jack because > the player has a carpet of intercept. > > An entirely plausible scenario, whether my grand-prey can deal with it > or not. Players do that sort of thing all the time. The point i was trying to make is that players make decisions based on game state and yes sometimes they have to take risks as you point out above. That is the nature of the game but i don't think there should be a master card that sets up a random situation which affects the pool total of every player on the table. I don't see how that fits in a tactical game like Vtes. Perhaps if Prank didn't have the potential for so great a pool loss i wouldn't mind but i saw my prey take four pool off my grandpredator (cross table) recently which left my predator free to go hard at me. i don't think a master card should be able to do that especially as it's random and not subject to the play to win rule. If they had done that with a direct bleed (via kindred spirits for example) i could have called over a judge and asked the judge to adjudicate on whether they were playing to win or just playing silly buggers. Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > Yes risks must be taken. Soemtimes they backfire but what you're > talking about is an interaction between vampires with lots of cards > played. I'm not so much seeing the difference that the number of cards played makes, but ok. > What i don't like is that Prank is one card, a master at that, > which can have a large effect on the table i.e. it changes every > players pool. Maybe. Maybe it just changes 1 player's pool. But realistically, it will (it being either Prank or Game) will have a not that huge effect on everyone's pool (everyone will gain or lose a few pool), just like lots of other cards will. Yeah, Ancillae Empowerment has a deterministic effect on everyone's pool where Game has a mostly random effect, but the end result is more or less the same--the game state changes based on playing one card. As I have mentioned before, I don't think relying on Game of Malkav is a good idea for a winning strategy (i.e. if I personally were playing in a tournament that I was actually trying to win, I wouldn't play with Game of Malkav, but then I also wouldn't play with Ancillae Empowerment. Or Werewolf Pack). But as a card that disrupts the game environment, it is no more potentially destructive than many, many other cards or actions that *do* fit in winning strategies (Rush cards can be very destructive to a game; Parity Shift can be very destructive to a game; Anarch Revolt, still, can be very destructive to a game). > It's too strong an effect for a single master card. The > worst part is that because it is random it is not subject to the play > to win rule. If you play Game of Malkav, presumably, you are doing it because you think it will help you win. Otherwise, you are just playing stupid. But lots of cards can be played stupidly. Yes, I realize that Game is almost totally random in its effect. But putting them in your deck is something you do because you think it can help you win. And you play one only if you think it is actually helping you win (i.e. if you look at the table and say "Huh. Playing this Game of Malkav right now is likely to make me lose...", you aren't gonna play the Game. Unless, again, you are playing specifically to be stupid, but that is not something that the card makes you do). > If you play an Anarchist Uprising and oust someone cross > table a judge could be called over to adjudicate on whether you are > playing to win. If you oust someone cross table with a Prank nothing > can be done about it. Why can you judge a cross table oust with Anarchist Uprising while you can't judge a cross table oust with Game of Malkav? Or Malkavian Prank? If I play Prank, and there is a possibility of ousting someone I don't want to oust, I make sure to not oust them with it. Otherwise, I'm just playing stupid. Just like if I cross table ousted someone for no good reason with a KRC. > I haven't seen many cards that are as disruptive as those. Which ones > are you thinking about? KRC, for example. I have, multiple times in competetive play, been cross table ousted by virtue of KRCs due to people "balancing the table" or "seeing that I was going to win the game otherwise" (which was never in any way certain). Heck, this last summer at Origins, I was completely and randomly wiped out by my "cross table buddy" in a 4 player game by him calling 2 consecutive Anarchist Uprisings when I wasn't remotely winning. Which did nothing other than secure my predator's (and his prey's) victory. This is the result of dumb play with cards that can be incredibly destructive--just as much as, if not more so, than any destruction that can be caused by a Malkavian Game or Prank. > As I mentioned though it might not be a bad play if you have the > Abomination card in your hand at the same time. Prank is always bad > play. Except for when it pays off, in which case it is a good play. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > Yes risks must be taken. Soemtimes they backfire but what you're > > talking about is an interaction between vampires with lots of cards > > played. > > I'm not so much seeing the difference that the number of cards played > makes, but ok. > > > What i don't like is that Prank is one card, a master at that, > > which can have a large effect on the table i.e. it changes every > > players pool. > > Maybe. Maybe it just changes 1 player's pool. But realistically, it > will (it being either Prank or Game) will have a not that huge effect > on everyone's pool (everyone will gain or lose a few pool), just like > lots of other cards will. Yeah, Ancillae Empowerment has a > deterministic effect on everyone's pool where Game has a mostly random > effect, but the end result is more or less the same--the game state > changes based on playing one card. Yes it's one card but it's an action that you need a vampire to take and not get blocked and then the referendum has to pass. It's harder than playing a single master card. > > As I have mentioned before, I don't think relying on Game of Malkav is > a good idea for a winning strategy (i.e. if I personally were playing > in a tournament that I was actually trying to win, I wouldn't play with > Game of Malkav, but then I also wouldn't play with Ancillae > Empowerment. Or Werewolf Pack). But as a card that disrupts the game > environment, it is no more potentially destructive than many, many > other cards or actions that *do* fit in winning strategies (Rush cards > can be very destructive to a game; Parity Shift can be very destructive > to a game; Anarch Revolt, still, can be very destructive to a game). But with rush cards you need to have the vampire take an action, for the combat to go your way etc. It's not as easy as playing a single master card. > > > It's too strong an effect for a single master card. The > > worst part is that because it is random it is not subject to the play > > to win rule. > > If you play Game of Malkav, presumably, you are doing it because you > think it will help you win. Otherwise, you are just playing stupid. But > lots of cards can be played stupidly. Yes, I realize that Game is > almost totally random in its effect. But putting them in your deck is > something you do because you think it can help you win. And you play > one only if you think it is actually helping you win (i.e. if you look > at the table and say "Huh. Playing this Game of Malkav right now is > likely to make me lose...", you aren't gonna play the Game. Unless, > again, you are playing specifically to be stupid, but that is not > something that the card makes you do). I'm curious how there could be any winning strategy with Game of Malkav. Do you know any? > > > If you play an Anarchist Uprising and oust someone cross > > table a judge could be called over to adjudicate on whether you are > > playing to win. If you oust someone cross table with a Prank nothing > > can be done about it. > > Why can you judge a cross table oust with Anarchist Uprising while you > can't judge a cross table oust with Game of Malkav? Or Malkavian Prank? > If I play Prank, and there is a possibility of ousting someone I don't > want to oust, I make sure to not oust them with it. Otherwise, I'm just > playing stupid. Just like if I cross table ousted someone for no good > reason with a KRC. You bring up a very interesting question. If, for example, my prey is on 10 pool, my grandprey on 1 pool and i play Malkavian Prank do i have to arrange with my grandprey not to oust him or is it allowable to leave it up to chance? I'm very interested in the answer to that question because it underlines one of my main concerns with the card: Is Malkavian Prank ever subject to the play to win rule? > > > I haven't seen many cards that are as disruptive as those. Which ones > > are you thinking about? > > KRC, for example. I have, multiple times in competetive play, been > cross table ousted by virtue of KRCs due to people "balancing the > table" or "seeing that I was going to win the game otherwise" (which > was never in any way certain). Heck, this last summer at Origins, I was > completely and randomly wiped out by my "cross table buddy" in a 4 > player game by him calling 2 consecutive Anarchist Uprisings when I > wasn't remotely winning. Which did nothing other than secure my > predator's (and his prey's) victory. This is the result of dumb play > with cards that can be incredibly destructive--just as much as, if not > more so, than any destruction that can be caused by a Malkavian Game or > Prank. Well that sounds like they weren't playing to win. If that happened to me in a tournament i would call a judge. Chris.

In message <1166740076.3...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, chr...@comcen.com.au writes: > >James Coupe wrote: >> In short, if you play badly, it's poor play, regardless of what cards >> you use. > >My point is that I've never seen [Malkavian Prank] played well. That's fine. Some cards require a particular sort of player to use them well. First of all, you want a player who's interested in helping other players on the table when things get tough. This isn't a lot of players, many (but not all) of whom will just want to oust their prey. Then you want a player who wants to play enough Malkavians to make Malkavian Prank a worthwhile include. Or a Mata Hari deck, I guess, though that would be a little weird. This isn't too hard, but there are a lot of other options these days. Then you also need a player who's intelligent enough to use the card well. And you need a player who's got some spare master slots in his deck, that aren't being used by all the other master cards he might include - Blood Doll, The Barrens, Minion Tap, Wash, Sudden Reversal, etc. This will inevitably mean that good uses of some difficult cards will be rarely seen. That you don't see the card being played well != the card cannot have advantages. >Whether another card >is played well or not will depend on the circumstances but playing >Malkavian Prank is always poor play. I know you can give pool to your >allies but you can also end up giving pool to your enemies as well. On average, you give more to your allies than to your enemies. My allies always get 4. My enemies might get between 1 and 4, but also might lose between 1 and 4, depending on a lot of things. In the worst case scenario, my allies get +4 and so do my enemies. In the best case scenario, my allies get +4 and my enemies get -4, and I also get +4. On average, my allies are doing better than my enemies. Why is being able to do something that's potentially significantly more beneficial to my allies than my enemies always poor play? When I want to keep someone in the game so I can pass my vote with their votes and oust my prey, why is giving them +4 pool to keep them out of range of Smiling Jack poor play? Or to keep them out of range of a bleed oust? Or to prevent a play of Foreshadowing Destruction? A potentially interesting option would be to see how greedy players get, and then use the extra pool they have to your advantage in a Parity Shift - whilst *also* helping your allies. If my enemies get +3 or 4 pool, I take it off them. If they get +1 or 2 pool, that's a significant gain for my allies (relatively), and I'll kill them anyway. The Malkavians aren't short of good ways of passing a vote these days. Even in Group 1/2, you have a couple of Princes with AUS. Go to Group 3, and you have Quentin King III with AUS/pre, which is pretty fearsome, and you can still nick Greger (Prince, AUS) from Group 2, and include Rachel Brandywine or Maris Streck too, if you like that sort of thing - Rachel is particularly popular. Lazarus James lacks a title, but AUS/PRE means he might be a worthwhile include. Or you might like to include Fleurdumal (Toreador), for his keen sense of AUS/DEM/PRE, though the lack of Obf might be a tad too annoying in a mostly Malk deck. Combine with normal pool control options - Secret Horde, for example, spare vampires to move pool onto, permanent Blood Dolls already in play etc. Now you have an interesting little pool manipulation scheme going on. >> Why do you think I can take a calculated risk with Anarchist Uprising, >> but not with Malkavian Prank? > >There is no risk with Anarchist Uprising. You know how much pool >everyone will have after the vote. You don't know how much pool >everyone will have after a Prank. Why don't you see the difference? Sure there's risk with Anarchist Uprising. I play it to help myself, but at the same time there's my cross-table buddy teetering on the edge of being ousted, because I've just knocked him down from 5 pool (where he could probably survive) to 2 pool (where he might well not be able to). Will that mean my prey eats my buddy (my grand-prey) before I can eat my prey? That's a calculated risk I have to take. It's a different risk, but it's still a risk. If risks are bad, ban all play that brings other players to the brink of disaster. Many, many cards and plays on the table involve calculated risks. If I bring out a vampire, will it help me? Quite probably. Will it mean I get ousted due to having three less pool? Who can say. Will Malkavian Game help me by keeping my allies in play? Quite possibly. Will it help my enemies? Who can say. Why are some calculated risks fine, but others aren't? Also, I know how much pool any allies will have after the Prank. Because I'm letting them have it. Then I can work out what my enemies *might* get. You can also work out what the worst possible scenario is, and still decide it's worth it. My grand-prey survives for another turn (for example), and even if my prey has 4 more pool, it's fine, I can still get him - because my grand-prey is still on the table with some votes, or whatever. And I can limit my prey's gain to 3 pool also, by guessing 4 - if he's lower, he's got at most 3, if he's guessed 4, I'm quids in. So I offer to keep my grand-prey in if he passes my votes, or saves my vampire from a Blood Hunt, or something. Then I oust my prey with that support. And I offer to help my grand-prey oust his prey. Then we fight it out for the remaining VPs. Please explain where the non-play-to-win play was, and why I shouldn't be allowed to help my grand-prey in this scenario. [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > > > It's too strong an effect for a single master card. The > > > worst part is that because it is random it is not subject to the play > > > to win rule. > > > > If you play Game of Malkav, presumably, you are doing it because you > > think it will help you win. Otherwise, you are just playing stupid. But > > lots of cards can be played stupidly. Yes, I realize that Game is > > almost totally random in its effect. But putting them in your deck is > > something you do because you think it can help you win. And you play > > one only if you think it is actually helping you win (i.e. if you look > > at the table and say "Huh. Playing this Game of Malkav right now is > > likely to make me lose...", you aren't gonna play the Game. Unless, > > again, you are playing specifically to be stupid, but that is not > > something that the card makes you do). > > I'm curious how there could be any winning strategy with Game of > Malkav. Do you know any? Well, you could always pack some parity shift so that when you accidentally burn 5-6 pool, you have a bunch of PS targets - and if you end up gaining 5-6 instead, that seems all for the good to me. Same idea works for Prank. witness1 -believe the lie

On Dec 21, 9:38 pm, chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > I'm curious how there could be any winning strategy with Game of > Malkav. Do you know any? Sure. Have a deck that can benefit from guessing well and gaining extra pool and that isn't going to suffer from losing pool occasionally. Or play with Parity Shift and when the Game works against you, call Parity Shift to take pool away from your prey and give it to you. As noted, while Game is essentially random, it is, in the long run, going to give more pool to you and your allies than to your direct enemies. > You bring up a very interesting question. If, for example, my prey is > on 10 pool, my grandprey on 1 pool and i play Malkavian Prank do i have > to arrange with my grandprey not to oust him or is it allowable to > leave it up to chance? I don't think "play to win" forces you to arrange with your grand prey to not oust him, but in all likelyhood self preservation will win out over arbitrarily imposed "play to win" guidelines--if I play Malkavian Prank when my grand prey is at 1 pool, why would I *not* arrange to give him 4 pool? Either 'cause I want him dead (for some reason or another, so if I want him dead, I likely want him dead as it helps my chance of winning, thus playing to win) or 'cause I'm playing stupid (which isn't the fault of the card). > I'm very interested in the answer to that > question because it underlines one of my main concerns with the card: > Is Malkavian Prank ever subject to the play to win rule? *All* cards are subject to the "play to win" rule. As Game of Malkav (which is much more random than Malkavian Prank, but you keep switching back and forth between the two in discussion) is random, but on the average more helpful than not, just like any other card, when you play it, you should be playing it in hopes that it will help you win (as otherwise, you are just playing stupid, and again, you can play stupid with any card: "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm gonna bleed you arbitrarily cross table for 4 with this here Kindred Spirits! 'Cause I rolled a die and picked you! Woo!") > Well that sounds like they weren't playing to win. If that happened to > me in a tournament i would call a judge. I'm sure they believed otherwise. The times that I got crosstable ousted by KRC, it was the result of "I think you are going to sweep the table if I don't kill you now, even though it will only strengthen my prey..." Very easily an arguable "I'm playing to win" decision, regardless of whether or not the person doing it actually ends up winning--they think what they are doing is going to help them win, so they are playing to win. In the other example, where I was killed by cross table Anarchist Uprising collateral damage, I'm sure thay guy thought he was doing the best thing at the time too--he was hurting his prey, and he probably thought that he was going to be able to oust him before he ousted me, even though I was getting hurt more by the AU then his prey was. He was probably doing what he thought was a good idea, even though it turned out to not be. -Peter