Yet another playing to win thread (or at least sort of) ...
During the tournament during the last weekend I encountered the
following situation:
The four player table is set up like this: Peter --> Axel --> Ralf -->
John
Ralf puts too much pressure on John early on, so John proposes the
following deal to Peter. John just wants one VP (which is reasonable
in his position), while Peter takes the GW. Peter accepts, and now the
following happens. Peter ousts Axel and Ralf in quick succession, and
then puts John down to one pool (who has no controlled minion), while
exhausting his library. Instead of bleeding him out, Peter chooses to
withdraw, and makes the game win by that (with 2.5 VP).
So my question is, was that a legal play? The judge (tournament
organizer) rule it was.
My objection is that by choosing to withdraw, Peter's either not
playing to win (he does not have the game win in that situation yet),
or much more importantly, Peter's honoring the deal, although all
deals are off in the heads-up.
The counter argument was, that Peter has 2 VPs and is free to make the
decision how he's making the game win (by ousting John or
withdrawing).
If the answer is, that the play was legal, then I would strongly like
to see the tournament rules changed, so that you have to maximize your
VPs, instead of "only" going for the game win. I was under the
impression, that the changes to the tournament rules (in 2008?) was
implemented to avoid this kind of table-split deals.
Best regards, Ralf
[ quoted text not captured ]
At the moment taht the first 2 were ousted, all deals were off.
Peter now has an obligation to attempt to win the game. (PTW)
by gaining 2.5 vp's, he wins. Although within the letter of the law, i
personally feel this violates the spirit of the no deals in 2 player
rule.
On May 31, 6:04 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Yet another playing to win thread (or at least sort of) ...
>
> During the tournament during the last weekend I encountered the
> following situation:
>
> The four player table is set up like this: Peter --> Axel --> Ralf -->
> John
>
> Ralf puts too much pressure on John early on, so John proposes the
> following deal to Peter. John just wants one VP (which is reasonable
> in his position), while Peter takes the GW. Peter accepts, and now the
> following happens. Peter ousts Axel and Ralf in quick succession, and
> then puts John down to one pool (who has no controlled minion), while
> exhausting his library. Instead of bleeding him out, Peter chooses to
> withdraw, and makes the game win by that (with 2.5 VP).
>
> So my question is, was that a legal play? The judge (tournament
> organizer) rule it was.
Yes. He playing to get the game win => he's playing to win.
> My objection is that by choosing to withdraw, Peter's either not
> playing to win (he does not have the game win in that situation yet),
> or much more importantly, Peter's honoring the deal, although all
> deals are off in the heads-up.
The question of honoring a deal only comes up when the activity in
question is not PTW on its own. In this case, the activity is PTW on
its own, so it doesn't matter if the PTW activity would also have been
in keeping with the no-longer-existant deal.
> The counter argument was, that Peter has 2 VPs and is free to make the
> decision how he's making the game win (by ousting John or
> withdrawing).
This is correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On May 31, 12:35 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:04 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:> [snip]> > So my question is, was that a legal play? The judge (tournament
> > organizer) rule it was.
>
> Yes. He playing to get the game win => he's playing to win.
>
> > My objection is that by choosing to withdraw, Peter's either not
> > playing to win (he does not have the game win in that situation yet),
> > or much more importantly, Peter's honoring the deal, although all
> > deals are off in the heads-up.
>
> The question of honoring a deal only comes up when the activity in
> question is not PTW on its own. In this case, the activity is PTW on
> its own, so it doesn't matter if the PTW activity would also have been
> in keeping with the no-longer-existant deal.
>
> > The counter argument was, that Peter has 2 VPs and is free to make the
> > decision how he's making the game win (by ousting John or
> > withdrawing).
>
> This is correct.
Thanks for the clarification & quick answer.
As stated before, then I strongly suggest that maximizing one's VP
(regardless if you have (or will get) the GW) should be part of the
VEKN tournament rules, in order to fix this loophole (at least from my
point of view) in the tournament rules.
Best regards, Ralf
====================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
extrala <ralf.l...@gmx.de> wrote:
>As stated before, then I strongly suggest that maximizing one's VP
>(regardless if you have (or will get) the GW) should be part of the
>VEKN tournament rules, in order to fix this loophole (at least from my
>point of view) in the tournament rules.
Such a rules change has potential collateral damage that you would need
to carefully examine.
In particular, it means that players can and should prevent cross-table
ousts on a table. *Any* oust by another player means that your Game Win
will not be a sweep. Therefore, to maximize your VPs with your Game
Win, everyone else has to still be in the game. Of course, the other
players will think similarly. This can lead to a flurry of defensive
action and stagnation - in a close game, potentially none of the players
who think they can win the table can allow anyone to be ousted and must
vote to save a player, and so on.
Certainly, there are players who will aim for a sweep anyway - it's a
good thing! - but they are not bound by the rules to do so, and there is
no way for another player to get the judge to force such a course of
behaviour. ("But judge, he *has* to save me in this vote, or else he
won't get the sweep.")
This is similar to some of the consequences that would be brought about
by forcing players to maximize TPs (which they don't have to), or
forcing a player to follow a particular course of action when in a lost
position.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On May 31, 1:04 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >As stated before, then I strongly suggest that maximizing one's VP
> >(regardless if you have (or will get) the GW) should be part of the
> >VEKN tournament rules, in order to fix this loophole (at least from my
> >point of view) in the tournament rules.
>> [...]> In particular, it means that players can and should prevent cross-table
> ousts on a table. *Any* oust by another player means that your Game Win
> will not be a sweep. Therefore, to maximize your VPs with your Game
> Win, everyone else has to still be in the game. Of course, the other
> players will think similarly. This can lead to a flurry of defensive
> action and stagnation - in a close game, potentially none of the players
> who think they can win the table can allow anyone to be ousted and must
> vote to save a player, and so on.
You're right. I haven't thought about that. :S
On the other hand, I was a bit upset about the situation, that we have
the heads-up situation where one player has total dominance while the
other player has literally one pool, and while all deals are off, he
still chooses to withdraw, which was in the spirit of the deal these
two players made before.
Alas, with your thoughts stated I have no idea what do about this
situation in clear way, which won't prevent other game situations
becoming *more* complicated. Or I put the whole game situation into
the drawer labeled "don't put too much pressure on your prey, or he
makes a deal with his prey"!!?!
Thanks for your insight,
Ralf
[ quoted text not captured ]
sure he might not have been playing to get the most wp , but i think
it was honorable to hold that deal , yes all deals are off in 1v1 but
the sense of honor is still there when you promised your friend a vp
> sure he might not have been playing to get the most wp , but i think
> it was honorable to hold that deal , yes all deals are off in 1v1 but
> the sense of honor is still there when you promised your friend a vp
There is no honor in VTES. At least in the rules.
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
Where are the rules to life listed? :)
Honor merely exists because of a cosmic belief that anything you send
out in the universe, is returned to you in some way or another. Be a
total jerk and you will probably experience people being a jerk to you
as well. Be honorable and there is a higher chance people will treat
you the same. In this specific case, the nice guy in the scenario can
probably be pretty certain that the other player will return the favor
in a similar reversed situation in the future. As opposed to if he had
ousted him.
PS: The conclusion must be that honorable people are actually just
selfish like everyone else... :)
On Jun 1, 8:38 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where are the rules to life listed? :)
All over the place. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who
fervently believe that their rulebook is the only correct one, which
leads to all kinds of conflict.
John Eno
extrala schrieb:
> On the other hand, I was a bit upset about the situation, that we have
> the heads-up situation where one player has total dominance while the
> other player has literally one pool, and while all deals are off, he
> still chooses to withdraw, which was in the spirit of the deal these
> two players made before.
I still do not get why you are upset about this. The new rules were
implemented to force players not to loose the game/forfeit the GW in a
heads up situation because of a previously made deal. This was done to
prevent the very early (in the game) split deals we were seeing back in
the day, which were frustrating for the other players. The new rules
were never made to shut down VP deals entirely and force players to
maximize VPs under all circumstances disregarding the spirit of
previously made arrangments, which is a good thing since arrangements
are part of this game. This is and has always been a social game, even
if some people want it to be a card-slappers game.
librarian schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Your game is usually not only governed by the rulebook rules but also by
your personal standards towards other players. These standards differ
from player to player and we shouldn�t try to impose our set of
standards to other players. I like to make deals and generally try to
honor them. Other players don�t like deals, fine for me, I leave them alone.