[LSJ] Deal-making revisited

The following situation happened the other day in tournament where we had 4 Methuselahs, seated in the following order: Blood Brothers, Obf/Dom, !Salubri, Gargoyles. The Blood Brothers Methuselah offered to oust himself to the Gargoyle deck if he were able to obtain 1 VP for himself. Given the state of game listed below, is this deal legal in terms of maximising VPs/GWs, and what considerations should the judge use in making their decision (e.g., game state)? The state of the game is included below... 40 minutes left in the game. Blood Brothers - 14 pool. Mark - 4 blood, Blood Doll, Fortitude Truman - 4 blood Karl - 6 blood 3 uncontrolled vampires with 1 blood each. Obf/Dom - 11 pool. 1 Victory Point. Ohanna - 1 blood. Laurent - 2 blood Ingrid - 4 blood Salubri Antitribu - 12 pool Thomas - 4 blood Adonai - 2 blood. Rack. Wolf - 3 blood. Crimson Sentinel, Garotte, Auspex. Gargoyles - 13 pool. Erinyi - 3 blood. Obsidian - 2 blood, Armor of Terra Ferox - 4 blood, Armor of Terra, Masochism. Powerbase: Chicago - 1 blood. Cheers, Anthony Barker.

On 15 Jul 2003 01:36:48 -0700, anthony...@yahoo.com.au (Anthony Barker) wrote: >The following situation happened the other day in tournament where we >had 4 Methuselahs, seated in the following order: Blood Brothers, >Obf/Dom, !Salubri, Gargoyles. The Blood Brothers Methuselah offered to >oust himself to the Gargoyle deck if he were able to obtain 1 VP for >himself. Given the state of game listed below, is this deal legal in >terms of maximising VPs/GWs, and what considerations should the judge >use in making their decision (e.g., game state)? Nothing in your game state indicates that the Gargoyles can ever oust the Blood Brothers. This is a stupid thing for the Blood Brothers player to be considering unless he is out of library cards. Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

The Lasombra wrote: :: Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, :: or including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or :: encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. thinking the same thing but, hey some people still fail to understand that : i played with a guy last week who's deck is only composed of AUS weenies, eagle sights and disguised guns. His aim is to deal 1 or 2 VP since he says he has the capacity to stop any one. Yeah and how does he win ? he does not. He makes table split and is always on the bad end, meaning he helps someone to win while he loses. A loss, even with 2 vp is a loss. I just can't understand this attitude =)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:32:04 +0200, reyda wrote: >I just can't understand this attitude =) Some game players don't want to win - it makes them uncomfortable. There used to be a guy in my gaming circle who was famous for it - if he ever started to win a game, he would immediately throw the game on some pretext. I suppose that they just play to socialise and have a naturally subordinate personality. It's like the recidivist I was just reading about in The Spectator. He liked being in prison and, for a small fee, would confess to crimes committed by others. Why did he like going to prison? Because they told him what to do. Most women are like this I suppose and that's why so few of them play games or reach the top in real life organisations. Maybe accusing male players of feminine behaviour will get them to "play the game"? But they may just shrug. The chap I'm thinking of above subsequently came out as a "gay". This also seemed like compulsive masochism as it was at the height of the AIDS scare. Andrew

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<p1j7hvkotd6qp4oke...@4ax.com>... > Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or > including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or > encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. Amen. I enjoy tournaments much less than regular play because you run into this kind of contemptable strategy.

> Nothing in your game state indicates that the Gargoyles can ever oust > the Blood Brothers. This is a stupid thing for the Blood Brothers > player to be considering unless he is out of library cards. > > Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or > including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or > encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. > > > Carpe noctem. > > Lasombra > > http://www.TheLasombra.com I agree with your opinion entirely. I have played with you a few times (at origins pick up games). The most recent time I torped my guy with fame that you grave robbed. I have enjoyed playing with you the few times I had the oportunity, as I could see that you played with class. There is not a lot of non-sense whining and table talk out of you, in my experience. It seems that you are interested in playing your deck and seeing if that is good enough to win. Unfortunatly, this is not the most common opinion. The game rewards people for making 'shady' deals of the nature cited above. I actually had a short correspondance with LSJ a couple of weeks ago about the subject of deal making and sportsmanship. I was left with the impression that the rules can not penalize any sort of questionably sportsman-like play.

in article p1j7hvkotd6qp4oke...@4ax.com, The Lasombra at TheLa...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/15/03 5:44 AM: > On 15 Jul 2003 01:36:48 -0700, anthony...@yahoo.com.au (Anthony > Barker) wrote: > >> The following situation happened the other day in tournament where we >> had 4 Methuselahs, seated in the following order: Blood Brothers, >> Obf/Dom, !Salubri, Gargoyles. The Blood Brothers Methuselah offered to >> oust himself to the Gargoyle deck if he were able to obtain 1 VP for >> himself. Given the state of game listed below, is this deal legal in >> terms of maximising VPs/GWs, and what considerations should the judge >> use in making their decision (e.g., game state)? > > Nothing in your game state indicates that the Gargoyles can ever oust > the Blood Brothers. This is a stupid thing for the Blood Brothers > player to be considering unless he is out of library cards. > OTOH, this very well could have been a ruse to keep the Gargoyle deck off of him. Maybe he was trying to put the Gargoyle player into a position to go upstream and hurt his predator (assuming a rush strategy), so that when the BB player did get his 1 VP, his new prey may be sufficiently weakened by the upstream activity for the BB to then break the deal and oust his new prey, even leaving him in a position to oust the rest of the table. If anything, one should probably blame the Gargoyle player for accepting the offer (assuming he did). I guess a good paraphrase might be: "There are no stupid offers, just stupid deals." > Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or > including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or > encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. In other words, players should play to maximize their VPs during the entire game, even if they already have enough to win the game. Eh, I don't think I'd be opposed to that, as it might take an element of "take advantage of the newbie" out of the equation. Yeah, vampires are supposed to be right bastards. Doesn't mean that players have to be as well. Dan

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 05:44:22 -0400, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled: >On 15 Jul 2003 01:36:48 -0700, anthony...@yahoo.com.au (Anthony >Barker) wrote: > >>The following situation happened the other day in tournament where we >>had 4 Methuselahs, seated in the following order: Blood Brothers, >>Obf/Dom, !Salubri, Gargoyles. The Blood Brothers Methuselah offered to >>oust himself to the Gargoyle deck if he were able to obtain 1 VP for >>himself. Given the state of game listed below, is this deal legal in >>terms of maximising VPs/GWs, and what considerations should the judge >>use in making their decision (e.g., game state)? > >Nothing in your game state indicates that the Gargoyles can ever oust >the Blood Brothers. This is a stupid thing for the Blood Brothers >player to be considering unless he is out of library cards. all the Gargoyles were non-slave. the game looked like it was going to go to time at the time the deal was offered. the BB thought they could maybe get 1vp if they had no pressure from their predator, thus upping themselves from 0.5 vp to 1vp. the gargoyles didn't think they could oust the BB within time if the BB were trying to defend, so accepting the deal ups them also from 0.5vp to 1vp. i can't see why the deal wouldn't be legal under current VEKN rules. which is why I accepted it (being the Gargoyle player). The game timed out anyway, despite the deal. >Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or >including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or >encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. I'm still undecided on this point. From a play standpoint, i definately prefer to make non-vp deals. But sometime's it's hard to rule where a game play deal becomes a vp deal. ('i'll tap out every turn hunting once i have ousted this guy, and not do anything to gain pool, and spend as much pool on transfers as i can each turn, if you leave me alone until i have my prey down to 1 pool or less' would essentially be a vp deal..) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:06:07 -0400, Dan Keller <fitz...@earthlink.net> scrawled: >in article p1j7hvkotd6qp4oke...@4ax.com, The Lasombra at >TheLa...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/15/03 5:44 AM: > >> On 15 Jul 2003 01:36:48 -0700, anthony...@yahoo.com.au (Anthony >> Barker) wrote: >> >>> The following situation happened the other day in tournament where we >>> had 4 Methuselahs, seated in the following order: Blood Brothers, >>> Obf/Dom, !Salubri, Gargoyles. The Blood Brothers Methuselah offered to >>> oust himself to the Gargoyle deck if he were able to obtain 1 VP for >>> himself. Given the state of game listed below, is this deal legal in >>> terms of maximising VPs/GWs, and what considerations should the judge >>> use in making their decision (e.g., game state)? >> >> Nothing in your game state indicates that the Gargoyles can ever oust >> the Blood Brothers. This is a stupid thing for the Blood Brothers >> player to be considering unless he is out of library cards. >> > >OTOH, this very well could have been a ruse to keep the Gargoyle deck off of >him. Maybe he was trying to put the Gargoyle player into a position to go >upstream and hurt his predator (assuming a rush strategy), so that when the >BB player did get his 1 VP, his new prey may be sufficiently weakened by the >upstream activity for the BB to then break the deal and oust his new prey, >even leaving him in a position to oust the rest of the table. >If anything, one should probably blame the Gargoyle player for accepting the >offer (assuming he did). I guess a good paraphrase might be: "There are no >stupid offers, just stupid deals." maybe 'there are no stupid deals, just stupid people who accept them'. like me. I, yes I! was the gargoyles. I accepted the deal. i considered the obf/dom deck to be the table threat. i would have been happy with it dead. and if the deal went as agreed, the obf/dom would have 1vp, the BB 1vp, and me 1vp (from the BB 'collapsing'), and have been able to build up quietly without having to worry about forward pressure at the expense of defense. and my new prey would have happened to be the predator i had been giving a blood nose to every time he tried to do something, which should have left me in a good position to get the game win. would have been great about 1hr earlier. also, i knew the BB player and was fairly certain that he'd keep his end of the deal. ...although he did seem to be bloating a bit...hmmm... >> Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or >> including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or >> encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. > >In other words, players should play to maximize their VPs during the entire >game, even if they already have enough to win the game. i don't see how that follows from what the lasombra said. but i do agree with the sentiments none the less, and anyone playing in a tourney might do well to follow it. you need GW to get into the finals, and the objective of the game is to get a GW. once you have your game win, you can do whatever you want. which, if you want to have your pick of seats in the final round, will be maximising the remaining vps to yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The state of the game is included below... For analysis, if it only were possible to describe situations so briefly. >40 minutes left in the game. > >Blood Brothers - 14 pool. > Mark - 4 blood, Blood Doll, Fortitude > Truman - 4 blood > Karl - 6 blood > 3 uncontrolled vampires with 1 blood each. More pool than any other player, more blood on vampires than any other player, prey has the least amount of pool, predator has limited ability to reduce pool. "Ally" not in immediate danger of going under. Without knowing anything more, I'd say the BB deck is in a dominant position. Based on data provided, such a deal is ludicrous. As the Gargoyle player, probably verbatim, I'd say "why don't you just win?". >Obf/Dom - 11 pool. 1 Victory Point. > Ohanna - 1 blood. > Laurent - 2 blood > Ingrid - 4 blood This is *not* threatening. Would have to have a significant advantage in amount of remaining library to qualify as the table threat. Either that, or the other decks have to suck (which could be the case). [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<i1o7hvgf0gg4jt0dc...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] It's probably neither wise nor accurate to generalize women like this; I know some fine female gamers, as competitive as anyone. Regards, Patrick Columbus, OH

Howdy, Is there some consideration that the game state doesn't show? 'Cause it looks to me like the Blood Brothers should have a fairly easy time with the obf/dom deck, and then maybe a slightly more difficult time with the !Salubri, whose combat they should trump. And as was pointed out earlier, I don't see how the Gargoyles can really do anything about either oust, or significantly harm the BB. The BB player may not be able to oust the Gargoyles (though I wouldn't be on that either), but he can almost certainly time out the game after gaining 2 VP, for 2.5 VP and a table win. As a judge, I'd want the BB player to explain to me why he doesn't think he can gain more than 1 VP... A good explanation would be that he accidentally grabbed the wrong library for his crypt or something. Hope that helps, Alex

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<i1o7hvgf0gg4jt0dc...@4ax.com>... > Some game players don't want to win - it makes them uncomfortable. > ...I suppose that they just play to socialise and have a > naturally subordinate personality. ... > Most women are like this I suppose and that's why so few of them play > games or reach the top in real life organisations. > Andrew Yeah, most of the women I know have naturally subordinate personalities. [/sarcasm] I can't believe I didn't killfile this troll years ago. <plonk>

In message <d778hvs23qd9gmfie...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 05:44:22 -0400, The Lasombra ><TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled: > >>Nothing in your game state indicates that the Gargoyles can ever oust >>the Blood Brothers. This is a stupid thing for the Blood Brothers >>player to be considering unless he is out of library cards. > >all the Gargoyles were non-slave. the game looked like it was going to >go to time at the time the deal was offered. the BB thought they could >maybe get 1vp if they had no pressure from their predator, thus upping >themselves from 0.5 vp to 1vp. There were 40 minutes left in the game. There was absolutely no need to even CONSIDER if the game was going to go to time yet. Gargoyles bleed for 1 each. The Blood Brothers have 14 pool, 3 pool available from transfers-back, and a Blood Doll with 4 blood on it; effectively making about 20 pool. It would have taken the Gargoyles seven turns to oust the Blood Brothers, assuming the Blood Brothers did not play any more Unwholesome Bonds or find some other means to gain pool. In those seven turns, the BB could -easily- oust their own prey. >the gargoyles didn't think they could oust the BB within time if the >BB were trying to defend, so accepting the deal ups them also from >0.5vp to 1vp. The Gargoyles are not at fault for accepting the deal. They were going to get a big fat zero VP otherwise. The Blood Brothers should never have been allowed to offer the deal. If the judge was called over for this, he made a huge mistake. If he wasn't, well, you should be calling judges when people with 14 pool (!!) threaten to oust themselves. >i can't see why the deal wouldn't be legal under current VEKN rules. >which is why I accepted it (being the Gargoyle player). The Blood Brothers had every expectation of sweeping. THAT's what makes it illegal. >>Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or >>including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or >>encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. Agreed. I am tired of people ousting themselves. I am tired of people doing all KINDS of shit that has nothing to do with trying to win the game. -- How do you know if your keyboard was made by the KGB? ... There's no ESC.

Hey All, I completely and respectfully disagree with The Lasombra that dealmaking including VPs is unsportsmanlike. What definition of "sportsmanlike" are you using? The one that I use is: - Try to get a GW. - If there's no reasonable possibility of getting a GW, maximize VPs. - If there's no reasonable possibility of getting any VPs, do whatever you want. "Reasonable" is defined by the judge at the time, but I personally define it as at least a 5% - 10% chance. > It's probably neither wise nor accurate to generalize women like this; > I know some fine female gamers, as competitive as anyone. I think you can go ahead and change that "probably" to a "definitely." Finally, regarding the specific example, I think a lot of depends on the forward pressure of the gargoyles. If there were several force of will + daring the dawn, then I could see the brood blothers being more afraid and willing to deal (since they don't have bounce.) It does seem like a potentially illegal deal to me, though. Ira

> 40 minutes left in the game. > > Blood Brothers - 14 pool. > Mark - 4 blood, Blood Doll, Fortitude > Truman - 4 blood > Karl - 6 blood > 3 uncontrolled vampires with 1 blood each. > > Obf/Dom - 11 pool. 1 Victory Point. > Ohanna - 1 blood. > Laurent - 2 blood > Ingrid - 4 blood > > Salubri Antitribu - 12 pool > Thomas - 4 blood > Adonai - 2 blood. Rack. > Wolf - 3 blood. Crimson Sentinel, Garotte, Auspex. > > Gargoyles - 13 pool. > Erinyi - 3 blood. > Obsidian - 2 blood, Armor of Terra > Ferox - 4 blood, Armor of Terra, Masochism. > Powerbase: Chicago - 1 blood. The Obf/Dom looks weakest from this and havibng 1VP means it has lost 6 pool more than anyone else. Were deflections/obedience a big problem? What's the business with uncontrolled vamps on 1 blood?

On 15 Jul 2003 16:00:49 -0700, ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote: >Hey All, > I completely and respectfully disagree with The Lasombra that >dealmaking including VPs is unsportsmanlike. What definition of >"sportsmanlike" are you using? The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and all beat him. The one that says I won't destroy the game for someone else by becoming an additional predator and ousting them when I can oust my prey by myself and attempt to win on my own the same way the rest of the table is playing. The definition of sportsmanship that says "Let the best man win". The person with the best whining skills or the best manipulation via discussion skills is not (necessarily) the best player at the table. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:00:30 +0100, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] the BB did a few superior Unwholseome bonds. the 1 blood on uncontrolled was a result of that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Jul 2003 09:45:05 -0700, Patrick van der Reest wrote: >It's probably neither wise nor accurate to generalize women like this; Hence the word "most". I saw the VTES crowd recently in your home town at Origins. I only noticed one woman, Robyn. I haven't played with her but suppose that she's one of the exceptions. For Shadowfist, I didn't see any women players at all. For Doomtown there were three and they typify my comment. One wrote, "Maybe it's the accent, but there is something about the way he organizes the events that makes sitting down to play fun and unintimidating." Cutthroat competition is not what such women seek and they really don't care whether they win or not. They are good to have around though and that's why I encourage them to participate. Andrew

> Most women are like this I suppose and that's why so few of them play > games or reach the top in real life organisations. This is just wrong. 1) Most women don't play for the same reasons that most men don't.. whatever they may be ;-) 2) "real life organisations" discriminate against women. If this attitude is more common among women it is probably culturally inspired (this doesn't dispute your point but I thought it was worth mentioning -note "more common" not "most" though I'm speaking about our culture and primarily peole under 40 who were actually brought up in a relatively egaliarian society).

> were three and they typify my comment. One wrote, "Maybe it's the > accent, but there is something about the way he organizes the events > that makes sitting down to play fun and unintimidating." Cutthroat > competition is not what such women seek and they really don't care > whether they win or not. They are good to have around though and > that's why I encourage them to participate. You can be easily intimidated by strangers and still want to win. Indeed a lot of people forget to be shy once they get into a competition. There is a big difference between what happens inthe game and what happens outside it.

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: :: Most women are like this I suppose and that's why so few of them :: play games or reach the top in real life organisations. yeah. sure. and the poor are poor because they don't want to work. take your pitiful statement back and try to use your brain next time before posting such immature stuff.

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03071...@posting.google.com>... > Hey All, > > I completely and respectfully disagree with The Lasombra that > dealmaking including VPs is unsportsmanlike. What definition of > "sportsmanlike" are you using? The one that I use is: > > - Try to get a GW. > - If there's no reasonable possibility of getting a GW, maximize VPs. > - If there's no reasonable possibility of getting any VPs, do whatever > you want. > > "Reasonable" is defined by the judge at the time, but I personally > define it as at least a 5% - 10% chance. I am sure both you and all judges have a function algorithm for determining the likelihood of varying outcomes. Perhaps you would care to share it with the rest of the world. With my terrestrial knowledge of mathematics I am usually forced to keep trying to win under the assumption that I can. > > > It's probably neither wise nor accurate to generalize women like this; > > I know some fine female gamers, as competitive as anyone. > > I think you can go ahead and change that "probably" to a > "definitely." > Just to consistantly disagree with you with have to say that women are forced into a subordinate position by their lack of physical superiority. > Finally, regarding the specific example, I think a lot of depends on > the forward pressure of the gargoyles. If there were several force of > will + daring the dawn, then I could see the brood blothers being more > afraid and willing to deal (since they don't have bounce.) It does > seem like a potentially illegal deal to me, though. > > Ira I would love to see a judge tell me my play (other than specific card related issues) is illegal. The concept of the judge telling the player what to do seems to be anathmae to LSJ's concept of the game. It also would be interesting to see what sort of table balance is maintained when I take my cards with me and go home. Not that these things are likely to happen, but really, if the judge feels like playing my game why should I stick around?

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2m59hv8ffnujecas9...@4ax.com>... > On 15 Jul 2003 16:00:49 -0700, ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote: > > >Hey All, > > > I completely and respectfully disagree with The Lasombra that > >dealmaking including VPs is unsportsmanlike. What definition of > >"sportsmanlike" are you using? > > The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with > one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and > all beat him. Continuing the analogy, not if that one man is twice my size or holding a weapon. You're assuming 1v1 is a "fair" fight. In VTES, I find decks/players are rarely equally matched. Besides, if you want to win, you should be looking to create an "unfair" fight that preserves your own resources so you can carry the table later on. > The one that says I won't destroy the game for someone else by > becoming an additional predator and ousting them when I can oust my > prey by myself and attempt to win on my own the same way the rest of > the table is playing. I somewhat agree with this. Ideally, we should not interfere with the predator-prey balance. However, I note the conditional "when I can oust my prey by myself". What about when you face your foil as a prey/predator? No deck can cover all the eventualities in VTES. When that situation comes up, I think the smart move is to deal with the table to get the foil gone, not keep bashing my head into a wall in a vain hope that I alone can conquer all. > The definition of sportsmanship that says "Let the best man win". Commendable, yes. A good way to win, no. > The person with the best whining skills or the best manipulation via > discussion skills is not (necessarily) the best player at the table. VTES is a game of manipulation (says so right on the box). The best player, IMHO, is the one with the best deck, best negotiation skills, and a solid dollop of luck (it is a card game after all). > Carpe noctem. > > Lasombra > > http://www.TheLasombra.com Respectfully disagreeing, Aramis

On 16 Jul 2003 07:09:12 -0700, came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) scrawled: >The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2m59hv8ffnujecas9...@4ax.com>... >> The person with the best whining skills or the best manipulation via >> discussion skills is not (necessarily) the best player at the table. > >VTES is a game of manipulation (says so right on the box). The best >player, IMHO, is the one with the best deck, best negotiation skills, >and a solid dollop of luck (it is a card game after all). I do beleive the game as a whole takes in strategy, deck building, tactics, negotiation and maniulation. I think the person who is best overall at all these things is the 'best player'. it's a multiplayer game. interacting with those people is part of it. if it wasn't, you may as well just play a linked series of one-on-one games, where results of one game give you more or less pool in the next, or something. as to vps, i beleive i said before i am sort of against them from a personal preference, but i don't think they should be disallowed by the rules. it's rare that i will offer a vp deal. but if one is offered to me that looks good, i have no problem taking it. and by 'looks good' there is the obvious judgement thing...do i trust the guy, can i do better without the deal, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jul 2003 06:40:08 -0700, Jeff Haar wrote: > ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03071...@posting.google.com>... >> Hey All, >> >> I completely and respectfully disagree with The Lasombra that >> dealmaking including VPs is unsportsmanlike. What definition of >> "sportsmanlike" are you using? The one that I use is: >> >> - Try to get a GW. >> - If there's no reasonable possibility of getting a GW, maximize VPs. >> - If there's no reasonable possibility of getting any VPs, do whatever >> you want. >> >> "Reasonable" is defined by the judge at the time, but I personally >> define it as at least a 5% - 10% chance. > > I am sure both you and all judges have a function algorithm for > determining the likelihood of varying outcomes. Perhaps you would care > to share it with the rest of the world. With my terrestrial knowledge > of mathematics I am usually forced to keep trying to win under the > assumption that I can. It is useful to have some idea of what "reasonable" means. Obviously it is only approximate and you can't measure it in game but you can sure as hell tell the difference between an 80% chance and a 10% chance. Personally i would say that 10% and even 5% *is* a reasonable chance (before any cards are played you only have 20% of winning -and that's assuming a winner at all).I'd go nearer 1% myself. > I would love to see a judge tell me my play (other than specific card > related issues) is illegal. The concept of the judge telling the > player what to do seems to be anathmae to LSJ's concept of the game. > It also would be interesting to see what sort of table balance is > maintained when I take my cards with me and go home. Not that these > things are likely to happen, but really, if the judge feels like > playing my game why should I stick around? IIUC the judge only says anything if one of the players calls on them for a ruling. If you are messing the table up (against the rules) the judge has a duty to stop you (at least if someone complains) -I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm not sure if the judge should tell the table that the deal is illegal in any case -it's not the making of the deal that is illegal after all and if they were planning to break it ou would really mess up the plan... then again if the judge has been called in, most of the table has already seen thorugh the plan anyway.

On 16 Jul 2003 07:09:12 -0700, Aramis wrote: >VTES is a game of manipulation (says so right on the box) But who or what is manipulated? Both the box and the rules say that it's the younger vampires which are manipulated by the Methusalehs - they do not manipulate each other. There's nothing on the box or in the rules which suggests that this is a game of negotiation or deal-making. It's a trading card game in which you assume a role. You act out this role by taking the game actions which are detailed in the rules. Deal-making is not one of them. Andrew

Well, this is sensitive issue.. you can't even say 'most' unless you got stats to prove it.. I can say 'most' minorities hate whites.. it sounds reasonable, but is it true at all? :) (hell, i'm part white, maybe that's why I have internal conflict... ) Anyways, I didn't post this to debate the 'social' issue.. but I can tell you this, Robyn is a shrewd player... played with her at the tournaments and realized this player isn't someone you wanna look light on. And yes, I wish more females play this game.. but I sense the competitive spirit is different among female players.. dunno what it is.. the game format or maybe something else.. Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<186ahv8ntr3t23480...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

> this to debate the 'social' issue.. but I can tell you this, Robyn is > a shrewd player... played with her at the tournaments and realized There is a reason why they always kill the female terrorist first.. ;-D

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) writes: > > Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or > > including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or > > encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. > > Amen. I enjoy tournaments much less than regular play because you run > into this kind of contemptable strategy. It's contemptible to want to get the most VPs you can? So, the best players are those who come last? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes: > The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with > one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and > all beat him. You might do better in a one-on-one game, then. V:TES was designed by Richard Garfield to include a limited (by various factors) capacity for diplomacy, negotiation and group threats - people cannot *freely* interact, but they *can* interact. Your problem is not with whether people are being sporting or not, but with the game being played as it was designed to be played. Bear in mind the anecdote Richard gives in the White Wolf book, regarding two other players both playing Political Backlash to oust a third player. That sort of thing is *supposed* to happen. If playing a game how it is designed to be played isn't sporting, what is? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jul 2003 16:47:19 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> scrawled: >emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) writes: > >> > Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or >> > including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or >> > encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. >> >> Amen. I enjoy tournaments much less than regular play because you run >> into this kind of contemptable strategy. > >It's contemptible to want to get the most VPs you can? > >So, the best players are those who come last? *cheers from sideline* Go James! (you do tend to me more concise and ..umm...other words that mean you speak good thinking... than me :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jul 2003, DeistMutts wrote: > competitive spirit is different among female players.. dunno what it > is.. the game format or maybe something else.. My wife plays, when we play at our house and if we need her. She occasionally attends tournaments with me. Judging from her comments (and she is exceedingly polite as only a Southern Belle can be), it has most to do with the childish outbursts many Jyhad players are prone to. Even more than that, though, is her dislike at being told how to play her game by other players. I've explained to her that it's primarily people jockying to improve their own postitions rather than condescension, but it is still a negative experience for her. She hasn't *quite* hit the point where she'll build her own decks (although I did come home the other day and find her cruising ELDB!). Her latest deck is a quite simple affair: group 2/3 pot/cel, as small as they can come. 12 Hacks, 12 Rushes, potence grapple combat backed up by Flashes, Sideslips, and blurs. My advice to her was to take that deck and just smoosh whoever her prey was. They'll whine, they'll squirm, they'll shriek.... just ignore it and kill, kill, kill. She seems to enjoy it, although I also seem to be cursed to sit next to it when I bring her along. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2m59hv8ffnujecas9...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Can you compartmentalize a VTES table like that though? Each player operates at the table independently from the other players, but they are not in a vacuum. VTES is about balance, more pressure in places alleviates pressure in others. The fact that you necessarily need to go backwards in order to survive sometimes means that there will necessarily be a "ganging up." The integral part of table talk and politics in order to pass votes is in a sense ganging up. Several games degenerate into the table turning on the strongest deck. All of these examples seem at odds with you statement, is there any clarification you can add that would include these situations?

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2m59hv8ffnujecas9...@4ax.com>... > On 15 Jul 2003 16:00:49 -0700, ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote: > > >Hey All, > > > I completely and respectfully disagree with The Lasombra that > >dealmaking including VPs is unsportsmanlike. What definition of > >"sportsmanlike" are you using? > > The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with > one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and > all beat him. I completely agree with Ira. And disagree with The Lasombra. Being sportsmanlike can't overshadow the rules and purpose of the sport. (Fisticuffs not being a sport I currently engage in I'll defer to The Lasombra on the rules involved there, but as I play VTES I've got some opinions on that.) In VTES I don't have a problem with just one man, if I did I'd be playing M:tG. I have a problem with between 2 and 4 others. If to *win* as defined by the rules means I have to bring in help from another table (and the rules somehow let me) I'd do it. Why? Because the purpose of this game is to win, and table manipulation is a large part of that. If I can get someone to help me win for a favor, heck yes I'll make that deal. If their position is bettered by it cool, it means that they're more likely to follow through. I know a few people who have a problem with this, they came up playing M:tG and like the control provided by the dueling format, there is only one person and they are always the enemy. VTES isn't so clear cut, its political, it involves manipulation and use of resources (including the ultimate victory conditions) to help you get the top position at a table. Don't like it? Sorry, really I am, because the game should be enjoyable even when you're losing. You should at least be learning something (like how to deal at a table.) > The one that says I won't destroy the game for someone else by > becoming an additional predator and ousting them when I can oust my > prey by myself and attempt to win on my own the same way the rest of > the table is playing. My purpose is to "destroy the game for someone else." It's not to make them hate VTES, nor to make them quit, but I WANT MY PREY GONE. If I guess right in the meta-game then I get to totally destroy someone. I take away their ability to play, and oust them as quickly as possiable. Of course I try to be nice about it, but the purpose of the game is to gain VP's. By ousting as efficiently as possiable I can do that. If I can trade Vote damage for rushes against my prey's intercept vampire, I'll do that in a second, so what that two people now have two enemies, I'm moving towards my victory condition. A side consideration (one that I'm not allowed to think about!) is making sure that I'm not losing players. So in pick-up games, and when teaching someone I play easy decks, weaning people up to a tournement level of play. But in a tournement if I'm not playing to win I'm doing everyone there a disservice. > The definition of sportsmanship that says "Let the best man win". > > > The person with the best whining skills or the best manipulation via > discussion skills is not (necessarily) the best player at the table. If they win, then they are. (not over time, or even in the next game, but if they win the table they were the best player at the table.) They may not be the most liked, but they were the best. As an asside: if a deck sits down and can't do anything to oust it's prey, and the prey likes it that way (Say an assamite attack deck preying on an IC obediance/PTO monster) then what is wrong with a deal? The assamite improves its position (0 vps -> whatever it can deal for) and the vote deck doesn't have to waste its offensive votes on its Predator, and assures itself a victory. does this suck for the rest of the table if they can't do anything about it? Yes. Is it the deal makers fault? No, they brought decks that win the metagame and made a deal to enhance their position at that table. A similiar thing happens when two combat decks sit next to each other. There is no reason for them both to hurt their chances of winning by not wanting to annoy the table. Cameron Domer Prince of Madison

Hello All, > The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with > one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and > all beat him. I do agree with this traditional definition of sportsmanship. I think it also includes being a gracious winner and a gracious loser. I guess what I was trying to say is that the tournament rules should not use the word "sportsmanship" because the game itself isn't sportsmanlike. For instance, deal breaking is CERTAINLY not sportsmanlike, but that's completely allowed and adds a lot to the game. I'm asking you what rules you would apply to dealmaking that would make the game more fun overall. Personally, I think the rules as they are now make the game pretty good, and prevent collusion to a good degree. The Lasombra, if you could propose something different, I would certainly like to consider it. > I am sure both you and all judges have a function algorithm for > determining the likelihood of varying outcomes. Perhaps you would care > to share it with the rest of the world. With my terrestrial knowledge > of mathematics I am usually forced to keep trying to win under the > assumption that I can. Surely you admit that in some situations you have an extremely low chance of winning. In those situations, it's good to try to dealmake to get even 1/2 a VP. Usually the threat in those cases is transferring yourself out. If you fail to negotiate successfully, then IMO it's fine to follow through with your threat and just oust yourself right there. > I would love to see a judge tell me my play (other than specific card > related issues) is illegal. I think this is referring to dealmaking and collusion, which are illegal. For instance, let's say you sit down at a table with your good friend as your prey. He knows you need to get 2VPs to get into the finals, and he has no chance of making the finals. He brings up no minions during the game, and ousts himself as quickly as possible. That would be an example of illegal play that the Judge should disallow. Ira

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<p1j7hvkotd6qp4oke...@4ax.com>... > Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points away, or > including victory points should ever be allowed, discussed, or > encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their very nature. I don't have any problem with deals, I just think *this* deal was bogus. Derek Ray is ontarget; the BB deck should be playing to win. Rush out his prey and start bleeding; he's virtually guaranteed 1.5 VPs at least unless somebody stalls. Low-agression predator, best combat on a combat table, bloating ability - I wish I got into situations like that! (To be really sophisticated, try to let his prey manage one more big bleed before rushing out. Rush twice and bitch about not having rushes. THEN rush him out.) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

James Coupe wrote: :: emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) writes: :: :::: Personal opinion: No deals discussing giving victory points :::: away, or including victory points should ever be allowed, :::: discussed, or encouraged as they are unsportsmanlike by their :::: very nature. ::: ::: Amen. I enjoy tournaments much less than regular play because you ::: run into this kind of contemptable strategy. :: :: It's contemptible to want to get the most VPs you can? is it enjoyable to be someone else's puppet ? :: So, the best players are those who come last? not really. But on a 5 player table, the best player may be the one who chooses to lose an honorable defeat instead of losing by siding with the stealth bleeder. period.

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.03071...@posting.google.com>... > Hello All, > > > The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with > > one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and > > all beat him. > > I do agree with this traditional definition of sportsmanship. I > think it also includes being a gracious winner and a gracious loser. > > I guess what I was trying to say is that the tournament rules should > not use the word "sportsmanship" because the game itself isn't > sportsmanlike. For instance, deal breaking is CERTAINLY not > sportsmanlike, but that's completely allowed and adds a lot to the > game. That is perfectly sportsman as dealmaking is NOT a part of the game. The goal of the game is NOT to make or break deals. Deals are a means to an end. The question needs to be what is the end? > I'm asking you what rules you would apply to dealmaking that would > make the game more fun overall. Personally, I think the rules as they > are now make the game pretty good, and prevent collusion to a good > degree. The Lasombra, if you could propose something different, I > would certainly like to consider it. > > > I am sure both you and all judges have a function algorithm for > > determining the likelihood of varying outcomes. Perhaps you would care > > to share it with the rest of the world. With my terrestrial knowledge > > of mathematics I am usually forced to keep trying to win under the > > assumption that I can. > > Surely you admit that in some situations you have an extremely low > chance of winning. In those situations, it's good to try to dealmake > to get even 1/2 a VP. Usually the threat in those cases is > transferring yourself out. If you fail to negotiate successfully, > then IMO it's fine to follow through with your threat and just oust > yourself right there. Again, how are you determining this situation? I may be more of less pessimistic than you. > > I would love to see a judge tell me my play (other than specific card > > related issues) is illegal. > > I think this is referring to dealmaking and collusion, which are > illegal. For instance, let's say you sit down at a table with your > good friend as your prey. He knows you need to get 2VPs to get into > the finals, and he has no chance of making the finals. He brings up > no minions during the game, and ousts himself as quickly as possible. > That would be an example of illegal play that the Judge should > disallow. I am not referring to collusion. Say I offer some stupid deal I should never reasonably offer, as described in the cited example. How can the judge come over and tell me I can't do this? Maybe I am lying. Maybe I see the table differently. It is not the judges position to explain what is happening to a player (he has no wakes, just oust him) or to mess up my manipulation. I don't really like the 'take advantage of crappy players, screw up someones game who had a valid chance to WIN when I do not' approach but if you are going to allow that you have to allow me to make crappy deals or bull shit someone into a deal I have no intention of keeping. > Ira

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<brqahv0341ol2t8pp...@4ax.com>... > On 16 Jul 2003 07:09:12 -0700, Aramis wrote: > > >VTES is a game of manipulation (says so right on the box) > > But who or what is manipulated? Both the box and the rules say that > it's the younger vampires which are manipulated by the Methusalehs - > they do not manipulate each other. I sure hope you're kidding. I know I couldn't say that to anyone who knows anything about the Vampire series with a straight face. > There's nothing on the box or in the rules which suggests that this is > a game of negotiation or deal-making. Uh, it's called a referendum. Voting is all about negotiation and deal-making, at least when there is more than one player that possesses votes/the edge. As for non-vote evidence of deal-making in the game. I refer you to Richard Garfield's writings (they're on the web somewhere), LSJ's repeated rulings on table-talk and deals, and the Sucubbus Club card which specifically says "Meth who agrees to trade" which in my mind is synomous with "Meth who's willing to deal". > It's a trading card game in > which you assume a role. You act out this role by taking the game > actions which are detailed in the rules. The player is allowed to do things not explicitly detailed in the rules. For example, the rules do not explicitly say you can talk to other players, but you can. The only limitations on player conduct seem to come from VEKN tournament rules and none of them mention deal-making as a prohibited form of conduct. > Deal-making is not one of > them. Correct in that it is not detailed in the rules, incorrect in that you therefore cannot do it. See above evidence. > > Andrew Aramis

On 16 Jul 2003 16:52:26 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: >The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes: >> The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with >> one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and >> all beat him. >You might do better in a one-on-one game, then. You're right. I'm selling all my cards and getting out. Anyone want some? http://www.TheLasombra.com/cardtrader.htm

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:22:54 -0400, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled: [snip] >shriek.... just ignore it and kill, kill, kill. She seems to enjoy it, >although I also seem to be cursed to sit next to it when I bring her >along. what is it with the universe? whenever my girlfriend plays, i end up sitting next to her as well. just about every time.... some 'random chance' that turns out to be.... :P (yes, i am well aware that's it's quite possible statistically to get this outcome...especially in 4 player games when i should 'expect' to sit next to her....but still. argh!) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jul 2003 19:03:55 GMT, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] ahhh. now i see where the ire stems from. as everyone at the tournament knows, the BB were NOT playing rush. maybe, at most, 4 havens in the deck (going from an old deck list). i never saw any. no rush actions at all. they were not going to cream the obf/dom vamps, even if the obf/dom vamps blocked him. the combat seemed to be thrown gate, usually at inferior (due to the vagaries of the Torrence circle and superior SAN), a little prevent, and occasionally a dawn operation. the question is, how much info should the judge be using to determine if the deal is legal? is it merely apparent state of play? is he allowed to look at deck lists, if provided? can he base it on seeing the decks play in previous rounds? or is it only to be based on what he can see right there on the table at the time? and another question: if a player can't see any way to get any vps, so is going to just oust themselves, but the judge can see a way to get vps, and rules they must try to get it, isn't that coaching? i mean, the player didn't see how, but now that they know there is a way they might try extra hard to work it out, using the judge's 'advice' to advance their own game. how is that fair to the other players? if the player still can't work out how it is he can get the extra vp, does he just spin his wheels until he dies anyway? or does the judge tell him how to go for the vps? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:16:24 -0400, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] nononono, you're doing it all wrong. you're supposed to list about 200 commons/uncommons with maybe 20 rares, here on the newsgroup. and then ask $200 for them and tell the buyer to play shipping. don't you research google archives before posting? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem_ch...@yahoo.com writes: >ahhh. now i see where the ire stems from. >as everyone at the tournament knows, the BB were NOT playing rush. >maybe, at most, 4 havens in the deck (going from an old deck list). i >never saw any. no rush actions at all. they were not going to cream >the obf/dom vamps, even if the obf/dom vamps blocked him. >the combat seemed to be thrown gate, usually at inferior (due to the >vagaries of the Torrence circle and superior SAN), a little prevent, >and occasionally a dawn operation. OK, then the BB deck didn't have a clear route to a win. Nonetheless, unless the Gargoyle deck had some nasty offense not yet mentioned, the BB deck could still go all-forward vs. its prey with relatively little risk, given the time contraints. They didn't have to make a deal, and certainly not one to self-oust. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jul 2003 15:25:11 -0700, Aramis wrote: >Uh, it's called a referendum. Voting is all about negotiation and >deal-making, at least when there is more than one player that >possesses votes/the edge. Yes, but these things are represented by the play of cards. If you want to make an impassioned speech about the issue, you're not supposed to actually make such a speech - that's what you'd do in a LARP or RPG session. You just play a card like Bewitching Oration. >I refer you to Richard Garfield's writings I've read them - they say nothing about deals. I think he'd be horrified by the deal discussed at the start of this thread. >the Sucubbus Club card which specifically says "Meth who agrees to >trade" which in my mind is synomous with "Meth who's willing to deal". That's the exception which proves the rule. If there's a card which permits deal-making then this proves that you can't make deals without such a card. >The player is allowed to do things not explicitly detailed in the >rules. For example, the rules do not explicitly say you can talk to >other players, but you can. The only limitations on player conduct >seem to come from VEKN tournament rules and none of them mention >deal-making as a prohibited form of conduct. Game rules tell you what is permitted. Other things are only permitted to the extent that they are reasonable (adjusting the position of your pieces) or irrelevant (drinking a coke). Deal-making is neither. To me, it is as unacceptable as physically wrestling over pool tokens. The rules don't forbid that either because they don't have to. If it's not in the rules then it's not part of the game. Andrew

On 17 Jul 2003 06:01:06 GMT, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] lots of armor of terra. is the BB allowed to make such a deal if he fears force of will/daring the dawn? even if it hasn't come up, surely he's allowed to consider the possibility when making the deal? as the game stood, because we're all really slow players down here ;), the game looked like it would likely time out. surely the BB can make whatever the hell deal he wants if it gives him more than that 0.5 vp, even if it means killing himself as part of it? it's not an issue of whether it's a stupid deal or not. it's whether it's legal or not. if it was a stupid deal, we can just mock him for it, if it's illegal, that's another matter altogether. the origional poster, anothony, is trying to get some precedents to help with further udge calls. the judge at the time ruled it legal. if it's a bit grey and there's nothing glaringly wrong with that decision _based on the available information_, then we can let it drop precedent-wise. if it's OBVIOUS that the judge's call was in error, it would be good to know for future rulings. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:21:14 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> scrawled: >Game rules tell you what is permitted. Other things are only >permitted to the extent that they are reasonable (adjusting the >position of your pieces) or irrelevant (drinking a coke). Deal-making >is neither. To me, it is as unacceptable as physically wrestling over >pool tokens. The rules don't forbid that either because they don't >have to. If it's not in the rules then it's not part of the game. so, for example, if i were to say to someone 'i'll rescue your vampire from torpor if you recue mine', that is illegal? if i just rescue his vampire without the deal, and then in his turn say 'can you rescue my vampire please?', is that ok? am i allowed to say stuff like 'if you don't resuce, your prey will walk over me'? am i allowed to say stuff like 'you wouldn't even have that vampire to act with if i hadn't rescued it'? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes: > > >> The definition of sportsmanship that says if you have a problem with > >> one man, you will fight that man by yourself, not bring 5 friends and > >> all beat him. > > >You might do better in a one-on-one game, then. > > You're right. > > I'm selling all my cards and getting out. > > Anyone want some? > Your kidding right Lasombra? Andrew.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:57:25 +1000, salem wrote: >so, for example, if i were to say to someone 'i'll rescue your vampire >from torpor if you recue mine', that is illegal? Strictly speaking, that's right. That's what cards like Minor Boon are for. In practise, you get a slippery slope. It starts when you're teaching the game to new players and so have to advise them as they play the game. This plus social banter develops into competitive whining and informal coordination. Then you get extended negotiations and formal deals. Finally, you get cross-game vendettas, trade-offs and collusion. So, where do you draw the line? In friendly play, I'd like to see a certain amount of banter but not much whining, finger-pointing or haggling. In serious tournaments, players should be announcing their actions, playing their cards but otherwise staying silent. But absolute silence is perhaps too cold. It's the way that serious chess and bridge are played but they are quite cerebral games. Poker players tend to like a fair amount of banter (Amarillo Slim never stops talking, I gather) but this stops well short of making deals. Andrew

"Andrew Daley" <dal...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:8821ff0a.03071...@posting.google.com... > Your kidding right Lasombra? > He's kidding. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:28:50 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> scrawled: >On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:57:25 +1000, salem wrote: > >>so, for example, if i were to say to someone 'i'll rescue your vampire >>from torpor if you recue mine', that is illegal? > >Strictly speaking, that's right. That's what cards like Minor Boon >are for. ok. >In practise, you get a slippery slope. It starts when you're teaching >the game to new players and so have to advise them as they play the >game. This plus social banter develops into competitive whining and >informal coordination. Then you get extended negotiations and formal >deals. Finally, you get cross-game vendettas, trade-offs and >collusion. ok, so you saw where i was going with my questioning in my previous post, then. :) >So, where do you draw the line? In friendly play, I'd like to see a >certain amount of banter but not much whining, finger-pointing or >haggling. In serious tournaments, players should be announcing their >actions, playing their cards but otherwise staying silent. this is definately interesting. while i don't beleive this is the way the game was designed, or how it should be played, i think it would make a very startling variant that i'd be willing to explore, if i could find like minded people. do you actually have a playgroup that plays it this way? >But absolute silence is perhaps too cold. It's the way that serious >chess and bridge are played but they are quite cerebral games. Poker >players tend to like a fair amount of banter (Amarillo Slim never >stops talking, I gather) but this stops well short of making deals. i guess it would make the succubus club a lot more widely used. you could make deals (using succubus club's text to allow you) like 'i'll give you 1 pool, plus i'll rescue your vamp from torpor, if you give me 1 pool, plus rescue my vamp from torpor'. the 1 pool each way swap would happed on tapping succubus club (net effect of nothing), and the rest would not be enforced by succubus club, by it's text. so it'd be just like a 'i rescue you, you rescue me' deal in current games. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > That's the exception which proves the rule. If there's a card which > permits deal-making then this proves that you can't make deals without > such a card. Succubus Club isn't a card that permits deal making, it's a card that permits deal making involving the transfer of pool or cards. You're right: I can't just transfer three pool to someone without Succubus Club. But that's got nothing to do with just making straight deals. Of course... I think what the game needs is more people willing to break deals. You get a situation where the BB player says to the Gargoyle player, "Let me oust my prey, and then I'll let you oust me", the Gargoyle player agrees, and the BB ousts his prey. The Gargoyles move in for the kill, and the BB player says, "Well, looks I'm in a good position to take out my next prey, too. Sorry, deal's off." Won't happen, of course. > Deal-making > is neither. To me, it is as unacceptable as physically wrestling over > pool tokens. The rules don't forbid that either because they don't > have to. If it's not in the rules then it's not part of the game. Well, that's an...odd viewpoint. Of course, I'm into vote decks, and unless you get vote lock every single time you play, you sort of need to make deals with the other players with votes to get by. --Colin McGuigan

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:12:43 -0500, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled: >I think what the game needs is more people willing to break deals. You i wholeheartedly agree. :) >get a situation where the BB player says to the Gargoyle player, "Let me >oust my prey, and then I'll let you oust me", the Gargoyle player >agrees, and the BB ousts his prey. The Gargoyles move in for the kill, >and the BB player says, "Well, looks I'm in a good position to take out >my next prey, too. Sorry, deal's off." > >Won't happen, of course. i was actually a bit worried that it would..... which, amusingly enough, would have made me happy. i want people to break deals more often. i have seen a few people break deals. sadly, the people getting shafted get really upset. I don't want people to get upset playing a game. if people broke deals more often, people would be more tolerant of it happening to them, and not be so upset. also, the more deals get broken, the less likely you are to see vp splitting deals, i think. when a deal is 'you rescure my guy, i'll rescue yours' or some such, if a deal is broken you don't totally get wiped in the game, and then you don't offer it again unless this time he rescues you first. if the deal is 'i'll help you get two vps, then you fall down for me' and the guy doesn't fall down once he's got those 2vps and 12 pool, you're boned. people will be less likely to accept deals with larger 'value' if deal breaking was commonplace. which i think can only add to the intrigue of the game. ;) back-up plans and extra thought into emergency contingency, that sort of thing. > > Deal-making >> is neither. To me, it is as unacceptable as physically wrestling over >> pool tokens. The rules don't forbid that either because they don't >> have to. If it's not in the rules then it's not part of the game. > >Well, that's an...odd viewpoint. Of course, I'm into vote decks, and >unless you get vote lock every single time you play, you sort of need to >make deals with the other players with votes to get by. i think under andrew's scheme you'd just, say, allocate your KRC 2 pool to your prey, 2 pool to the prey of the other guy who's votes you need. he'll either vote for it or not, based on his own thoughts about the process. you wouldn't explicitly ask 'hey, if i give 2 to your prey will you vote?' or anything like that. it's certainly a system i am willing to have a stab at. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > i have seen a few people break deals. sadly, the people getting > shafted get really upset. S'true. My first tournament, Meth A made a deal with his predator, Meth B, to the tune of "Will you not bleed me next turn?" (I can't recall what Meth B got out of it). Meth B agreed. Meth A then taps out bleeding his prey (me), and gets me down to 2 pool. Meth B then bleeds Meth A out (being all tapped out), and then bleeds me out (having lost all my defences to Meth A), and goes on to sweep the table. I thought it a wonderful move. Meth A, however, did not, and there was quite the lecture/rant on honor and sportsmanship and how being a liar is worse than being a murderer and whatnot. I knew neither Meth A or B previously, but it was my opinion at the time that Meth B was seriously, seriously pissed. > also, the more deals get broken, the less likely you are to see vp > splitting deals, i think. <snip> > people will be less likely to accept deals with larger 'value' if deal > breaking was commonplace. which i think can only add to the intrigue > of the game. ;) Very much agree. Not much else to add. =P > i think under andrew's scheme you'd just, say, allocate your KRC 2 > pool to your prey, 2 pool to the prey of the other guy who's votes you > need. he'll either vote for it or not, based on his own thoughts about > the process. you wouldn't explicitly ask 'hey, if i give 2 to your > prey will you vote?' or anything like that. > > it's certainly a system i am willing to have a stab at. Works for a KRC, maybe, but what about a Praxis Seizure? If I'm a vote deck, and someone else calls a Praxis Seizure, there's absolutely no reason for me not to vote against it (bribes and whatnot exempted) -- it'll only make my life more difficult. So, the usual modus operandi (for me, anyways) when necessary is, "Vote for my Praxis Seizure and I'll make my next Consangineous Boon for you" or whatnot. I mean, I can see Andrew's point, but it's still 180 degrees for my point of view. Doesn't affect direct action decks like S+B, but puts a crimpin' on those requiring cross table interaction. --Colin McGuigan

> I am not referring to collusion. Say I offer some stupid deal I should > never reasonably offer, as described in the cited example. How can the > judge come over and tell me I can't do this? Maybe I am lying. Maybe I > see the table differently. It is not the judges position to explain > what is happening to a player (he has no wakes, just oust him) or to > mess up my manipulation. I don't really like the 'take advantage of > crappy players, screw up someones game who had a valid chance to WIN > when I do not' approach but if you are going to allow that you have to > allow me to make crappy deals or bull shit someone into a deal I have > no intention of keeping. It is my uderstanding that this shouldn't happen unless a player objects toyour play. In this case the judge doesn't need to explain to the other players as someone has celarly seen through you and told everyone anyway. Does the judge have to tell the whole table if the deal is illegal to keep or just the player in question (or no one until they try to keep it)?

>>But absolute silence is perhaps too cold. It's the way that serious >>chess and bridge are played but they are quite cerebral games. Poker >>players tend to like a fair amount of banter (Amarillo Slim never >>stops talking, I gather) but this stops well short of making deals. > > i guess it would make the succubus club a lot more widely used. you > could make deals (using succubus club's text to allow you) like 'i'll > give you 1 pool, plus i'll rescue your vamp from torpor, if you give > me 1 pool, plus rescue my vamp from torpor'. > the 1 pool each way swap would happed on tapping succubus club (net > effect of nothing), and the rest would not be enforced by succubus > club, by it's text. so it'd be just like a 'i rescue you, you rescue > me' deal in current games. The 1 pool swap would happen in resolution of the SC tapping effect. However you would have to have already tapped it in order to be able to make the proposal. (otherwise you are proposing "I will tap the SC and offer X if you will agree to X")

> the question is, how much info should the judge be using to determine > if the deal is legal? is it merely apparent state of play? is he > allowed to look at deck lists, if provided? can he base it on seeing > the decks play in previous rounds? or is it only to be based on what > he can see right there on the table at the time? As i understand it: (no one else has answered...) The judge should consider the sate of the game including what's in hands and decks. However in determining whether a deal is legal they should only consider what information is available to the players in question. Thus, in this case, he should look at the hand and decklist/deck of the BB player (what's in the deck but not it's order -the judge is allowed to look at decks) and also consider what has been played (/discarded) so far in the game and what might be hidden in the other decks and not come out yet -not much at this stage probably but you never know. He should not consider the decklists of the other players in determining whether the deal is legal for a given player nor should he consider what he saw in previous rounds (except perhaps inasmuch as it helps him understand the player who's deal is in question's deck). > and another question: if a player can't see any way to get any vps, so > is going to just oust themselves, but the judge can see a way to get > vps, and rules they must try to get it, isn't that coaching? i mean, > the player didn't see how, but now that they know there is a way they > might try extra hard to work it out, using the judge's 'advice' to > advance their own game. how is that fair to the other players? > if the player still can't work out how it is he can get the extra vp, > does he just spin his wheels until he dies anyway? or does the judge > tell him how to go for the vps? This should never be an issue. In principle the judge doesn't say anything about play unless called upon to do so by a player. In this case the player in question will undoubtedly tell the self-ouster what they should be doing -the judge is only involved if the SO-er wants to proceed anyway. Could someone who has actually played in a tournament confirm/correct this? ;-)

> (To be really sophisticated, try to let his prey manage one more > big bleed before rushing out. Rush twice and bitch about not having > rushes. THEN rush him out.) I don't think I'm *ever* going to believe anyone complaining about their deck not working!

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<3sechvonhseonnjsc...@4ax.com>... > On 16 Jul 2003 15:25:11 -0700, Aramis wrote: > > >Uh, it's called a referendum. Voting is all about negotiation and > >deal-making, at least when there is more than one player that > >possesses votes/the edge. > > Yes, but these things are represented by the play of cards. If you > want to make an impassioned speech about the issue, you're not > supposed to actually make such a speech - that's what you'd do in a > LARP or RPG session. You just play a card like Bewitching Oration. I think you missed my point. The voting mechanic in the game implies that you could talk about the votes both before and during the referendum itself to garner the necessary votes (which stick once declared). While it is possible to play VTES without speaking, I highly doubt it was the designer's intent. > >I refer you to Richard Garfield's writings > > I've read them - they say nothing about deals. I think he'd be > horrified by the deal discussed at the start of this thread. I recall differently, does anyone have the text? Also, Garfield's opinion of the specific deal at the beginning of this thread is irrelevant to the point of whether deals were foreseen as part of the game. > >the Sucubbus Club card which specifically says "Meth who agrees to > >trade" which in my mind is synomous with "Meth who's willing to deal". > > That's the exception which proves the rule. If there's a card which > permits deal-making then this proves that you can't make deals without > such a card. Sucubbus Club specifically *adds* to the idea of deals in game by allowing for the trading of resources on the table or in your hand. Since I would find it difficult if not impossible to find a trading partner with Succubus Club unless I was allowed to discuss deals (and discussing deals is not permitted by the text of Succubus Club, just the trading of resources), how do you propose a player could use such a card unless deals were already part of the game? > >The player is allowed to do things not explicitly detailed in the > >rules. For example, the rules do not explicitly say you can talk to > >other players, but you can. The only limitations on player conduct > >seem to come from VEKN tournament rules and none of them mention > >deal-making as a prohibited form of conduct. > > Game rules tell you what is permitted. Other things are only > permitted to the extent that they are reasonable (adjusting the > position of your pieces) or irrelevant (drinking a coke). Not that I necessarily agree with this logic (see prior post), but for the sake of argument I'd assert that dealing-making is reasonable conduct. Now we are stuck in a debate of what is "reasonable" VTES conduct. Funny how the water just gets murkier the deeper we go, eh? > Deal-making > is neither. To me, it is as unacceptable as physically wrestling over > pool tokens. The rules don't forbid that either because they don't > have to. Wrestling over pool tokens would be clearly addressed in VEKN Tournament Rules 2.3 "Players are expected to behave in a respectful and sportsmanlike manner at all times." and 5.2 "players must not use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents." > If it's not in the rules then it's not part of the game. I've already argued this point and see nothing here that bears repeating my earlier points. I see Salem posted regarding this as well and find his post to cover this point sufficiently as well. > > Andrew Aramis

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.03071...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 16 Jul 2003, DeistMutts wrote: > > > competitive spirit is different among female players.. dunno what it > > is.. the game format or maybe something else.. > > They'll whine, they'll squirm, they'll > shriek.... just ignore it and kill, kill, kill. She seems to enjoy it... Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! It appears to me that women can be very competitive, but they like to compete *on their own terms.* Men more often seem to thrive in a structured environment where everyone knows the rules and usually abide by them. Men will work the structure to their own advantage. Women work *people* better and are usually at their best when their prey doesn't know it's being manipulated. There is no structure, it's simply 1 on 1 and whoever can get the other to do what they want wins. Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way. -Daniele Vare (whoever that is)

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<3sechvonhseonnjsc...@4ax.com>... > On 16 Jul 2003 15:25:11 -0700, Aramis wrote: > Game rules tell you what is permitted... > If it's not in the rules then it's not part of the game. Game rules often tell you what is *not* permitted. If it isn't proscribed, feel free to do it. I think most players should and do take this stance in VTES and it's not a bad thing in general. I think part of the reason table-splitting is so hard to stop is that most people don't play decks that can effectively work cross-table. If everyone's playing stealth-bleed, obviously there's tons of forward pressure. If everyone's playing rush combat or politics, the table is much more likely to be balanced due to the potential for cross-table actions. If the only (D) actions you can do are versus your predator or prey, then that's the only part of the table you can affect. This is a structural limitation of the game, deemed necessary by the designers to enforce a predator-prey relationship. I think it's good that it's in place. But, if someone makes a crooked deal, you've got to find some (D) actions that work cross-table to restore some balance to the game. If you can't, it's unfortunate but you have to deal with the consequences.

On 17 Jul 2003 13:39:19 -0700, came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) scrawled: >Sucubbus Club specifically *adds* to the idea of deals in game by >allowing for the trading of resources on the table or in your hand. >Since I would find it difficult if not impossible to find a trading >partner with Succubus Club unless I was allowed to discuss deals (and >discussing deals is not permitted by the text of Succubus Club, just >the trading of resources), how do you propose a player could use such >a card unless deals were already part of the game? Card text? specifically, the last sentence. "Master: unique location. During your untap phase, you may tap this card to trade with a Methuselah who agrees to trade. You may trade pool and cards from your hand and cards you control. The trade cannot result in either Methuselah have fewer cards in hand than his or her hand size. Any additional terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." [ quoted text not captured ]

Aramis wrote: > I recall differently, does anyone have the text? Here's one text: I think there were a lot of strong ideas [in Jyhad's design] - in particular for a time when I was really just coming to terms with how much diplomacy was good for a game. Many of them were a struggle to keep also - most people wanted to be able to attack anyone, not just their neighbor. My experience with Magic free-for-all was telling, however, if you do that then decks wouldn't matter nearly as much as the diplomacy. I also like sitting down to a game with some idea as to who my short term opponents are - it helps jumpstart the game and catalyzes interesting relationships among the players. [Richard C. Garfield, July 2001] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: > :: It's contemptible to want to get the most VPs you can? > > is it enjoyable to be someone else's puppet ? How's that relevant? If you don't want to go along with a deal, don't. If you want to get more VPs on your own, craft a better deck and become a better player. Suggesting that people playing to do as well as they can is contemptible, however, seems bizarre. So they play in a fashion you don't like, but one that is not only part of the game but was designed to be part of the game. If playing within the design, spirit and rules of the game to get as many VPs as you can is contemptible, can I suggest that that middle jump bit in the middle of the triple jump is also contemptible and should be removed? > :: So, the best players are those who come last? > > not really. But on a 5 player table, the best player may be the one who > chooses to lose an honorable defeat instead of losing by siding with the > stealth bleeder. period. Based on the objective scoring method, they weren't. Tournaments are about winning via the objective scoring method. V:TES has a built in, designed, intentional diplomatic element. Simply building the 'best' deck won't work if other players remember to exploit the full facets of the game and are good at doing so. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:57:25 +1000, salem wrote: > > >so, for example, if i were to say to someone 'i'll rescue your vampire > >from torpor if you recue mine', that is illegal? > > Strictly speaking, that's right. No, you'll find that strictly speaking, you're talking utter rubbish. Perhaps if you re-adjust to reality and stop trolling, you'll do better. I'd give your posts 2/10 - Becoming more senile and even less relevant than they ever were, showing signs of brain death. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:22:05 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 15 Jul 2003 09:45:05 -0700, Patrick van der Reest wrote: > >>It's probably neither wise nor accurate to generalize women like this; > >Hence the word "most". I saw the VTES crowd recently in your home >town at Origins. I only noticed one woman, Robyn. I haven't played >with her but suppose that she's one of the exceptions. For >Shadowfist, I didn't see any women players at all. For Doomtown there >were three and they typify my comment. One wrote, "Maybe it's the >accent, but there is something about the way he organizes the events >that makes sitting down to play fun and unintimidating." Cutthroat >competition is not what such women seek and they really don't care >whether they win or not. They are good to have around though and >that's why I encourage them to participate. > >Andrew Also Carol and one other Gal from Cincinatti OH. But we could use more. Raille

James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote in message news:<2wptkat...@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>... > emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) writes: > > I enjoy tournaments much less than regular play because you run > > into this kind of contemptable strategy. > > It's contemptible to want to get the most VPs you can? > So, the best players are those who come last? In regular play, people do their dammedest to win. Hardly anyone chooses a nearly assured 1 out of 5 victory points over a long shot at 3 out of 5. In tournament play, especially in the finals, some people frequently offer deals like "give me one VP and I'll give you the table" even if they have a reasonable shot at victory. This is kingmaking, and it is contemptable. The best players are the ones who win tables on their own merits, not the ones who bootlick their way to second. I'm not sure why there are more VP deals in tournaments, whether it has to do with a different group of people going to them or whether people have a different set of priorities due to the perceived seriousness of the event or the possibility of winning more prize support. Either way, balls to the people who'd rather come in second than risk an honest attempt at first.

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<htuahvkc3ci2mdqeb...@4ax.com>... > *cheers from sideline* Go James! > (you do tend to me more concise and ..umm...other words that mean you > speak good thinking... than me :) > > salem It's not hard. [/cheap shot] :)

ce...@dueling.org (Cecil) wrote in message news:<b489f1c4.03071...@posting.google.com>... > Can you compartmentalize a VTES table like that though? Each player > operates at the table independently from the other players, but they > are not in a vacuum. VTES is about balance, more pressure in places > alleviates pressure in others. The fact that you necessarily need to > go backwards in order to survive sometimes means that there will > necessarily be a "ganging up." The integral part of table talk and > politics in order to pass votes is in a sense ganging up. Several > games degenerate into the table turning on the strongest deck. All of > these examples seem at odds with you statement, is there any > clarification you can add that would include these situations? Speaking for myself, I don't have any problem with players ganging up on the strongest player, assuming they are all doing it to increase their chances of actually winning the table. I have a problem with players that aren't trying to win the table.

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.03071...@posting.google.com>... > [I]f a deck sits down and can't do anything to oust it's > prey, and the prey likes it that way (Say an assamite attack deck > preying on an IC obediance/PTO monster) then what is wrong with a > deal? Nothing's wrong with making deals that still leave you a chance at winning. But as the Assamite in the example above, I would not offer my prey 3 vp in exchange for the last 2. Instead, I would offer him a non-aggression pact that would last until we were the last decks at the table, then throw myself backwards in hopes of a 2/1/1/1 victory. It's a hard win to pull off, but it IS possible, whereas the other deal is essentially giving up. Or I'd offer deals to my grandprey, grandpredator or predator. There's always some path to victory, even if it's a hard one.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > In tournament play, especially in the finals, some people frequently > offer deals like "give me one VP and I'll give you the table" even if > they have a reasonable shot at victory. This is kingmaking, and it is > contemptable. Offering a deal is not king making. Making the deal would be king making, but it is prohibited (it is not sportsmanlike to accept and honor such a deal (to take only 1 VP when you could have won)). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Jul 2003 13:39:19 -0700, Aramis wrote: >Wrestling over pool tokens would be clearly addressed in VEKN >Tournament Rules 2.3 "Players are expected to behave in a respectful >and sportsmanlike manner at all times." and 5.2 "players must not use >profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one >another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents." Wrestling implies none of these things. It is quite possible to wrestle in a fair and sportmanslike manner - see http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2003/wrestling_rules.pdf for details. The reason that you can't wrestle in VTES is the same as the reason that you can't play VTES cards in the middle of a wrestling match - it's not in the rules and so it's not part of the game. Serious verbal wrestling has rules too - see http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm for example. Notice how this stuff goes on for pages and yet the VTES rulebook contains almost nothing of this sort. The closest it gets is to impose a time limit of 10 seconds on vote stalling. And that's really just a timing rule, not an excuse for a debate. Andrew

On 18 Jul 2003 09:47:00 -0700, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] oooooooooooh. dem is fightin' werds. ummm...hmmm...insulting response required....erm...erm ... you use hotmail. slave to MS! ha! got you... :/ [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > "reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: > >>>> It's contemptible to want to get the most VPs you can? >> >> is it enjoyable to be someone else's puppet ? > > How's that relevant? > > If you don't want to go along with a deal, don't. If you want to > get more VPs on your own, craft a better deck and become a better > player. well, thanks for the advice pal =p > Suggesting that people playing to do as well as they can is > contemptible, however, seems bizarre. So they play in a fashion you > don't like, but one that is not only part of the game but was > designed to be part of the game. If playing within the design, > spirit and rules of the game to get as many VPs as you can is > contemptible, can I suggest that that middle jump bit in the middle > of the triple jump is also contemptible and should be removed? i understand your excuse but the lasombra was talking about sportsmanship at this time. >>>> So, the best players are those who come last? >> >> not really. But on a 5 player table, the best player may be the >> one who chooses to lose an honorable defeat instead of losing by >> siding with the stealth bleeder. period. > > Based on the objective scoring method, they weren't. Tournaments > are about winning via the objective scoring method. Not getting a gamewin is not winning at all. giving another player the table just to score a VP because you had no chance anway is not winning. sorry if we don't share the same ideas. personnally i'm tired to see people starting to talk about splitting ,like "3 for me and 2 for you" on the 5th turn of the game. Play the damn game, for caine's sake ! > V:TES has a built in, designed, intentional diplomatic element. > Simply building the 'best' deck won't work if other players remember > to exploit the full facets of the game and are good at doing so. So yes, you try to win so i understand temporary alliances to reduce a threat : including diplomacy, you have numerous way to do your best... I personnally prefer to not make a deal and not ruin the guy who sensed themetagame better than the others -the "gang up" method should not work anymore since the introduction of the GW, but curiously it is sitll en vogue. Jyhad more often turns to "killing the best deck so you won't have to face it". I find it tiresome : when you're clearly better than others, well you suddenly have 4 predators. Was it also predicted in garfield's holy writings ? -don't forget that the aim, since the G in TCG stands for "Game", is also to have fun while playing. Being someone else's pupet (or bitch) is not funny for me. If it's funny for you, well, enjoy the game as you like it ;)

James Coupe wrote: > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:57:25 +1000, salem wrote: >> >>> so, for example, if i were to say to someone 'i'll rescue your >>> vampire from torpor if you recue mine', that is illegal? >> >> Strictly speaking, that's right. > > No, you'll find that strictly speaking, you're talking utter > rubbish. > > Perhaps if you re-adjust to reality and stop trolling, you'll do > better. > > > I'd give your posts 2/10 - Becoming more senile and even less > relevant than they ever were, showing signs of brain death. so don't feed the troll =) Even if i really dislike table splitting (which you brits have exported in france -_-; ) i must admit that some of your arguments are interesting, james. don't even lose your time to answer to andrew s. davidson, -like low priced wine, he's not getting better with passing years.

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Speaking for myself, I don't have any problem with players > ganging up on the strongest player, assuming they are all doing it > to increase their chances of actually winning the table. I have a > problem with players that aren't trying to win the table. and this is the correct attitude i guess. you may want to do a temporary alliance to stop a particular threat -if on your table one of the player manage to put in play Tyler with a stake and makes her archon and justicar so she can diablerize and play 2nd trads at will, this may be a problem. You may ally to reduce the blood on her and then banish her, or something like that so the strongest will have a hard time. But playing all your deflections and bleed him to death sounds unfair, no matter what. Plus you give a VP to his prey without much effort -maybe he will sweep the table after that. You must try to win , not to make someone else win, so this kind of "gang on the strongest" must be a temporary answer. Most of the times you don't have to split tables.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 in rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad LSJ quoted: >I think there were a lot of strong ideas [in Jyhad's design] - in particular >for a time when I was really just coming to terms with how much diplomacy was >good for a game. Many of them were a struggle to keep also - most people >wanted to be able to attack anyone, not just their neighbor. My experience >with Magic free-for-all was telling, however, if you do that then decks >wouldn't matter nearly as much as the diplomacy. I also like sitting down >to a game with some idea as to who my short term opponents are - it helps >jumpstart the game and catalyzes interesting relationships among the players. > >[Richard C. Garfield, July 2001] That's the sort of thing I remember. He didn't like diplomacy and was trying to discourage it. I don't think he realised the extent to which players would go to subvert the mechanisms that he used for this purpose. The deal discussed at the start of this thread isn't a planned feature of the game; it's a bug. Andrew

> and this is the correct attitude i guess. > you may want to do a temporary alliance to stop a particular threat -if on > your table one of the player manage to put in play Tyler with a stake and > makes her archon and justicar so she can diablerize and play 2nd trads at > will, this may be a problem. You may ally to reduce the blood on her and > then banish her, or something like that so the strongest will have a hard > time. But playing all your deflections and bleed him to death sounds unfair, > no matter what. Plus you give a VP to his prey without much effort -maybe he > will sweep the table after that. You must try to win , not to make someone > else win, so this kind of "gang on the strongest" must be a temporary > answer. Most of the times you don't have to split tables. If it's a weenie stealth bleed deck? I say KILL THE Hrfgjh@ "$ghf%:£! :-)

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f190e38$0$9835 > personnally i'm tired to see people starting to talk about splitting ,like > "3 for me and 2 for you" on the 5th turn of the game. Play the damn game, > for caine's sake ! If the judge can tell that on turn 5 the player getting the "2" side of the deal still has a reasonable chance to win, the judge can intervene. In places where people like to win, the 3/2 table split nearly died when the new GW system started. If you play with lots of people who still don't care about GWs, then the "play to win" rule is an extra tool to force proper play. There are deals that are hard to adjudicate, bu the turn 5 offer of 3/2 is most probably a pretty easy one. -Robert

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 in rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad LSJ quoted: >>I think there were a lot of strong ideas [in Jyhad's design] - in particular >>for a time when I was really just coming to terms with how much diplomacy was >>good for a game. Many of them were a struggle to keep also - most people >>wanted to be able to attack anyone, not just their neighbor. My experience >>with Magic free-for-all was telling, however, if you do that then decks >>wouldn't matter nearly as much as the diplomacy. I also like sitting down >>to a game with some idea as to who my short term opponents are - it helps >>jumpstart the game and catalyzes interesting relationships among the players. >> >>[Richard C. Garfield, July 2001] > > > That's the sort of thing I remember. He didn't like diplomacy and was > trying to discourage it. You misunderstand (or, rather, are purposefully misconstruing) his statement, then. The above contains no "I don't like diplomacy" sentiment. He understands that diplomacy is "good for the game" in moderation. It's just a matter of determining how much is too much. Hence the predator prey reward system and only being able to bleed your prey by default. > I don't think he realised the extent to > which players would go to subvert the mechanisms that he used for this > purpose. I don't think he realized the extent to which you would go to subvert his words for your purpose. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vufhhv8h941b4jpd0...@4ax.com>... > ummm...hmmm...insulting response required....erm...erm ... you use > hotmail. slave to MS! ha! got you... :/ > salem Sorry, that address is just my spamtrap. :)

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:55:57 -0400, LSJ wrote: >You misunderstand (or, rather, are purposefully misconstruing) his >statement, then. The above contains no "I don't like diplomacy" sentiment. Sure it does. He says that he was trying to reduce the amount of diplomacy because he didn't like what happened in Magic and that this was a struggle because of players who were pushing in the other direction. The struggle continues ... Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Again you improperly attempt to equate "reduce the amount" with "don't like". He *did* reduce the amount. The result is the game that the rest of us are playing, table-talk, deals, and all. The reduction came in the form of the predator-prey mechanics (6 pool for ousting prey, only bleed prey by default). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 19 Jul 2003 13:42:47 -0700, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vufhhv8h941b4jpd0...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] bugger. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: || He *did* reduce the amount. The result is the game that the rest || of us are playing, table-talk, deals, and all. The reduction came || in the form of the predator-prey mechanics (6 pool for ousting || prey, only bleed prey by default). Thanks, lsj. As usual Andrew writes rubbish. here is an excerpt from the Eternal struggle : a player's guide to the jyhad "Making Jyhad a multiplayer game was an interesting task. It is easy to make a bad multiplayer game. [..] So what makes a bad multiplayer game ? If players can interact too freely with one another, then the winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation. You know the routine : "i'm not the threat, SHE's the threat !", or better yet, watching two ninnies arguing over which one is the bigger threat. the game maybe fun if you like these politics , but i believe all the games are the same once you learn to how to really judge for yourself who the threat is. The game then becomes a vehicle for the omnipresent diplomacy. On the other hand, if players can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your hands, a game which may be fun but which leaves the players dealing more with the system than each other. So this is the reason you are limited to atttack the person on your left, your prey. All the other players are your enemy, as must be the case, but your prey is a special enemy, someone whose removal gives you a special advantage. [...] Some players complain that knocking out a person other than ytour prey should give you an advantage, such as victory point or blood, or at least knowing that the predator off the victime will not be rewarded. [...] If a player is inclined to remove a player other than her prey then she is either gaining some advantage from the move, and hence is being rewarded, or she should reconsider her strategy."

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:jphjhvcja0ucbn5vp...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You are partially correct. He didn't like Magic "free-for-all" and so created the predator/prey relation. THAT was his LIMIT he built into diplomacy. See the interview on the vtesinla.org site: Goudie: With Jyhad's design you tackled some heavy issues that are common to many multi-player games. You attempted to reduce king-making and keep the game away from pure diplomacy while avoiding creating a multi-player solitaire game. Do you feel that you balanced these concerns well? Garfield: I think there were a lot of strong ideas there - in particular for a time when I was really just coming to terms with how much diplomacy was good for a game. Many of them were a struggle to keep also - most people wanted to be able to attack anyone, not just their neighbor. My experience with Magic free-for-all was telling, however, if you do that then decks wouldn't matter nearly as much as the diplomacy. I also like sitting down to a game with some idea as to who my short term opponents are - it helps jumpstart the game and catalyzes interesting relationships among the players. http://vtesinla.org/articleGarfield.htm -Robert

salem_ch...@yahoo.com writes: >lots of armor of terra. >is the BB allowed to make such a deal >if he fears force of will/daring >the dawn? even if it hasn't come up, >surely he's allowed to consider >the possibility when making the deal? An interesting point. Almost any deck could have such a "hail-mary"-type card. It's a tough row for a judge to deny a roll-over-and-play dead deal when such things are almost always possible, if very unlikely. In this case, though, it would have taken several Force of Will-type bleeds to oust - more than the Gargoyle player could reasonably have delivered in one turn. If he'd coughed up a few, the deal might be more plausable. >as the game stood, because we're all >really slow players down here ;), >the game looked like it would likely time out. >surely the BB can make >whatever the hell deal he wants if it gives >him more than that 0.5 vp, >even if it means killing himself as part of it? Sure, the question is why does he need any assistance from his predator? Just go all-out on his prey. I'm not sure what the BB player *did* have in his deck, if he hadn't much rush, but almost anything, under those circumstances, (e.g. Unwholesome Bond or Walk of Caine) would virtually guarantee he'd oust his prey first, and then survive to time, regardless of what the Gargoyle deck did. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:59:52 +0200, reyda quoted: >here is an excerpt from the Eternal struggle : a player's guide to the jyhad > >"Making Jyhad a multiplayer game was an interesting task. It is easy to >make a bad multiplayer game. [..] So what makes a bad multiplayer game ? >If players can interact too freely with one another, then the winner becomes >a matter of pure negotiation..." Keep those quotes coming. Here he says that negotiating the winner of the game would be bad. I agree. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:i52nhv065l457pllr...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He said "pure" negotiation. Let's try this again... Garfield wrote: "So what makes a bad multiplayer game? If players can interact too freely with one another, then the winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation. [...] On the other hand, if players can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your hands... So this is the reason you are limited to attacking the person to your left, your prey." Garfield's inclusion of the predator/prey relation was his specific mechanic for selecting what he felt was the proper balance between the extremes of a pure negotiation game and a multiplayer solitaire game. "This artificial structure [the pred/prey relation] gives rise to a compromise between these two extremes." In fact, the only limit he placed on diplomacy was the predator/prey relation. You may wish that he'd created more restrictions on negotiation but he clearly did not. -Robert

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:17:05 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: >So what makes a bad multiplayer game? If players can interact too freely with >one another, then the winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation. [...] On >the other hand, if players can't interact enough you have multiplayer >solitaire on your hands... So this is the reason you are limited to attacking >the person to your left, your prey." You're confusing "interaction" with "negotiation". In Garfield's view, the former was good, the latter was bad. In VTES, players interact through the play of their cards - combats, bleeds, votes - these are all quite interactive. He constrained this interaction so that you usually interact with your predator and prey. There's nothing in these quotes to suggest that he wanted players to negotiate about this interaction. He wanted this to be a game of deck design and tactics, not a popularity contest or debate. And the fact remains that, while there are plenty of rules for card play, there are no rules for negotiation. Therefore negotiation is not part of the game. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:17:05 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: > > >So what makes a bad multiplayer game? If players can interact too freely with > >one another, then the winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation. [...] On > >the other hand, if players can't interact enough you have multiplayer > >solitaire on your hands... So this is the reason you are limited to attacking > >the person to your left, your prey." > > You're confusing "interaction" with "negotiation". In Garfield's > view, the former was good, the latter was bad. If you're going to attempt this line of argument, you need to liven up your selective quoting. Garfield recognises that games which devolve into *pure* negotiation are bad. That's in the quote above. Pure negotiation. Not *any* negotiation, but *pure* negotiation. Which includes negotiation which is unfettered by other considerations - hence each player is given a set of considerations which are different to those of others, in the form of the predator-prey dynamic and - also - the use of bleeds to get the Edge, in order to gain pool (which was added, along with the pool for the oust, to make people more aggressive). Pure negotiation is not in the game. That would be bad. What *is* in the game is not pure negotiation. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F19E64A...@white-wolf.com>... > > Again you improperly attempt to equate "reduce the amount" with "don't > like". > > He *did* reduce the amount. The result is the game that the rest of us > are playing, table-talk, deals, and all. The reduction came in the form > of the predator-prey mechanics (6 pool for ousting prey, only bleed > prey by default). Players are able to alter the basic reward system of the game (ie. gain pool vps for ousting someone other then their prey). A hypothetical game contains three players: A, B, and C, with A preying on B. Player C does not like his chances and suggests that he will help oust player C in return for a victory point (consideration from A). Players C and A have essentially co-operated and changed the text of the rulebook. A new clause allowed player C to get a vp for ousting B while A received the 6 pool. They have ignored/subverted the predator-prey mechanic.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<6lhnhvg3011pvp194...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, we should start every Jyhad/VTES game with a nice cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP. Pardon my French...

[ quoted text not captured ] No. They have worked within the confines of the mechanic. For true "free for all" play this: Bleeds can target any Methuselah (including those with text that says otherwise, like Night Moves, which are intended to be extensions, not restrictions). Other (D) actions that specify "prey" or "predator" are likewise able to target any other Methuselah (Corruption, etc.) When someone is ousted, each remaining Methuselah gets 1 VP. If you're the only Methuselah left, get an additional VP (all of which basically says: you win if and only if you're the last Methuselah in the game). If someone withdraws, that Methuselah (and only that Methuselah) gets a VP. Then observe the distance from that scene to the one RCG established - the game with deals and such, but with predator-prey mechanics. Let me know if you find "free for all" more enjoyable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<6lhnhvg3011pvp194...@4ax.com>... > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:17:05 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote: > > >So what makes a bad multiplayer game? If players can interact too freely with > >one another, then the winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation. [...] On > >the other hand, if players can't interact enough you have multiplayer > >solitaire on your hands... So this is the reason you are limited to attacking > >the person to your left, your prey." > > You're confusing "interaction" with "negotiation". No he's not. Negotiation is a form of interaction. > In Garfield's > view, the former was good, the latter was bad. No, too much of the latter was bad. A question of scale, not of yes/no. > In VTES, players > interact through the play of their cards - combats, bleeds, votes - > these are all quite interactive. True, but not the only forms of interaction. > He constrained this interaction so > that you usually interact with your predator and prey. There's > nothing in these quotes to suggest that he wanted players to negotiate > about this interaction. Not true, he specefically wanted a deeper multiplayer game but did not want the game to be 'pure negotiation'. Which therefore logically means that some negotiation is part of the game design. > And the fact remains that, while there are plenty of rules for card > play, there are no rules for negotiation. Because none are needed. > Therefore negotiation is > not part of the game. > That's kind of like saying if something isn't prohibited in the criminal code then you can freely do it. When we both know that common sense and good behaviour often dictates otherwise. You are reading into the quotes what you want to read. In essence, you are trying to negotiate something into the game (a ban on negotiations) that is unwarranted. :) T

[ quoted text not captured ] Your fact that a 'free for all' scoring system can exist does not address the concern I raised. I suspect that you are simply drawing upon RCG's design experiences and the transition he made. Let me restate my observation. The predator/prey relationship is not absolute. In an absolute predator/prey system the only path to victory (or marginal victory) is through ousting suscessive prey. In the loose predator/prey system players are allowed to (concretely) benefit from non-prey ousting of the nature described previously. This loose system leads to more diplomatic reliance then the absolute system. I am not equipped with the information to state what RCG's intention was and will not attempt to do so. I only observe that one can effectively get a vp for the ousting of a non-prey.

On 21 Jul 2003 09:36:58 -0700, Talonz wrote: >Not true, he specefically wanted a deeper multiplayer game but did not >want the game to be 'pure negotiation'. Which therefore logically >means that some negotiation is part of the game design. Your logic is faulty. Not (pure negotiation) <> some negotiation. Having some negotiation risks that negotiation being decisive. The only sure way of avoiding pure negotiation is to have no negotiation at all. And that is what the game's rules describe - a game without negotiation. >>there are no rules for negotiation. >Because none are needed. If I were to play a Malkavian Prank, say, I could quite easily spend 30 minutes making deals with all the players because the card and its consequences are quite deep and could support a lot of discussion. As it is, I have to spend time telling players that, no, I do not want a deal when I play this card. They have some trouble believing that I just want to do what the card says. Anyway, without rules, there's nothing to stop one player negotiating away all the time. >you are trying to negotiate something into the game (a ban on >negotiations) that is unwarranted. :) The folk who like negotiation and are good at it will naturally use this skill to influence the PTB and so manipulate the rules of the game. It's like the way that democratic systems of government are dominated by lawyers who constantly increase the powers of goverment while making the legal system ever more complicated. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > If I were to play a Malkavian Prank, say, I could quite easily spend > 30 minutes making deals with all the players because the card and its > consequences are quite deep and could support a lot of discussion. No, *you* couldn't. The *table* could, but *you* couldn't. A player could reasonably ask for you to be penalized under [5.3. Slow Play] of the Tournament Rules (http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html), and I'd almost certainly enforce such a penalty if you couldn't finish the prank within the next 20 seconds. > As it is, > I have to spend time telling players that, no, I do not want a > deal when I play this card. They have some trouble believing > that I just want to do what the card says. That's because, to most players, Malkavian Prank is an *excellent* card for bargaining, harassing, etc., and since you're losing all of that power by "just wanting to do what the card says", most players think you a novice. > Anyway, without rules, > there's nothing to stop one player negotiating away all the time. See above. > The folk who like negotiation and are good at it will naturally use > this skill to influence the PTB and so manipulate the rules of the > game. To ask human beings with certain advantages to enter into a contest which uses those skills while defining the contest to prohibit them from using those skills is asking those human beings to enter into a suicide pact. I'd ask you to think for a long, long time before you EVER ask me -- or ANY of the VTES players I have EVER met -- to engage in such a self-immolation ritual. The likely response from some of the players would probably be a punch in the nose. > It's like the way that democratic systems of government are > dominated by lawyers who constantly increase the powers of goverment > while making the legal system ever more complicated. THAT happens because weak-kneed, worthless, so-called "citizens" refuse to hold (in your example) the lawyers accountable for anything that the lawyers do. Those two examples are completely, 100% unrelated. > > Andrew Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:19:20 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 16 Jul 2003 07:09:12 -0700, Aramis wrote: > >>VTES is a game of manipulation (says so right on the box) > >But who or what is manipulated? Both the box and the rules say that >it's the younger vampires which are manipulated by the Methusalehs - >they do not manipulate each other. >There's nothing on the box or in the rules which suggests that this is >a game of negotiation or deal-making. It's a trading card game in >which you assume a role. You act out this role by taking the game >actions which are detailed in the rules. Deal-making is not one of >them. > >Andrew You've already brought up this arguement before. Nothing has changed. Raille

Jeff Haar wrote: > Let me restate my observation. The predator/prey relationship is not > absolute. In an absolute predator/prey system the only path to victory > (or marginal victory) is through ousting suscessive prey. In the loose > predator/prey system players are allowed to (concretely) benefit from > non-prey ousting of the nature described previously. The current topic is whether or not the current play environment conforms to RCG's statements regarding free-for-all diplomacy. The predator-prey relationship is absolute as far as it is defined. The player to your left is your prey. You can only bleed your prey by default. You get a VP when your prey is ousted. You get 6 pool when your prey is ousted. That you can play within that structure with other effect to modify the effect of that structure (Life Boon, Political Flux, Kindred Spirits, etc.) is not in question, nor is it contested. That, even without modifying the effects of that structure, it can be beneficial to act outside of the predator-prey relationship (helping a predator get ousted because that predator can easily foil your deck whereas the next predator in line cannot) is also not in question, nor is it contested. > This loose system leads to more diplomatic reliance then the absolute > system. What absolute system? Please provide a complete, rigorous playable definition of such a system. > I am not equipped with the information to state what RCG's > intention was and will not attempt to do so. I only observe that one > can effectively get a vp for the ousting of a non-prey. True, and never in doubt. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On 21 Jul 2003 09:36:58 -0700, Talonz wrote: > > >>Not true, he specefically wanted a deeper multiplayer game but did not >>want the game to be 'pure negotiation'. Which therefore logically >>means that some negotiation is part of the game design. > > > Your logic is faulty. Not (pure negotiation) <> some negotiation. His logic is fine. He states that some negotiation is well within the confines of "not (pure negotiation)" and that if RCG intended to say "devoid of negotiation", he would have. Your logic, that the only environment that is not pure negotiation is one in which there is no negotiation, is faulty. > Having some negotiation risks that negotiation being decisive. Only if the game is pure negotiation. If not, then, by definition, the game cannot be decided by negotiation alone. > The > only sure way of avoiding pure negotiation is to have no negotiation > at all. And that is what the game's rules describe - a game without > negotiation. Not true. See Succubus Club, whose text echoes the default state: "Any additional terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." The game rules do not enforce the terms of deals, therefore deals are not part of the game rules. See previous posts where this has been covered. >>>there are no rules for negotiation. >> >>Because none are needed. Correct. > If I were to play a Malkavian Prank, say, I could quite easily spend > 30 minutes making deals with all the players because the card and its > consequences are quite deep and could support a lot of discussion. As > it is, I have to spend time telling players that, no, I do not want a > deal when I play this card. They have some trouble believing that I > just want to do what the card says. Anyway, without rules, there's > nothing to stop one player negotiating away all the time. Negotiation requires two players. See previous posts where this has been covered. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:06:11 GMT, rai...@mich.com wrote: >On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:19:20, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > >>On 16 Jul 2003 07:09:12 -0700, Aramis wrote: >> >>>VTES is a game of manipulation (says so right on the box) >> >>But who or what is manipulated? Both the box and the rules say that >>it's the younger vampires which are manipulated by the Methusalehs - >>they do not manipulate each other. >>There's nothing on the box or in the rules which suggests that this is >>a game of negotiation or deal-making. ... > >You've already brought up this arguement before. Nothing has changed. I was countering Aramis' argument - I suppose that he is new to this. But one thing has changed since the last time this issue was discussed here. We have a new box and a new rulebook (Anarchs). These _still_ don't contain any copy or rules to suggest that this is a game of negotiation, diplomacy and deals. The rules state that they are "comprehensive". Look in the index or glossary - the word "deal" is not there. It's absurd to be asking whether a deal is legal when there is no such concept in the game. Andrew

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) writes: > Let me restate my observation. The predator/prey relationship is not > absolute. Nor was it ever supposed to be, so far as I can tell. Garfield notes that (some) people wanted it to be a free for all attack mechanism in early versions of the game, or that whoever performed the oust should get the VP, rather than the predator. Garfield notes that ousting someone who is not yoru prey should be something you are doing for some benefit anyway - perhaps giving yourself vote lock? - which already notes that the predator/prey dynamic is not "absolute". Stepping outside the dynamic is entirely possible, and was planned for - which is why the dynamic makes it compelling, but not absolutely so, to move forward, whilst noting that other possibilities might be there for something that is better for a player long-term e.g. if I get rid of my grand-prey with you, I can probably get 3 VPs and you get 1, whereas if I leave him on the table, I'll stall hideously. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > I was countering Aramis' argument - I suppose that he is new to this. > But one thing has changed since the last time this issue was discussed > here. We have a new box and a new rulebook (Anarchs). These _still_ > don't contain any copy or rules to suggest that this is a game of > negotiation, diplomacy and deals. It doesn't state that it's a game between people who are living or breathing, either. As a result, next time you play in a tournament I jduge, I will penalise you for breathing and request that you stop doing so, since this is clearly not part of the game and you are therefore breaching the rules in a gross and unfair fashion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > It's absurd to be asking whether a deal is legal when > there is no such concept in the game. Actually, the question you're refering to is more a question of "is it legal to honor this deal even if, when it comes down to the point of honoring or breaking the deal, the play-to-win rule would indicate that I must break the deal?" The answer to that, as has been spelled out several times before, is: "yes, if making the deal with the assumption that the involved parties would honor the deal was legal under the play-to-win rule at the point the deal was made." There is a "play-to-win" concept in the game, so the question is not absurd. Or, in your usage (refering to the deal itself in its abstract form without regard to the in game applicatin of the terms deal), every deal is "legal", since no deals are restricted (since there is no concept of "deal" addressed in the rulebook) and the abstract deal doesn't affect any of the elements of the game at all. The deals are unfettered by the rules, which is why the rules do not invoke the concept - the deals are purely the purview of the players, like bluffing (also not a concept in the rules, and also not prohibited), etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > This loose system leads to more diplomatic reliance then the absolute > > system. > > What absolute system? Please provide a complete, rigorous playable definition > of such a system. The absolute predator-prey system allows for attaining measurable game sucess (vps) only through ousting of prey. This would disallow anything that artifically generates measureable sucsess through other means (rewards from deals). A first step to implement this is to reward players who windraw 0 vps. Please allow me additional time to consider other measures and the (possibly undesired)ramifications of this and other measures.

[ quoted text not captured ] OK. I think it will be tough to make a playable system that wouldn't allow a "I'll let this bleed through so you can get the edge (and my prey will lose the edge) if you don't increase the bleed amount" sort of deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

rai...@mich.com wrote in message news:<fd1e814d2a411766...@free.teranews.com>... > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:22:05 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> > wrote: > > >On 15 Jul 2003 09:45:05 -0700, Patrick van der Reest wrote: > > > >>It's probably neither wise nor accurate to generalize women like this; > > > >Hence the word "most". I saw the VTES crowd recently in your home > >town at Origins. I only noticed one woman, Robyn. I haven't played > >with her but suppose that she's one of the exceptions. For > >Shadowfist, I didn't see any women players at all. For Doomtown there > >were three and they typify my comment. One wrote, "Maybe it's the > >accent, but there is something about the way he organizes the events > >that makes sitting down to play fun and unintimidating." Cutthroat > >competition is not what such women seek and they really don't care > >whether they win or not. They are good to have around though and > >that's why I encourage them to participate. > > > >Andrew > > > Also Carol and one other Gal from Cincinatti OH. > > But we could use more. I'd also like it to be known that Columbus now has two female regulars, Erin and Adrienne, and an unregular, Lynn (who hasn't played in ages, but is prone to stop by with her group 1 ventrue deck from time to time). ~SV

emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.03071...@posting.google.com>... > orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.03071...@posting.google.com>... > > [I]f a deck sits down and can't do anything to oust it's > > prey, and the prey likes it that way (Say an assamite attack deck > > preying on an IC obediance/PTO monster) then what is wrong with a > > deal? > > Nothing's wrong with making deals that still leave you a chance at > winning. But as the Assamite in the example above, I would not offer > my prey 3 vp in exchange for the last 2. Instead, I would offer him a > non-aggression pact that would last until we were the last decks at > the table, then throw myself backwards in hopes of a 2/1/1/1 victory. > It's a hard win to pull off, but it IS possible, whereas the other > deal is essentially giving up. > > Or I'd offer deals to my grandprey, grandpredator or predator. There's > always some path to victory, even if it's a hard one. Yeah, but if that fails then the IC deck gets three and you get none. Basically there is no chance of winning in that circumstance - knowing what the assamite player is doing, the IC gets a vp forward, and then burns all the assamite minions with votes, ending the game. could be a bloody fight at the end, but knowing that its coming allows the IC to plan for it, making the hope for a 2-1-1-1 nigh on meaningless. Cameron

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.03071...@posting.google.com>... > I would love to see a judge tell me my play (other than specific card > related issues) is illegal. The concept of the judge telling the > player what to do seems to be anathmae to LSJ's concept of the game. > It also would be interesting to see what sort of table balance is > maintained when I take my cards with me and go home. Not that these > things are likely to happen, but really, if the judge feels like > playing my game why should I stick around? Yeah, that creates terrible play imbalances... someone scooped up their cards in Anne Arbour one year after I played Rotshreck (a card he'd never seen before, and obviously didn't like) on him... His was my predator, but still... no reason for scooping... Or matter it was. Its a game, and it was a game he didn't want to play any more. Good for him. ~SV

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<ugaqhv83r5ep36qdt...@4ax.com>... > I was countering Aramis' argument - I suppose that he is new to this. And you'd assume wrong (like most of your assumptions so far, which is why I stopped replying). > Andrew Aramis *henceforth stopping from feeding the troll*

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F1D3238...@white-wolf.com>... > Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > > It's absurd to be asking whether a deal is legal when > > there is no such concept in the game. > > Actually, the question you're refering to is more a question of > "is it legal to honor this deal even if, when it comes down to the > point of honoring or breaking the deal, the play-to-win rule would > indicate that I must break the deal?" > > The answer to that, as has been spelled out several times before, is: > "yes, if making the deal with the assumption that the involved parties > would honor the deal was legal under the play-to-win rule at the point > the deal was made." Right, and you have previously stated that the state of the game needs to be considered when determining whether the deal was legal (in the sense of being able to be subsequently honoured)? What factors are considered state of the game? Is it merely cards in play , as provided at the start of the thread? Or do other factors have to be considered? For example: cards in the ash heap cards in hand cards in the library decklist player statements about their future intentions player statements about past occurrences within the current game a consideration of players' abilities (e.g., familiarity with game) Thanks, Anthony Barker.

Obviously my answers aren't definitive but I'm reasonably confident of them (and LSJ will certianly set me straight ;) > Right, and you have previously stated that the state of the game needs > to be considered when determining whether the deal was legal (in the > sense of being able to be subsequently honoured)? > What factors are considered state of the game? Is it merely cards in > play , as provided at the start of the thread? > Or do other factors have to be considered? > For example: > cards in the ash heap Yes. Mostly this will be irrelevant unless they are likely to be brought back into play. Previous play in the game should also be considered -how it is reasonable to expect the other decks to behave. > cards in hand Yes -but only the cards of the player who's side of the deal is at issue. > cards in the library Yes -but only the library of the player whose position is being questioned. > decklist Yes -but only the decklist of the player whose position is being considered. > player statements about their future intentions Not really. Clearly a statement that they intend to break the deal anyway would negate the need to rule it illegal though I'm still not clear on who the judge tells and when. > player statements about past occurrences within the current game No > a consideration of players' abilities (e.g., familiarity with game) No Just to put it in again: When making a ruling on a deal -who does the judge tell if the deal is illegal (to follow through) and when? I seem to recall an account of a player being taken aside by the judge and telling them they intended to break the deal anyway and the judge ruling that they wereplaying legally...

Timlagor wrote: > Obviously my answers aren't definitive but I'm reasonably confident of > them (and LSJ will certianly set me straight ;) > >>What factors are considered state of the game? Is it merely cards in >>play , as provided at the start of the thread? >>Or do other factors have to be considered? Game state: the state of the game. In this context, it is the state of the game as far as the player in question knows it. >>For example: >>cards in the ash heap > Yes. Mostly this will be irrelevant unless they are likely to be brought > back into play. > Previous play in the game should also be considered -how it is > reasonable to expect the other decks to behave. > >>cards in hand > Yes -but only the cards of the player who's side of the deal is at > issue. > >>cards in the library > Yes -but only the library of the player whose position is being > questioned. > >>decklist > Yes -but only the decklist of the player whose position is being > considered. > >>player statements about their future intentions > Not really. Clearly a statement that they intend to break the deal > anyway would negate the need to rule it illegal though I'm still not > clear on who the judge tells and when. > >>player statements about past occurrences within the current game > No > >>a consideration of players' abilities (e.g., familiarity with game) > No Correct. > Just to put it in again: > > When making a ruling on a deal -who does the judge tell if the deal is > illegal (to follow through) and when? > I seem to recall an account of a player being taken aside by the judge > and telling them they intended to break the deal anyway and the judge > ruling that they wereplaying legally... Any deal can be legally made in that view - the ones that aren't "legal" in the usual sense are merely lip service and the player who makes it cannot honor it if the honoring doesn't represent playing to win. So the judge will always ultimately tell the players that the deal making is "playing legally". The judge need only inform the player making the "losing" end of the deal that, when it comes time to honor the deal, the player must still play to win. The rest of the table is left to their own perceptions. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Its ok to feed the ASD Troll, he gets full and pops, then stops posting for weeks and weeks. Got any scraps! Raille

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.0307...@posting.google.com>... > emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote in message news:<75bdf7ed.03071...@posting.google.com>... > > orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.03071...@posting.google.com>... > > > [I]f a deck sits down and can't do anything to oust it's > > > prey, and the prey likes it that way (Say an assamite attack deck > > > preying on an IC obediance/PTO monster) then what is wrong with a > > > deal? > > > > ...I would offer him a > > non-aggression pact that would last until we were the last decks at > > the table, then throw myself backwards in hopes of a 2/1/1/1 victory. > > It's a hard win to pull off, but it IS possible, whereas the other > > deal is essentially giving up.... > > Yeah, but if that fails then the IC deck gets three and you get none. But if it works, you win. That's my point. You have a chance of winning. You aren't settling for second because of the risk. > Basically there is no chance of winning in that circumstance - knowing > what the assamite player is doing, the IC gets a vp forward, and then > burns all the assamite minions with votes, ending the game. could be > a bloody fight at the end, but knowing that its coming allows the IC > to plan for it, making the hope for a 2-1-1-1 nigh on meaningless. > > Cameron Burning your minions before you are predator and prey would be a violation of the deal I envisioned. If you can't trust him to keep the non-aggression deal, you can't trust him to roll over to you either. So what makes second place appealing to you, anyway? Having another deck give me a victory point or two feels pretty much like begging for quarters to me.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F1DEDE3...@white-wolf.com>... > > Just to put it in again: > > > > When making a ruling on a deal -who does the judge tell if the deal is > > illegal (to follow through) and when? > > I seem to recall an account of a player being taken aside by the judge > > and telling them they intended to break the deal anyway and the judge > > ruling that they wereplaying legally... > > Any deal can be legally made in that view - the ones that aren't "legal" > in the usual sense are merely lip service and the player who makes it > cannot honor it if the honoring doesn't represent playing to win. > > So the judge will always ultimately tell the players that the deal > making is "playing legally". > > The judge need only inform the player making the "losing" end of the > deal that, when it comes time to honor the deal, the player must still > play to win. The rest of the table is left to their own perceptions. So if a player does honour a "losing" deal (e.g., 2-3 split), what would be the appropriate penalty? Is it any different if the player thought that they were playing to win, but the judge thought otherwise? Thanks, Anthony.

Anthony Barker wrote: > So if a player does honour a "losing" deal (e.g., 2-3 split), what > would be the appropriate penalty? Is it any different if the player > thought that they were playing to win, but the judge thought > otherwise? Honoring a legal "losing deal" (e.g., a 2-3 split when the 2-VP player had no chance for any VPs otherwise) is fine. Taking a 2-3 split when one could reasonably have won is a violation of the sportsmanship rules. In any circumstance in which a player doesn't play to win, the judge should correct him or her. If the player declines to play to win after being corrected, the judge should correct the situation. See the judges' guide. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F1DEDE3...@white-wolf.com>... > The judge need only inform the player making the "losing" end of the > deal that, when it comes time to honor the deal, the player must still > play to win. The rest of the table is left to their own perceptions. Thus ... when 2 players are making a table split, which would result in one player letting himself oust by the other player ... the deal cannot be honored at the time all others are gone, as the player who _would_ let himself oust has to play to max his VP's at that specific time. Correct?

On 24 Jul 2003 00:53:56 -0700, athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] no. if at the time a player made a deal to get 2vp and give someone else 3, that player could have reasonably won, then _at that time_ the only way their playing would have been legal would be if the player was planning on not keeping the deal. thus, at the time they are 'supposed' to roll over, they must continue to play to win. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<hm7vhvgij47qv7hv1...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I think you got me wrong here. I'l repeat it with an example: Players A, B, C, D and E are on the table. Player A makes a deal with player D that will (probably) result in Player B, C and E being ousted. Part of the deal involves that Player A let himself oust from player D after all others are gone (let's just pretend that circumstances lead to the conclusion that this deal is a way of maximising VP's for both dealmakers, and thus legal (though .. not very sportsman ... imho). yadda yadda yadda .. players B, C and E are ousted. Now Player D of course waits for Player A to honor the deal, and let himself oust from Player D. My question: Is it legal for player A to let himself oust now (in regard to the deal), even though at that specific time (when just he and Player D are on the Table) that would mean he is not playing to maximise his VP's? I hope not.

> Players A, B, C, D and E are on the table. > Player A makes a deal with player D that will (probably) result in > Player B, C and E being ousted. Part of the deal involves that Player > A let himself oust from player D after all others are gone (let's just > pretend that circumstances lead to the conclusion that this deal is a > way of maximising VP's for both dealmakers, and thus legal (though .. > not very sportsman ... imho). > yadda yadda yadda .. players B, C and E are ousted. > Now Player D of course waits for Player A to honor the deal, and let > himself oust from Player D. > My question: Is it legal for player A to let himself oust now (in > regard to the deal), even though at that specific time (when just he > and Player D are on the Table) that would mean he is not playing to > maximise his VP's? Yes. Unless there was a decent chance that A could have won without the deal at the time they made it. If A (had reason to believe they) needed D's help to make progress/survive when they made the deal then it is fine for A to honour the deal at the end. The deal may be honoured if the deal as a whole resulted in a net gain for the player in question. > I hope not. Sorry

[snip] > > I think you got me wrong here. > I'l repeat it with an example: > > Players A, B, C, D and E are on the table. > Player A makes a deal with player D that will (probably) result in > Player B, C and E being ousted. Part of the deal involves that Player > A let himself oust from player D after all others are gone (let's just > pretend that circumstances lead to the conclusion that this deal is a > way of maximising VP's for both dealmakers, and thus legal (though .. > not very sportsman ... imho). > yadda yadda yadda .. players B, C and E are ousted. > Now Player D of course waits for Player A to honor the deal, and let > himself oust from Player D. > My question: Is it legal for player A to let himself oust now (in > regard to the deal), even though at that specific time (when just he > and Player D are on the Table) that would mean he is not playing to > maximise his VP's? > > I hope not. Yes it is legal because the deal was legal. You are allowed to honour legal deals. Why do you hope not? It is fundamental to the deal-making process (and thus fundamental to the game) to allow people to honour legal deals, otherwise deals would be very weak and thus extremely rare. Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03072...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Why i would like it not to be legal? Because i think that the rather recent development of the game is not very desireable. Until about 2 or 3 years ago .. table split deals were VERY rare .. at least in my vicinity. Then it started to become common .. and i started to hate it. Before all that .. if someone wasn't able to oust hi prey on his own .. it was his fault. Either his deck was a bad choice, or he just made some critical mistakes in his playstyle. but he had to life with it. Then table splits became common... and as soon as anyone starts to get threatened to get ousted .. or just can't oust himself .. he starts bickering around and pleading for deals. Then those with better decks or better playstyles lost .. just because 2 players at the table made a tablesplit. And that is getting on my nerves. I would really appreciate a ruling that forbids deals which would result in one of the dealmakers having to play agains his max VP's at _any_ time. That would at least lessen the amount of table split deals ... or so i hope.

athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) wrote in message news:<690c2085.03072...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] *bump*

[ quoted text not captured ] You do not provide enough details. Two possibilities exist: > Thus ... when 2 players are making a table split, which would result > in one player letting himself oust by the other player [and the deal > is an example of both players playing to win, then] ... the deal > cannot be honored at the time all others are gone, as the player who > _would_ let himself oust has to play to max his VP's at that specific > time. Correct? No. Since making the deal was "playing to win" for both players, it can be legally honored. Contrast with: > Thus ... when 2 players are making a table split, which would result > in one player letting himself oust by the other player [and the player > taking the loss could win in some other way, then] ... the deal > cannot be honored at the time all others are gone, as the player who > _would_ let himself oust has to play to max his VP's at that specific > time. Correct? Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Thus ... when 2 players are making a table split, which would result > > in one player letting himself oust by the other player [and the deal > > is an example of both players playing to win, then] ... the deal > > cannot be honored at the time all others are gone, as the player who > > _would_ let himself oust has to play to max his VP's at that specific > > time. Correct? > > No. Since making the deal was "playing to win" for both players, it can > be legally honored. > Any chance to change that ruling? So that deals which would result in a player having to play against his max. VP's at _any_ time are not legal?

Angus, the Unruled wrote: >>No. Since making the deal was "playing to win" for both players, it can >>be legally honored. >> > Any chance to change that ruling? > So that deals which would result in a player having to play against > his max. VP's at _any_ time are not legal? No, since that would remove deals altogether from the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Jul 2003 02:54:52 -0700, athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe a change to the rule that requires a play to minimalize other methusalahs VPs Raille

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F266245...@white-wolf.com>... > Angus, the Unruled wrote: > >>No. Since making the deal was "playing to win" for both players, it can > >>be legally honored. > >> > > Any chance to change that ruling? > > So that deals which would result in a player having to play against > > his max. VP's at _any_ time are not legal? > > No, since that would remove deals altogether from the game. I would like to get a ruling that manages to make tablesplitting deals illegal, yet keep all other sorts of deals legal. Any ideas how such a ruling could look like, without leaving any loopholes for tablesplitting and yet leaving other deals as legal as they are?

[ quoted text not captured ] Scratch that, stupid Idea. Perhaps play ti minimalize the VP's of your predator. After all the predators goal is to minimalize yours. ;) But your suggestion to add to the rules is without merit. The change only needs to be made to the tournament rules. Raille

Angus, the Unruled wrote: > I would like to get a ruling that manages to make tablesplitting deals > illegal, yet keep all other sorts of deals legal. > > Any ideas how such a ruling could look like, without leaving any > loopholes for tablesplitting and yet leaving other deals as legal as > they are? Doesn't sound possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1b0f903d460e1e00...@free.teranews.com>, rai...@mich.com writes: >Scratch that, stupid Idea. Perhaps play ti minimalize the VP's of >your predator. Why? If I'm stuck (the exact counter to my deck is my prey) and can't go forward right now, I should go backwards and pound my predator into the dirt, to minimise his VPs? It rather looks like - to my predator - that the end effects are him getting bashed from two sides. And I don't think he'll really care whether it was as a result of a VP splitting deal or me having to minimise his VPs by the rules. The end result is the same to him - two Methuselahs coming and smacking him. And if I'm in that situation, and my predator throws a cross table Life Boon against someone who will die again on the next bleed against them, am I now absolutely forced to play my Sudden Reversal? And if I don't, is the Judge entitled to tell me to? And if people think it's hard for a judge to rule on what a VP maximising deal is, why do you want to compound the problem by asking him to start ruling on what will minimise your predator's chance of a VP? And what if there's a risky way for me to get 3 VPs (say, I have some spare pool to bring out a powerful vampire), but if I screw up, I might end up handing my predator a VP (because I end up dangerously close to zero pool), whereas if I don't do it, I'll end up with zero VPs but I can probably fend her off better? Which do I have to play to now? Maximising my own, or miminising hers? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

Angus, the Unruled expounded: > I would like to get a ruling that manages to make tablesplitting deals > illegal, yet keep all other sorts of deals legal. > > Any ideas how such a ruling could look like, without leaving any > loopholes for tablesplitting and yet leaving other deals as legal as > they are? > "Tablesplitting deals are illegal"? ;-P What's a table-splitting deal anyway?

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F27B032...@white-wolf.com>... > Angus, the Unruled wrote: > > I would like to get a ruling that manages to make tablesplitting deals > > illegal, yet keep all other sorts of deals legal. > > > > Any ideas how such a ruling could look like, without leaving any > > loopholes for tablesplitting and yet leaving other deals as legal as > > they are? > > Doesn't sound possible. Maybe making it illegal to make a deal which would result in you having to get yourself ousted by another player? Could be a start ... and that should hardly prevent "normal" deals.

Angus, the Unruled wrote: > Maybe making it illegal to make a deal which would result in you > having to get yourself ousted by another player? You underestimate the intelligence of the players. They can easily get around such a restriction to accomplish the same result. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <690c2085.03073...@posting.google.com>, "Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> writes: >> Doesn't sound possible. > >Maybe making it illegal to make a deal which would result in you >having to get yourself ousted by another player? "Oh well, if you help me get him, then you'll have an easier time getting her and chances are, by that point, I'll not have any cards left. *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*" [ quoted text not captured ]

Timlagor wrote: > "Tablesplitting deals are illegal"? ;-P > > What's a table-splitting deal anyway? A deal between two players that they will play cooperatively so that one of them gets 2 VPs and the other 3. Usually made when someone feels they're incapable of taking out their prey (or will be taken out easily be their predator) Typically as so: If A->B->C->D->E are playing, C might make the deal with A, that C will help A oust B, on the condition that A won't put any pressure on C, let C oust D and E, and then C will allow A to oust him. C gets 2 VPs, A gets 3. --Colin McGuigan

>Maybe making it illegal to make a deal which would result in you >having to get yourself ousted by another player? >Could be a start ... and that should hardly prevent "normal" deals. But who decides thats the case? And what if its part of a plan to gain some advantage? The judges don't know whats going through your mind. ------------------------- Cambridge by Night. http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:02:13, LSJ wrote: >> So that deals which would result in a player having to play against >> his max. VP's at _any_ time are not legal? > >No, since that would remove deals altogether from the game. Given that deals don't formally exist in the game, that's hardly a problem. But, even if you assume that deals exist and ought to be encouraged, this wouldn't rule out most of them. For example, at a previous con, I recall Noal saying to my predator that he wouldn't bleed him for 10 turns if he, in return, tried to bleed me. Noal was trying to get the game out of a grid-locked state though, as it happened, the game timed out. Voting deals of the form "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" would likewise work under these conditions. The only deals which are absolutely impossible are the ones which involve allowing yourself to be ousted. And these are the ones which Angus is trying to stop. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > Given that deals don't formally exist in the game, that's hardly a > problem. See previous responses to your posts. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <dgkgivsigmsk69fug...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >The only deals which are >absolutely impossible are the ones which involve allowing yourself to >be ousted. And these are the ones which Angus is trying to stop. Futilely. You don't have to 'allow' yourself to be ousted. Fake it. Convincingly. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<iii9EvvEOCK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <690c2085.03073...@posting.google.com>, "Angus, > the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> writes: > >> Doesn't sound possible. > > > >Maybe making it illegal to make a deal which would result in you > >having to get yourself ousted by another player? > > "Oh well, if you help me get him, then you'll have an easier time > getting her and chances are, by that point, I'll not have any cards > left. *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*" Yep .. you could make that But there's a difference between such a deal and a deal where you are allowed to say "help me oust him and i let myself get ousted by you". The difference is that you could not get yourself ousted on purpose by him once only he and you are left, because that was not part of the deal (officially), and you have to try to oust him. It's at least a try ...

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:37:13 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> Given that deals don't formally exist in the game, that's hardly a >> problem. > >See previous responses to your posts. Ditto. That aside, I note that you fail to defend your hyperbolic assertion that requiring players to play to win at all times makes deal-making impossible. It doesn't - not even close. Even if it did, then that would be just too bad. The requirement of playing to win is specified in the tournament rules. The need for dealmaking is not. Andrew

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<o+M$j4y9RJK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <dgkgivsigmsk69fug...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. > Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >The only deals which are > >absolutely impossible are the ones which involve allowing yourself to > >be ousted. And these are the ones which Angus is trying to stop. > > Futilely. > > You don't have to 'allow' yourself to be ousted. Fake it. > Convincingly. Why should you fake it, when you haven't made a deal that promised it (since that would be illegal - in my theory)?

In message <690c2085.03073...@posting.google.com>, "Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> writes: >> "Oh well, if you help me get him, then you'll have an easier time >> getting her and chances are, by that point, I'll not have any cards >> left. *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*" > >Yep .. you could make that > >But there's a difference between such a deal and a deal where you are >allowed to say "help me oust him and i let myself get ousted by you". You've almost entirely missed the point. The deal I am - in reality - making is *precisely* the same deal I was making before. However, because people tell me that I can't offer to oust myself, I don't offer to. But the *nudge nudge* *wink wink* indicates that you'll be able to oust me, whether I just roll over or not. However, *because* you have missed the point, it demonstrates the point being made precisely. I now have a situation where - to get the most VPs, perhaps even a table win - the suggested deal must be obfuscated. I cannot say "Do this, do that, do the other." I must obfuscate the deal so that you and I both *know* "Do this, do that, do the other" but the openly made deal is of the form above. "OH YES. BY THEN I AM SURE MY HAND WILL BE FULL OF CHAFF AND I WILL BE UNABLE TO STOP YOU OUSTING ME AND CLAIMING TWO VPS. I WILL HAVE RUN OUT OF DEFENSIVE POWER. VERY CARELESS OF ME. I AM VERY AGGRIEVED ABOUT THIS. THAT WILL LEAVE ME WITH THREE VPS AND YOU WITH TWO VPS. BUT I AM NOT OFFERING TO OUST MYSELF. OH NO." Now add a fast talking player who is capable of an infinite amount more subtlety than the above. What have you stopped? Players without the gift of a quick wit and a silver tongue doing what you wanted to stop. Why stop them? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <78khiv4ootuqak2jc...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:37:13 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>> Given that deals don't formally exist in the game, that's hardly a >>> problem. >> >>See previous responses to your posts. > >Ditto. Why are you still breathing Andrew? That's cheating. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <690c2085.03073...@posting.google.com>, "Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> writes: >Why should you fake it, when you haven't made a deal that promised it >(since that would be illegal - in my theory)? Because all you're doing is preventing words being uttered. The end results I want are the same; the long term reputation of "He'll help me win in a legal fashion" will accrue; I stand a better chance of getting that player to help me later if he sees I keep my "word" (however obfuscated that word was). The benefits to me are there, and I've done it in a fashion which didn't involve me saying "I'll split the VPs" so your rule simply doesn't apply. Nothing in your rule addresses VP split deals. All it does is stop people discussing them openly. Stopping someone saying "Oh, and I'll oust myself" doesn't help. You can't stop them doing so, in anything other than an artificial fashion of "You can't oust yourself" - which is irrelevant, if I make a few "bad" choices of cards, decide to bring out another vampire and, oh, whoops, I'm ousted by that bleed. Silly me. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <IFLHdt5jEQK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: >Stopping someone saying "Oh, and I'll oust myself" doesn't help. You >can't stop them doing so, in anything other than an artificial fashion >of "You can't oust yourself" - which is irrelevant, if I make a few >"bad" choices of cards, decide to bring out another vampire and, oh, >whoops, I'm ousted by that bleed. Silly me. Well, but it's not irrelevant. It forces your predator to take an action to oust you. Whether or not you choose to block that action is entirely up to you -- we cannot legislate against bad play. For example, I have 3 pool and my predator's Achingly Beautiful Delilah Easton bleeds me, while he has Suzanne Kadim in waiting. Do I block this one, even though an Aire would oust me here, or do I wait for Suzanne? There is no good answer, and even though failing to block when I could have may get me ousted, it isn't something that can be against the rules. But my predator still had to take the action to do it. Self-ousting at the end of your own turn, on the other hand, shifts the balance enormously -- a grandpredator no longer has the chance to ruin your tactic by ousting your predator and THEN you, picking up 2VP and moving on towards the TW. -- How do you know if your keyboard was made by the KGB? ... There's no ESC.

In message <gc3iiv46kj99iund5...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >In message <IFLHdt5jEQK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: > >>Stopping someone saying "Oh, and I'll oust myself" doesn't help. You >>can't stop them doing so, in anything other than an artificial fashion >>of "You can't oust yourself" - which is irrelevant, if I make a few >>"bad" choices of cards, decide to bring out another vampire and, oh, >>whoops, I'm ousted by that bleed. Silly me. > >Well, but it's not irrelevant. It forces your predator to take an >action to oust you. On the technical side, no it doesn't. See Fame, Anarch Revolt, Antediluvian Awakening etc. However, the general point is well made - and taken. But, at the same time, the point is *still* irrelevant. Yes, *in the rest of play* it would force a predator to take an offensive action to oust you. This is not the rest of play. Consider: "Oh, I cannot win and you cannot win. Let us combine our chances are I will get 3 VPs and I will oust myself and you will get 2VPs." This is now illegal to say. Thus: "Oh, I cannot win and you cannot win. It is just possible that if you help me, I will be able to get 3 VPs and I fear that you will stand a good chance against me one on one so it will be in your interests to get it down to you and me because you can probably take me out but you cannot win with your predator there, I feel." Which *actually* says the same thing. It's just now obfuscated. I *want* to make a VP splitting deal - it gets me 3 VPs and a table win! So whether the predator is forced to take an action to oust me or not at the end is largely irrelevant - I *want* to split the table. >For example, I have 3 pool and my predator's Achingly Beautiful Delilah >Easton bleeds me, while he has Suzanne Kadim in waiting. Do I block >this one, even though an Aire would oust me here, or do I wait for >Suzanne? I fumble and let myself be ousted - because I'm not *trying* to defend myself at this point. My predator and I have agreed to VP split. I just didn't use the words "self oust" or - technically - did I self out. The point communicated was the same, though. The end result was the same VP split. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > problem. But, even if you assume that deals exist and ought to be > encouraged, this wouldn't rule out most of them. For example, at a > previous con, I recall Noal saying to my predator that he wouldn't > bleed him for 10 turns if he, in return, tried to bleed me. Noal was > trying to get the game out of a grid-locked state though, as it > happened, the game timed out. Heh. I think I remember that. I believe I was playing my Malkavian "Vertigo" vote deck and I had no intention to take a bleeding action, despite having Ozmo out. Never mind that I usually only hold up my end of a deal until I can strike a fatal blow to my prew. Regards, Noal

Derek Ray wrote: > Self-ousting at the end of your own turn, on the other hand, shifts the > balance enormously -- a grandpredator no longer has the chance to ruin > your tactic by ousting your predator and THEN you, picking up 2VP and > moving on towards the TW. I'd be happy with a simple rule that you can't transfer yourself down to 0 pool. S'got nothing to do with table splitting deals. Just a pet peeve of mine. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > I'd be happy with a simple rule that you can't transfer yourself down to > 0 pool. Not even if you need that vampire (the one you're influencing) and you've got another Methuselah offering to Life Boon you when you get to zero? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Not even if you need that vampire (the one you're influencing) and > you've got another Methuselah offering to Life Boon you when you get to > zero? Not even then. I'd be willing to sacrifice the extremely cornercase scenario to prevent the much more common one (I did say it was a pet peeve). --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > "Tablesplitting deals are illegal"? ;-P > > > > What's a table-splitting deal anyway? > > A deal between two players that they will play cooperatively so that one > of them gets 2 VPs and the other 3. That'll do. What's the problem then? Certainly people can try to make an obfuscated deal but that's what you have judges for. How would it be any harder to enforce than the already in place rules about maximising VPs and not playing for out-of-game considerations?

Timlagor expounded: > Colin McGuigan expounded: > > Timlagor wrote: > > > "Tablesplitting deals are illegal"? ;-P > > A deal between two players that they will play cooperatively so that one > > of them gets 2 VPs and the other 3. > to enforce than the already in place rules about maximising VPs and not > playing for out-of-game considerations? I think the point all the obstructionists (;-P) are making is this: IT IS POSSIBLE TO CHEAT. This is hardly news folks. It is possible, nay easy, to cheat in dozens of different ways already. My attitude to this is "if you are going to cheat, why bother playing?" but whatever their reasons most people don't cheat (afaik -perhaps I am just remarkably unperceptive...). If you have the rule then table-splitting is cheating and most people won't do it.

Timlagor wrote: > That'll do. > > What's the problem then? Well, if you're not one of the two involved in the deal, it kind of sucks. Consider the plight of the Methuselah stuck between them. He's got his predator working to oust him -- fine, that's expected -- but his prey is coming backwards at the same time. Or, if the two involved in the deal are already predator-prey, the predator's not putting any forward pressure on his dealmate; he's going backwards 100%, whereas the prey can go forward 100%, not needing to worry about attacks from his predator. > Certainly people can try to make an obfuscated > deal but that's what you have judges for. How would it be any harder > to enforce than the already in place rules about maximising VPs and not > playing for out-of-game considerations? Well, the thing is, this type of deal isn't illegal. In some cases, it can be pretty reasonable (you've got a S+B predator, 3 pool, and no way to stop a bleed). What tends to rub people raw is when the deal is made on turn 2 -- that is, someone so early in the game has already given up on a game win and is willing to settle for 2 VP. --Colin McGuigan

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:54:00 -0500, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] that's already illegal. there's the rule where you have to 'play to win'. you can make deals to help you win. if you can't reasonably win, you can make deals to maximise your vps (or not make deals, but you still have to try to maximise vps if you can't win). if people are making a deal on turn 2, call over a judge (if it's a tournament) and ask the person on the 2vp end of the deal to justify how they think they can't reasonably win, when it's unlikey there are even more than 3 vampires on the table. I imagine it won't be easy to convince a judge that the deal is legal for the 2vp person that early on. for the 3vp person, well, hell. they get a GW. they're doing nothing wrong. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Colin McGuigan expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > That'll do. > > > > What's the problem then? > > Well, if you're not one of the two involved in the deal, it kind of > sucks. Consider the plight of the Methuselah stuck between them. He's > got his predator working to oust him -- fine, that's expected -- but his > prey is coming backwards at the same time. I meant problem with that as a new rule. > > Certainly people can try to make an obfuscated > > deal but that's what you have judges for. How would it be any harder > > to enforce than the already in place rules about maximising VPs and not > > playing for out-of-game considerations? > > Well, the thing is, this type of deal isn't illegal. In some cases, it > can be pretty reasonable (you've got a S+B predator, 3 pool, and no way I know it isn't illegal -that's the whole point. If you think these deals are reasonable then the rule would be a problem for you.

salem wrote: > if people are making a deal on turn 2, call over a judge (if it's a > tournament) and ask the person on the 2vp end of the deal to justify > how they think they can't reasonably win, when it's unlikey there are > even more than 3 vampires on the table. I imagine it won't be easy to > convince a judge that the deal is legal for the 2vp person that early > on. Depends on the judge's criteria. But, if the 2 VP player can talk well, a lot could be spun. The prime example I could think of is that the player tells the judge (privately, of course), "I have no intention of keeping the deal." When the game is just down to the player and his dealmate, the player can't be blatant and say, "Bleed for 3? Uh, no block. Bleed for 3? Uh, no block...", but it's easy enough to throw a game if you want to. Less...cheating...examples would simply be claiming that they could possibly take out their prey, but it would be no sure thing, and would certainly leave them in a dire situation (eg, two combat decks sitting next to eachother), or, alternatively, to survive they would have to remove their predator, which would leave them totally unable to attack their prey (eg, a combat deck with a S+B predator). The player doesn't have to claim they won't get any VPs otherwise -- they just have to claim that they won't get 3 or more. It seems (to me) there's a precedent that says that though you have to play to maximize your VPs, that's read as "maximize them under reasonable circumstances". The fact that you can oust yourself (or allow yourself to be ousted) (0% possibility for another VP) compared to staying in the game (which may have an incredibly small, but still non-0% possibility for another VP) seems to support this. So even if there's a chance the player could get 3+ VPs, the player can argue that it's too small to be reasonable. Finally, if the player is deadset on getting a tablesplit deal but is turned down by the judge, all he needs to do is take a few lumps and then point out his situation has deteriorated. --Colin McGuigan

Timlagor wrote: > I meant problem with that as a new rule. Forgive me, I must've lost track. What new rule? If it's "No table split deals allowed", the problem is it wouldn't stop them. --Colin McGuigan

In message <MPG.19934713d...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> writes: >What's the problem then? Certainly people can try to make an obfuscated >deal but that's what you have judges for. How would it be any harder >to enforce than the already in place rules about maximising VPs and not >playing for out-of-game considerations? Yes. The current rules require a Methuselah to play to maximise VPs. A rule about not letting yourself be ousted simply requires you to obfuscate what you say. Requiring a judge to be able to cut through the details of an obfuscated deal that wasn't made in his presence, as opposed to an openly made deal where everyone knows what happened because no-one had to hide anything, is really a very different thing indeed. Dealing with deals as they stand can be difficult enough. Adding an extra layer of complexity is, by definition, making it harder. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I however am not willing to remove this valid "play to win" example from the player's choice list, nor start down that slope in general (will players also then be prohibited from paying all remaining pool to pay for a card, for example?). [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<ot6dnWkI3px...@speakeasy.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Sudden thought on this topic, mainly aimed at LSJ here: If you are not supposed to be able to make a deal that clearly _reduces_ the number of VPs you will get, doesn't that by definition prevent any deal that involves you transferring yourself out? Since at the point where you are making those transfers, you're changing the game state from one where you might conceivably get another VP (no matter how rare the chance) to one where you absolutely cannot gain any. And zero is certainly less than 'maybe an outside shot at one'... -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: > If you are not supposed to be able to make a deal that clearly > _reduces_ the number of VPs you will get, doesn't that by definition > prevent any deal that involves you transferring yourself out? No. You could deal to gain a VP or 2 (more than you would have otherwise gotten) and then transfer yourself out (after having improved your VP take), for instance. Or you could be in a position where you cannot gain any more VPs no matter what you do (reasonably), so dealing to transfer out wouldn't reduce that zero expectation. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > I however am not willing to remove this valid "play to win" example > from the player's choice list, Don't recall saying you should. > nor start down that slope in general > (will players also then be prohibited from paying all remaining pool > to pay for a card, for example?). Were it me, I'd say, no, they couldn't. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say they couldn't take any action that would directly[1] cause them to be ousted unless a) not taking the action would also cause them to be directly ousted, or b) taking the action would get them a VP, or c) there's only two players left. Sure, this cuts cornercases with Life Boon, or Major Boon if bleeding is involved. Sure, it's pointless, because if someone's playing to lose, they can do it. But that won't stop me whining about it. [1] By "directly", I mean immediately. You can transfer yourself down to 1 pool. You can tap yourself out hunting. You can have your vamp with Fame and 0 blood rush someone even if you have no combat cards in your hand. All of which are good ways to get ousted, but don't do so directly. But if you're being bled for two and you have two pool and an untapped minion, I'd say they should have to block. Or deflect. Or reduce the bleed. After all, if you get ousted, your chance of gaining additional VPs is exactly 0. If you're in the game, no matter how screwed, your chance of gaining VPs may be teeny-tiny small, but it's still greater than 0. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> I however am not willing to remove this valid "play to win" example >> from the player's choice list, > > Don't recall saying you should. Your previous quote: "I'd be happy with a simple rule that you can't transfer yourself down to 0 pool." looks suspiciously like a statement of support for the inclusion of the rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Your previous quote: > "I'd be happy with a simple rule that you can't transfer yourself down > to 0 pool." > > looks suspiciously like a statement of support for the inclusion of the > rule. I'd also be happy if you gave me $100. So, am I suggesting you _should_ give me $100? --Colin McGuigan

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Colin McGuigan wrote: > [1] By "directly", I mean immediately. You can transfer yourself down > to 1 pool. You can tap yourself out hunting. You can have your vamp > with Fame and 0 blood rush someone even if you have no combat cards in > your hand. All of which are good ways to get ousted, but don't do so > directly. But if you're being bled for two and you have two pool and an > untapped minion, I'd say they should have to block. Or deflect. Or > reduce the bleed. What's the point of this? I can deliberately play poorly in the hopes someone will oust me, but I can't oust myself? How does that improve the game? And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? Sure, he could be lying, but I'll never have a chance to find out if I'm forced to block. Adding rules like "you must block" helps the game even less than rules like "you must put Smudge in your crypt" or "you must wear pants while drafting" would. I don't like it when people transfer out either, but it needs to be legal. Otherwise you've got someone still at the table who doesn't want to be and doesn't care what happens. That's even worse. Forcing players to remain in a game they feel is hopeless will only encourage sloppy play and random actions (i.e. rush cross-table because someone didn't call you a Consanguinous Boon). Personally, while I dislike the practice of transferring out (and have lost VPs in casual games in the past because of it), I'd rather see a player honestly declare he feels a game is a lost cause and oust himself than try to pretend he's playing well, but actually try to get ousted. I've seen that as well, since my playgroup frowns on self-ousting. I think intentionally bad play is even more annoying. Matt Morgan

In message <IPWdnWG5Ovl...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> writes: >Sure, this cuts cornercases with Life Boon, or Major Boon if bleeding >is involved. Life Boon in particular is already quite corner case. I'd never even really thought about LSJ's suggestion until now, but it sounds like a damn fine play to me, if you can pull it off. [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin McGuigan wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Your previous quote: >> "I'd be happy with a simple rule that you can't transfer yourself down >> to 0 pool." >> >> looks suspiciously like a statement of support for the inclusion of >> the rule. > > I'd also be happy if you gave me $100. So you're not in favor of adding the rule then? [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > What's the point of this? I can deliberately play poorly in the hopes > someone will oust me, but I can't oust myself? How does that improve the > game? Takes longer to happen. Gives others a chance to react. If I transfer out, there's diddly/squat someone can do about it, except to Life Boon me. But if it takes an action from my predator (or, at least, has to wait 'till my predator's untap (Army of Rats) or my untap (Anarch Revolt), it gives the other players _some_ chance. > And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey > is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? Sure, he could be lying, but I'll > never have a chance to find out if I'm forced to block. Mmm. Yep. > I don't like it when people transfer out either, but it needs to be legal. > Otherwise you've got someone still at the table who doesn't want to be and > doesn't care what happens. That's even worse > > Forcing players to remain in a game they feel is hopeless will only > encourage sloppy play and random actions (i.e. rush cross-table because > someone didn't call you a Consanguinous Boon). Well, let me approach from the opposite tack: would you say that in a tournament setting, someone can just decide they want to be ousted, and leave? Why force them to have to stay in the game while they transfer/are bled out over multiple turns? After all, they feel the game is hopeless and no longer want to be there. Obviously, they can't do this legally (you're only ousted when you don't have any pool, and you can't just give pool away (without the help of some cards), but put that aside. Do you think it does the game any good to keep them in it and force them to oust themselves within the bounds of the rules? I think it does. It gives the other players at least some time to react. Ditto with the way I'd like things to be: someone who wanted to get out of the game would only have to transfer themselves to 1 pool and tap all their minions hunting or whatnot. But it would give the other players at least some warning. > Personally, while I dislike the practice of transferring out (and have > lost VPs in casual games in the past because of it), I'd rather see a > player honestly declare he feels a game is a lost cause and oust himself > than try to pretend he's playing well, but actually try to get ousted. > I've seen that as well, since my playgroup frowns on self-ousting. I > think intentionally bad play is even more annoying. Never said they'd have to pretend to play well. No point in making people be sneaky about something they'll do anyway. --Colin McGuigan

James Coupe wrote: > Life Boon in particular is already quite corner case. > > I'd never even really thought about LSJ's suggestion until now, but it > sounds like a damn fine play to me, if you can pull it off. How so? You spend pool to keep someone in the game who, even if they're not ousted by their predator the next turn, will almost certainly attempt to just transfer themselves out again? Guess I could see it in a HoS millstone, but other than that... --Colin McGuigan

LSJ wrote: > So you're not in favor of adding the rule then? I'm totally in favor of you adding the rule, and I'm totally in favor of you giving me $100. But seeing as how both have as much chance of success as a player who ousts himself has of getting another VP, there's no reason that I would say that you should do either. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] I would stop most of them because most people don't cheat.

Timlagor wrote: > I would stop most of them because most people don't cheat. Well, at what point would you say, "This is a table splitting deal"? Could I say to my predator, "Let me oust my prey and grandprey, and then I'll keep myself at 3 pool or lower for the rest of the game?" What about, "...and then I'll always tap out?" Would those be considered cheating? --Colin McGuigan

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Colin McGuigan wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > What's the point of this? I can deliberately play poorly in the hopes > > someone will oust me, but I can't oust myself? How does that improve the > > game? > > Takes longer to happen. Gives others a chance to react. > > If I transfer out, there's diddly/squat someone can do about it, except > to Life Boon me. > > But if it takes an action from my predator (or, at least, has to wait > 'till my predator's untap (Army of Rats) or my untap (Anarch Revolt), it > gives the other players _some_ chance. Some chance for what? Giving you lots of pool that you'll still piss away? Seems hardly worth the cost of outlawing the paths to victory LSJ was talking about. > > And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey > > is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? Sure, he could be lying, but I'll > > never have a chance to find out if I'm forced to block. > > Mmm. Yep. So that's okay then? > > I don't like it when people transfer out either, but it needs to be legal. > > Otherwise you've got someone still at the table who doesn't want to be and > > doesn't care what happens. That's even worse > > > > Forcing players to remain in a game they feel is hopeless will only > > encourage sloppy play and random actions (i.e. rush cross-table because > > someone didn't call you a Consanguinous Boon). > > Well, let me approach from the opposite tack: would you say that in a > tournament setting, someone can just decide they want to be ousted, and > leave? Why force them to have to stay in the game while they > transfer/are bled out over multiple turns? After all, they feel the > game is hopeless and no longer want to be there. Sure, that's not a good situation. Sometimes players will scoop their cards even when there's no legal way to self-oust (no uncontrolled vamps, for example). You cannot prevent this from happening in all cases. Since it cannot be prevented, it's pointless to invent new rules intended to prevent it. > Obviously, they can't do this legally (you're only ousted when you don't > have any pool, and you can't just give pool away (without the help of > some cards), but put that aside. Do you think it does the game any good > to keep them in it and force them to oust themselves within the bounds > of the rules? Yes. The current rules governing self-ousting don't block any of my paths to victory chances of winning. > I think it does. It gives the other players at least some time to > react. Agreed. > Ditto with the way I'd like things to be: someone who wanted to > get out of the game would only have to transfer themselves to 1 pool and > tap all their minions hunting or whatnot. But it would give the other > players at least some warning. But it's not worth it to outlaw the potential of a wild plan like transfering to 0, getting a minion and a Life Boon for 1 pool and then going on to win the game. How about a situation like this: I have 2 pool and an empty, untapped Howler (just rescued from torpor) with 5 Raven Spies. I control no other minions. My library and hand are both empty. My predator has Ozmo (+1 bleed) with a Sengir Dagger and Sheila Mezarin (+1 bleed). My prey announces he'll block any bleed from Sheila with Eagle's Sight, but is unwilling to block Ozmo due to the Dagger (and possibly unable, due to Ozmo's obf). If my prey announces a bleed with Sheila first, I'll be ousted under your rule. I have to try to block and I get to do so before my prey can. Now Howler is tapped and my prey is unwilling to save me due to Ozmo's weapon...unless you want to make another rule that would require my prey to save me. Cornercase? All right, but it could happen and it's certainly not the effect you're going for at all. Allowing exceptions would force players to keep deals ("I'll Life Boon you" or "I'll block with Eagle's Sight"), which we know is against the spirit of the game. > > Personally, while I dislike the practice of transferring out (and have > > lost VPs in casual games in the past because of it), I'd rather see a > > player honestly declare he feels a game is a lost cause and oust himself > > than try to pretend he's playing well, but actually try to get ousted. > > I've seen that as well, since my playgroup frowns on self-ousting. I > > think intentionally bad play is even more annoying. > > Never said they'd have to pretend to play well. No point in making > people be sneaky about something they'll do anyway. But that's just the thing. If you outlaw transferring out, players will tend to try to avoid looking as though they're trying to get ousted. As I said, my playgroup frowns on self-ousting, so the couple of times I've seen players engage in that kind of behavior they have had all manner of lame excuses. I think the best solution is to spread the philosophy of hanging in there and trying to have a good time when things look sour. After all, if you transfer out on someone, that person is more likely to do the same back to you. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Some chance for what? Giving you lots of pool that you'll still piss > away? Seems hardly worth the cost of outlawing the paths to victory LSJ > was talking about. Some chance to stop or weaken the predator of the person who's going to be ousted. Or, at the very least, it lets the prey of the person who's going to be ousted know that next turn he can expect his predator to be his grandpredator. > So that's okay then? Mmmm. IMO? Yep. > Sure, that's not a good situation. Sometimes players will scoop their > cards even when there's no legal way to self-oust (no uncontrolled vamps, > for example). You cannot prevent this from happening in all cases. Since > it cannot be prevented, it's pointless to invent new rules intended to > prevent it. My question wasn't about preventing people from getting up and leaving. My question was, "In a tournament, should you be allowed to self-oust at any point?" > Yes. The current rules governing self-ousting don't block any of my paths > to victory chances of winning. So, you agree that people having to oust themselves within the rules of the game (and not just declaring themselves ousted and walk away), is good for the game? > But it's not worth it to outlaw the potential of a wild plan like > transfering to 0, getting a minion and a Life Boon for 1 pool and then > going on to win the game. <snip cornercase example> > Cornercase? All right, but it could happen and it's certainly not the > effect you're going for at all. Yes. That's very definitely true. But if extremely cornercase examples are the worst things that can be pointed out, I'm quite happy. > Allowing exceptions would force players to keep deals ("I'll Life Boon > you" or "I'll block with Eagle's Sight"), which we know is against the > spirit of the game. If it really mattered, adjust it so that a player could appeal to a judge. If the judge agrees, the player can do it. Other players wouldn't be required to hold up their end of the deal, just confirm for the judge that they had actually made the offer. > But that's just the thing. If you outlaw transferring out, players will > tend to try to avoid looking as though they're trying to get ousted. As I > said, my playgroup frowns on self-ousting, so the couple of times I've > seen players engage in that kind of behavior they have had all manner of > lame excuses. I have no wish to outlaw the concept of getting yourself out of the game. I don't like it, but if someone doesn't want to be at the game, then they don't want to be there, and I have no wish to keep them there, and I definitely don't want them to pretend that they want to be there. > I think the best solution is to spread the philosophy of hanging in there > and trying to have a good time when things look sour. Agreed. --Colin McGuigan

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Colin McGuigan wrote: > > Sure, that's not a good situation. Sometimes players will scoop their > > cards even when there's no legal way to self-oust (no uncontrolled vamps, > > for example). You cannot prevent this from happening in all cases. Since > > it cannot be prevented, it's pointless to invent new rules intended to > > prevent it. > > My question wasn't about preventing people from getting up and leaving. > My question was, "In a tournament, should you be allowed to self-oust > at any point?" True. I wandered a little. I just don't feel that you can prevent players from (effectively) self-ousting, so it's pointless to try. From that, it follows that players should certainly be allowed to self-oust (when they are unable to gain additional VPs). > > Yes. The current rules governing self-ousting don't block any of my paths > > to victory chances of winning. > > So, you agree that people having to oust themselves within the rules of > the game (and not just declaring themselves ousted and walk away), is > good for the game? Absolutely. There is no chance that I might still win a game after scooping my cards, leaving the game shop and driving home. There IS, however, a chance that I could win after transferring out (Life Boon). > > But it's not worth it to outlaw the potential of a wild plan like > > transfering to 0, getting a minion and a Life Boon for 1 pool and then > > going on to win the game. > <snip cornercase example> > > Cornercase? All right, but it could happen and it's certainly not the > > effect you're going for at all. > > Yes. That's very definitely true. But if extremely cornercase examples > are the worst things that can be pointed out, I'm quite happy. How about this? My last minion has a Blood Doll and 2 blood. I have no combat to speak of left. Lazverinus bleeds for the oust. My prey has a Sniper Rifle and wants to block with Eagle's Sight but cannot because I am forced to block by your rules. That certainly could happen. Even if it's just some guy coming in for a hand strike of 1, not having my minion in combat means I can gain a pool by Dolling off my minion and still try to act with that minion, possibly going on to win the game! > > Allowing exceptions would force players to keep deals ("I'll Life Boon > > you" or "I'll block with Eagle's Sight"), which we know is against the > > spirit of the game. > > If it really mattered, adjust it so that a player could appeal to a > judge. If the judge agrees, the player can do it. Other players > wouldn't be required to hold up their end of the deal, just confirm for > the judge that they had actually made the offer. So all I have to do now to self-oust is get some other player to make an offer he doesn't intend to keep? Will the player actually be required to be holding an Eagle's Sight or Life Boon or can he lie about that as well? Am I required to pretend I believe this offer is genuine or would it be cheating unless I really believed it? I sympathize with the problem you are trying to address, but I just don't see your proposed solution helping that much. Matt Morgan

In message <5lWLF+8VhRK$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: >In message <gc3iiv46kj99iund5...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>Well, but it's not irrelevant. It forces your predator to take an >>action to oust you. > >On the technical side, no it doesn't. See Fame, Anarch Revolt, >Antediluvian Awakening etc. Not changing my point in any way. >However, the general point is well made - and taken. > >But, at the same time, the point is *still* irrelevant. No, it's not. The self-oust causes a huge swing. It is possible to ban self-ousts. It is not possible to ban letting someone oust you. >Yes, *in the rest of play* it would force a predator to take an >offensive action to oust you. This is not the rest of play. Sure it is. What good does it to to make a deal where you let yourself die, if someone can Dramatic Upheaval inbetween and take it away from you? >Consider: > >"Oh, I cannot win and you cannot win. Let us combine our chances are I >will get 3 VPs and I will oust myself and you will get 2VPs." > >This is now illegal to say. Thus: > >"Oh, I cannot win and you cannot win. It is just possible that if you >help me, I will be able to get 3 VPs and I fear that you will stand a >good chance against me one on one so it will be in your interests to get >it down to you and me because you can probably take me out but you >cannot win with your predator there, I feel." > >Which *actually* says the same thing. It's just now obfuscated. And when you repeat it in front of a judge, he says "Bullshit. Play to win or both be DQed. End of discussion." It's not quite so easy as everyone is making it seem to obfuscate this sort of thing. It really comes down to NOT SPEAKING. Alternatively, we could take Jeff's suggestion and ban all deals involving VPs in any way, shape, or form. This doesn't stop people who want to not-speak and manage this, but it does send the clear "This is discouraged" signal. >I *want* to make a VP splitting deal - it gets me 3 VPs and a table win! >So whether the predator is forced to take an action to oust me or not at >the end is largely irrelevant - I *want* to split the table. But what if you are on the "I will gain 2VP and then self-oust so you can have 3?" end of the deal? ie. I as your prey with your assistance blow through two decks forward, removing the deck (Tzimisce wall, say) that you cannot possibly beat, because you are cross-table ousting them with votes for me while I apply combat pressure AND incidentally serve as a dead slot to force Eagle's Sight to happen. Then, I mysteriously tap out and you sweep up 3. Except your predator can kill you or step inbetween, steal the 1, and go on to oust you and take his own 3. This happened a lot, by the way. You would give your prey the option of getting 2 and helping you get 3, or getting ousted for a guaranteed zero. -- How do you know if your keyboard was made by the KGB? ... There's no ESC.

In message <3F295D7A...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Colin McGuigan wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Not even if you need that vampire (the one you're influencing) and >>> you've got another Methuselah offering to Life Boon you when you get >>> to zero? >> >> Not even then. I'd be willing to sacrifice the extremely cornercase >> scenario to prevent the much more common one (I did say it was a pet >> peeve). > >I however am not willing to remove this valid "play to win" example I cannot possibly consider this a meaningful "play to win" example, as you are entirely dependent on someone else's assistance at that point -- while you may think you are playing to win, only the other person can TRULY be playing to win. If he doesn't think he can eventually get you, he should be letting you die. I have never seen this happen in a game, nor do I expect to. >from the player's choice list, nor start down that slope in general >(will players also then be prohibited from paying all remaining pool >to pay for a card, for example?). Yes. I would be satisfied with all concrete zero-pool actions being illegal. ie, you may not Pentex Subvert someone when at 2 pool. You may not transfer your last pool to a vampire. You may not Clandestine Contract someone when at 1 pool, saying "but it may be blocked!" You may not bid 5 for the Hostile Takeover when you only have 5 pool. You MAY call Ancilla Empowerment when at 1 pool and 3 minions, because it is not a concrete thing -- voting it down after gaining pool for Bribes is under your own control, for example. You MAY take a Vast Wealth action when on 1 pool even though you have both .44s and Leather Jackets in your deck. You MAY put yourself on zero blood in combat facing a minion with 1 strength at close range with Tension in the Ranks in play and you at 1 pool, hoping to draw into a Fortitude prevent card. (don't have a way to prevent the damage with the disciplines on you? not legal. yes, that call can be made at 100% accuracy.) What's the difference? In the top four actions you are depending on someone else's assistance to stop you from dying; a Sudden Reversal, or blocking the Contract, or someone bidding more, etc. All external factors, not at ALL under your control. In the bottom three, you can save yourself later in the action through either getting lucky on the VW draw, getting lucky on the Fortitude draw, or through voting down your own Empowerment. It's actually a pretty easy line to draw. And it's overdue, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.030731...@fnord.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> mumbled something about: >On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Colin McGuigan wrote: > >> [1] By "directly", I mean immediately. You can transfer yourself down >> to 1 pool. You can tap yourself out hunting. You can have your vamp >> with Fame and 0 blood rush someone even if you have no combat cards in >> your hand. All of which are good ways to get ousted, but don't do so >> directly. But if you're being bled for two and you have two pool and an >> untapped minion, I'd say they should have to block. Or deflect. Or >> reduce the bleed. > >What's the point of this? I can deliberately play poorly in the hopes >someone will oust me, but I can't oust myself? How does that improve the >game? > >And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can block. What possible excuse do you have, IN GAME CONTEXT, to not attempt to block that doesn't rely on the benefices of another? >is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? Sure, he could be lying, but I'll >never have a chance to find out if I'm forced to block. Adding rules like >"you must block" helps the game even less than rules like "you must put >Smudge in your crypt" or "you must wear pants while drafting" would. Opinion: I don't want to see people drafting without pants. >I don't like it when people transfer out either, but it needs to be legal. >Otherwise you've got someone still at the table who doesn't want to be and >doesn't care what happens. That's even worse. Does this suck for them? Yes. Is self-ousting worse? Yes. The choice is: making one person unhappy who was going to lose anyway and who will STILL be unhappy, or making a second person unhappy because they WEREN'T screwed. It's terrible sportsmanship and it's kingmaking. Just truly pathetic gamer-shit that has a DIRECT parallel to "I'm taking my ball and going home". I've always been proud to play V:TES, because its players WEREN'T typical gamers. After GenCon, I have no reason to change my opinion about V:TES players, but boy did I have to shake my head while watching some OTHER games being played. I don't want us to go there. >Forcing players to remain in a game they feel is hopeless will only >encourage sloppy play and random actions (i.e. rush cross-table because >someone didn't call you a Consanguinous Boon). If they're that hosed, they probably can't do anything effective anyway. If they can rush cross-table, why not rush upstream and try to kill all their predator's minions? >Personally, while I dislike the practice of transferring out (and have >lost VPs in casual games in the past because of it), I'd rather see a I've lost VPs in a qualifier because of it. >player honestly declare he feels a game is a lost cause and oust himself >than try to pretend he's playing well, but actually try to get ousted. >I've seen that as well, since my playgroup frowns on self-ousting. I >think intentionally bad play is even more annoying. It sure is. Maybe someone should tell those players how annoying it is, and then that decision can be made whether to continue to play with annoying players who refuse to change, or to find people who don't suck. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] So long as we agree that there's no reason for the rule to be official, great. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:35:09 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >>from the player's choice list, nor start down that slope in general >>(will players also then be prohibited from paying all remaining pool >>to pay for a card, for example?). > >Yes. I would be satisfied with all concrete zero-pool actions being >illegal. ie, you may not Pentex Subvert someone when at 2 pool. You >may not transfer your last pool to a vampire. these i agree with as 'concrete' you're paying as they are played/done. > You may not Clandestine >Contract someone when at 1 pool, saying "but it may be blocked!" You >may not bid 5 for the Hostile Takeover when you only have 5 pool. These i disagree with. you should be allowed to do them. they are not definates, as the cost is not payed at the time you are 'announcing' the cost. >You MAY call Ancilla Empowerment when at 1 pool and 3 minions, because >it is not a concrete thing -- voting it down after gaining pool for >Bribes is under your own control, for example. You MAY take a Vast agreed. >Wealth action when on 1 pool even though you have both .44s and Leather >Jackets in your deck. You MAY put yourself on zero blood in combat >facing a minion with 1 strength at close range with Tension in the Ranks >in play and you at 1 pool, hoping to draw into a Fortitude prevent card. >(don't have a way to prevent the damage with the disciplines on you? >not legal. yes, that call can be made at 100% accuracy.) i think it should be legal regardless of what disciplines you have. there is nothing definate about going to torpor. >What's the difference? In the top four actions you are depending on >someone else's assistance to stop you from dying; a Sudden Reversal, or >blocking the Contract, or someone bidding more, etc. All external >factors, not at ALL under your control. I think the difference shouldn't be who's control the things are under but the directness of the pool cost. >In the bottom three, you can save yourself later in the action through >either getting lucky on the VW draw, getting lucky on the Fortitude >draw, or through voting down your own Empowerment. > >It's actually a pretty easy line to draw. And it's overdue, IMO. i don't think your line is quite so easy. i am rather inclined to think _some_ line is necessary, though. a lot of my players mistakenly beleive it's illegal in tourney rules to suicide, and a lot of new players really hate to see it happen (which might contribute to difficulties keeping the new players playing). I think a rule could be: You can try and get yourself ousted if you can't reasonably get any more vps. You can't directly spend your last pool yourself, though. Implications: You're allowed to decline to block stuff that will kill you. You can take actions that if unblocked (even if the target cannot block or whatever) will kill you. You can call a vote that will kill you (and you may vote in favour). It's not as harsh a line as it could be, but it's easier to see, and prevents the standard 'transfer out' problem (thus giving all other methuselahs one last ditch effort to maniplulate the table to their advantage). salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.030731...@fnord.io.com>, > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> mumbled something about: >> >>And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my >>prey is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? > > I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't > have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" > if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can > block. But to do that, you WOULD be penalizing the inaction of Mr. Two Pool, wouldn't you? > What possible excuse do you have, IN GAME CONTEXT, to not attempt to > block that doesn't rely on the benefices of another? How about: Since you're playing stealth-bleed, and I'm going to die anyway, I'm going to reasonably assume that you're holding a stealth card, and as my last, dying act, I'm going to screw you (a little bit) by forcing you to keep that stealth card in your hand, thereby forcing you to clog your hand (a little bit) with stealth cards rather than bleed cards. Screw you, evil predator! <whimper> <choke> <die> >>I don't like it when people transfer out either, but it needs to be >>legal. Otherwise you've got someone still at the table who doesn't >>want to be and doesn't care what happens. That's even worse. > > Does this suck for them? Yes. Is self-ousting worse? Yes. > > The choice is: making one person unhappy who was going to lose anyway > and who will STILL be unhappy, or making a second person unhappy > because they WEREN'T screwed. It's terrible sportsmanship and it's > kingmaking. Just truly pathetic gamer-shit that has a DIRECT parallel > to "I'm taking my ball and going home". > > I've always been proud to play V:TES, because its players WEREN'T > typical gamers. After GenCon, I have no reason to change my opinion > about V:TES players, but boy did I have to shake my head while > watching some OTHER games being played. > > I don't want us to go there. But you DO want to force players to "attempt to survive" even when the likelihood may be *overwhelming* that they won't survive? I just want to be clear here in what you're saying, Derek. Are you saying that the guy who's at 2 pool that doesn't block the bleed for 2 from (for example) your stealth-bleed deck, because he believes in (for example) my scenario above, should be FORCED to block? Is that where you want us to go? Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Derek Ray wrote: > In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.030731...@fnord.io.com>, > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> mumbled something about: > > >On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Colin McGuigan wrote: > > > >> [1] By "directly", I mean immediately. You can transfer yourself down > >> to 1 pool. You can tap yourself out hunting. You can have your vamp > >> with Fame and 0 blood rush someone even if you have no combat cards in > >> your hand. All of which are good ways to get ousted, but don't do so > >> directly. But if you're being bled for two and you have two pool and an > >> untapped minion, I'd say they should have to block. Or deflect. Or > >> reduce the bleed. > > > >What's the point of this? I can deliberately play poorly in the hopes > >someone will oust me, but I can't oust myself? How does that improve the > >game? > > > >And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey > > I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't > have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" > if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can block. I will always try to stay in a game as long as possible (except in casual play when the outcome is certain and others are waiting to start a new game) and would certainly encourage others to do the same. But for tournament play I prefer the "must play to win or attain maximum VPs if winning is impossible" rule. It's simple. > What possible excuse do you have, IN GAME CONTEXT, to not attempt to > block that doesn't rely on the benefices of another? Honor a deal that gained some VPs I wouldn't normally be able to get? That's not the can of worms I'm trying to get into though. The proposed rule seemed flawed to me, so I thought I'd hammer away at it a bit and see what came of it. VTES is a very political game. I played in the NAC last weekend and I noticed that at each of my tables, the player who talked the most and cut the most deals won. That's not to say that the winning players didn't also have the best decks, best strategy and best (let's face it) luck. But I think it does suggest that many top players can talk a good game. I think we knew that. Should I be able to win games by convincing other players they have no chance to win and should simply oust themselves? Sounds terrible when I put it that way, but bluffing and (in-game) intimidation is certainly important strategy. Otherwise bruise & bleed decks wouldn't need any bleed cards. > >is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? Sure, he could be lying, but I'll > >never have a chance to find out if I'm forced to block. Adding rules like > >"you must block" helps the game even less than rules like "you must put > >Smudge in your crypt" or "you must wear pants while drafting" would. > > Opinion: I don't want to see people drafting without pants. I didn't either. > >I don't like it when people transfer out either, but it needs to be legal. > >Otherwise you've got someone still at the table who doesn't want to be and > >doesn't care what happens. That's even worse. > > Does this suck for them? Yes. Is self-ousting worse? Yes. > > The choice is: making one person unhappy who was going to lose anyway > and who will STILL be unhappy, or making a second person unhappy because > they WEREN'T screwed. It's terrible sportsmanship and it's kingmaking. > Just truly pathetic gamer-shit that has a DIRECT parallel to "I'm taking > my ball and going home". Agreed. But should this idea be enforced by a communal sense of fairness and sportsmanship or should it actually be in the rules? > I've always been proud to play V:TES, because its players WEREN'T > typical gamers. After GenCon, I have no reason to change my opinion > about V:TES players, but boy did I have to shake my head while watching > some OTHER games being played. > > I don't want us to go there. I don't think any of us want that. > >Forcing players to remain in a game they feel is hopeless will only > >encourage sloppy play and random actions (i.e. rush cross-table because > >someone didn't call you a Consanguinous Boon). > > If they're that hosed, they probably can't do anything effective anyway. Maybe. I've seen players who (probably prematurely) consider their situations to be hopeless do something like that. "Hosed" depends on the perspective of the "hose-ee." A newbie might lose his favorite minion to torpor and consider his game over. A top player will still see a path to victory and keep fighting. > If they can rush cross-table, why not rush upstream and try to kill all > their predator's minions? Would be a good plan. Occasionally, there are reasons it couldn't happen (Secure Haven, predator has better combat, etc.). I'll tend not to rush my predator if I'm very sure I'll be ousted right away anyway. Why ruin his game? I also won't go down without a fight. Why ruin my grand-predator's game? But if I think there's any chance rushing backward will give me a couple more turns at least, then I'll do it. > >Personally, while I dislike the practice of transferring out (and have > >lost VPs in casual games in the past because of it), I'd rather see a > > I've lost VPs in a qualifier because of it. > > >player honestly declare he feels a game is a lost cause and oust himself > >than try to pretend he's playing well, but actually try to get ousted. > >I've seen that as well, since my playgroup frowns on self-ousting. I > >think intentionally bad play is even more annoying. > > It sure is. Maybe someone should tell those players how annoying it is, > and then that decision can be made whether to continue to play with > annoying players who refuse to change, or to find people who don't suck. This, I think, is the best way to handle the problem. Matt Morgan

In article <qn5jivojeef676cdv...@4ax.com>, lor...@yahoo.com says... > Yes. I would be satisfied with all concrete zero-pool actions being > illegal. ie, you may not Pentex Subvert someone when at 2 pool. You > may not transfer your last pool to a vampire. You may not Clandestine > Contract someone when at 1 pool, saying "but it may be blocked!" You > may not bid 5 for the Hostile Takeover when you only have 5 pool. Hmm... This would outlaw playing Archon Investigation while at 3 pool. This provides too much comedy to be banned. Seriously though; something like Temptation of Greater Power blurs the line a little bit with the "credit" system. > (don't have a way to prevent the damage with the disciplines on you? > not legal. yes, that call can be made at 100% accuracy.) A bit cumbersome, since it requires a vamp to be in combat and then the combat/strikes to resolve successfully. It seems that would also outlaw blocking a bleed from a minion with at least 1 bleed/1 strength (while at 1 pool) with Smudge with 0 blood on him and a Tension in play; I think a player should be able to make that kind of play. > It's actually a pretty easy line to draw. And it's overdue, IMO. Stopping the "transfer out" and paying for masters/actions that cost pool if such things would kill you is pretty easy. The rest gets a bit trickier. -- -Snapcase

>> >And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey >> >> I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't >> have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" >> if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can block. > >I will always try to stay in a game as long as possible (except in casual >play when the outcome is certain and others are waiting to start a new But what are your thoughts regarding self-ousting when you're going to get ousted anyway? Say you have 1 pool left and you're being bled (and can't block). Can you DI some action modifier (stealth, bleed, whatever) to oust yourself to prevent your predator from successfully bleeding you? Or take the classic example of having 3 pool left and being bled for 5 or 6. Can you self-oust to Archon Investigate that bleed? Or how about during a political action that you know will lead to your ousting? Should you be allowed to spend your last pool on a Business Pressure? >Maybe. I've seen players who (probably prematurely) consider their >situations to be hopeless do something like that. "Hosed" depends on the >perspective of the "hose-ee." A newbie might lose his favorite minion to >torpor and consider his game over. A top player will still see a path to >victory and keep fighting. > >> If they can rush cross-table, why not rush upstream and try to kill all >> their predator's minions? > >Would be a good plan. Occasionally, there are reasons it couldn't happen >(Secure Haven, predator has better combat, etc.). I'll tend not to rush >my predator if I'm very sure I'll be ousted right away anyway. Why ruin >his game? I also won't go down without a fight. Why ruin my >grand-predator's game? But if I think there's any chance rushing backward >will give me a couple more turns at least, then I'll do it. Just wanted to make a side note that, on a few occasions when I have been in a seemingly hopeless situation, I have committed random cross-table actions with the specific intent of de-stabilizing the table. In those situations, if you do manage to de-stabilize the table you might very well have another chance at winning. (Not to say you should torporize all of your grandpredator's minions on a whim...). Hey, when you're in an uncomfortable situation, you might as well make everyone else feel uncomfortable as well! =D Halcyan 2

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F296062...@white-wolf.com>... > John Flournoy wrote: > > If you are not supposed to be able to make a deal that clearly > > _reduces_ the number of VPs you will get, doesn't that by definition > > prevent any deal that involves you transferring yourself out? > > No. You could deal to gain a VP or 2 (more than you would have otherwise > gotten) and then transfer yourself out (after having improved your VP > take), for instance. That's the ruling right now ... and it's "§$%& (sorry) As it is ... a Judge could force a player to agree to a tablesplit deal. Anyway ... If deals involving selve-ousts (whether you are really influencing yourself out or just let all bleeds go through) would be illegal... that would _certainly_ lessen the amount of table-split deals. 1. It would be a clear sign that it's _not_ an intentional part of the game. Bending it (making those "silent deals") would be seen as rather unsportsmanlike. And not sticking to unsportsmanlike deals wouldn't be seen as dishonorable (and thus it wouldn't make it harder to get "normal" deals offered) 2. If someone offers me a "normal" deal, i always stick to it. However, if someone would offer me a deal which involves bending the rules ... and i do not openly agree to it (openly agreeing to a "silent deal" is impossible), i would see no dishonor in "breaking" this officially non-existant deal. Any i believe many others would do the same .. making it _very_ risky for those "offering" table-split deals ... as many would just not stick to it when it comes down to the part of self-ousting. What i do not promise, i do not have to keep.

On 1 Aug 2003 00:56:57 -0700, athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) scrawled: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F296062...@white-wolf.com>... >> John Flournoy wrote: >> > If you are not supposed to be able to make a deal that clearly >> > _reduces_ the number of VPs you will get, doesn't that by definition >> > prevent any deal that involves you transferring yourself out? >> >> No. You could deal to gain a VP or 2 (more than you would have otherwise >> gotten) and then transfer yourself out (after having improved your VP >> take), for instance. > >That's the ruling right now ... and it's "§$%& (sorry) > >As it is ... a Judge could force a player to agree to a tablesplit >deal. no, they can't. if a judge tried that on me, i'd point out all the reasons why it was wrong. if they insisted, i'd follow his instructions, as they ARE the judge. but then i'd report him to the VEKN (which i don't think has actually ever happened, has it?) and politely decline to play in further events judged by them. there is no way a player can know for sure that the person offering him the deal can pull off their end, whether the player themself can pull off their OWN end, and whether or not the other guy will actually keep the deal. ruling out table-split deals rules out the ability to negotiate your way out of a tight spot caused by random seating and your nemesis deck next you you. that's hardly sportsmanlike. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:45:11 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >I've always been proud to play V:TES, because its players WEREN'T >typical gamers. After GenCon, I have no reason to change my opinion >about V:TES players, but boy did I have to shake my head while watching >some OTHER games being played. The Wizkids usually award a major prize in their tournaments for fellowship. For example, the fellowship winner in the Marvel World Championship got the same huge bundle of product as the champion. Fellowship means good sportsmanship and, because this is difficult to define exactly, is usually awarded by a judge's decision or by popular vote. Andrew

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:11:01 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan wrote: >VTES is a very political game. I played in the NAC last weekend and I >noticed that at each of my tables, the player who talked the most and cut >the most deals won. I looked in on this event and was amused to find it had been put alongside Diplomacy rather than with the other CCGs. How appropriate. Andrew

In article <690c2085.03073...@posting.google.com>, athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) wrote: >As it is ... a Judge could force a player to agree to a tablesplit >deal. I don't think they could. Deals are covered by the rules, but are always optional. A judge can never force you to accept a deal. -- charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:10:37 -0400, Charles Lechasseur wrote: >Deals are covered by the rules ... The rules don't say anything about deals. Andrew

Angus, the Unruled wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F296062...@white-wolf.com>... > >>John Flournoy wrote: >> >>>If you are not supposed to be able to make a deal that clearly >>>_reduces_ the number of VPs you will get, doesn't that by definition >>>prevent any deal that involves you transferring yourself out? >> >>No. You could deal to gain a VP or 2 (more than you would have otherwise >>gotten) and then transfer yourself out (after having improved your VP >>take), for instance. > > That's the ruling right now ... and it's "§$%& (sorry) It's an example that refute the assertion in the preceding message, actually, without regard to the current state of rulings. > As it is ... a Judge could force a player to agree to a tablesplit > deal. No. A judge cannot force a deal. This has been covered before. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <QJlWa.29403$Bp2.597@fed1read07>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.030731...@fnord.io.com>, >> "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> mumbled something about: >>> >>>And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my >>>prey is promising to Eagle's Sight block it? >> >> I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't >> have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" >> if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can >> block. > >But to do that, you WOULD be penalizing the inaction of Mr. Two Pool, >wouldn't you? Yep. Sometimes you break eggs when you make an omelet. I hadn't wanted to penalize inaction, only action, but in the case above, it may be necessary to do so. I don't have a problem with the rule reading only "you may make no transfer, nor play a card whose cost would oust you", but if you want to extend it to the above, that's fine with me too. I've considered whether the blocking order should be changed so that the affected player himself always has last option to block. I don't consider this to be worth it, because the examples given where inaction would have to be penalized are all so totally contrived as to be completely worthless and/or not seen in the game. >> What possible excuse do you have, IN GAME CONTEXT, to not attempt to >> block that doesn't rely on the benefices of another? > >How about: >Since you're playing stealth-bleed, and I'm going to die anyway, I'm going >to reasonably assume that you're holding a stealth card, and as my last, >dying act, I'm going to screw you (a little bit) by forcing you to keep that >stealth card in your hand, thereby forcing you to clog your hand (a little >bit) with stealth cards rather than bleed cards. Screw you, evil predator! ><whimper> <choke> <die> So you have no excuse other than kingmaking. Excellent. That emphasizes my point even more AND not incidentally undoes the Eagle's Sight contrivance -- when you fail to block, the Eagle's Sight player has an opportunity to save you. >> I've always been proud to play V:TES, because its players WEREN'T >> typical gamers. After GenCon, I have no reason to change my opinion >> about V:TES players, but boy did I have to shake my head while >> watching some OTHER games being played. >> >> I don't want us to go there. > >But you DO want to force players to "attempt to survive" even when the >likelihood may be *overwhelming* that they won't survive? I just want to be Yes. I do. I want players to try to win. >clear here in what you're saying, Derek. Are you saying that the guy who's >at 2 pool that doesn't block the bleed for 2 from (for example) your >stealth-bleed deck, because he believes in (for example) my scenario above, >should be FORCED to block? Is that where you want us to go? Yes, he should be forced to attempt to block and save himself. If he's got reduction in hand, he can play the reduction instead of attempting to block. If he's got Deflection in hand, he can Deflect instead of attempting to block, OR he can attempt to block and get them to add stealth, then playing the Deflection. The example of relying on a cross-table Eagle's Sight to save yourself, because you'd PREFER not to block, is both elaborately contrived and not meaningful in the long run -- I wouldn't have trouble ruling that "yes, I know you'd like to let him block, but you at least have to attempt to first because of this here rule". Can you contrive up any other situations that don't ever happen? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:6jgkivk8o0dgdivsf...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:10:37 -0400, Charles Lechasseur wrote: > > >Deals are covered by the rules ... > > The rules don't say anything about deals. > I think we're all pretty clear on your (redundantly posted) opinion of this thread's subject at this time. Thanks, Pip. DaveZ Atom Weaver

> >As it is ... a Judge could force a player to agree to a tablesplit > >deal. > > no, they can't. Sure they _could_. As per the rules, you have to play so that you maximise your VP's. fact. So ... we have a situation where Player A offers Player B a tablesplit deal. Let's suppose the deal is legal. That would mean that the deal is a way for both players to maximise their VP's. Else it wouldn't be legal. So if player B now refuses to accept the deal, that would mean he is not playing to maximise his VP's. That is not legal. Thus, as per the current rules, the Judge would have to force him to accept it. > if a judge tried that on me, i'd point out all the reasons why it was > wrong. if they insisted, i'd follow his instructions, as they ARE the > judge. but then i'd report him to the VEKN (which i don't think has > actually ever happened, has it?) and politely decline to play in > further events judged by them. I would do the same. But still, the rules are as they are. And the Judge has to obey them. Stupid? Yes. One of the reasons i'm trying so hard to change it. > > there is no way a player can know for sure that the person offering > him the deal can pull off their end, whether the player themself can > pull off their OWN end, and whether or not the other guy will actually > keep the deal. See the above. Either you have no other way of getting VP's, in which case the deal would be legal, and you have to accept the deal because you have to maximise your VP's, or there is a chance of getting VP's without the deal, in which case the deal would be illegal. > ruling out table-split deals rules out the ability to negotiate your > way out of a tight spot caused by random seating and your nemesis deck > next you you. > Either play with dramatic upheaval, or try to keep the possibility of "nemesis-decks" to a minimum. Strong focused decks (as in comparison to toolbox decks) are risky, and if your deck has no chance to oust your prey .. it's not his fault. > that's hardly sportsmanlike. > It's hardly sportsmanlike that players with inferior decks or playstyle win against those who have made good decks (even if it's just because it's the nemesis - bad luck) or are just playing better, just because they are whining for table-split deals. You can't oust your prey? Maybe it's your fault > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm Angus

In message <e45jiv0tj9u0h5rij...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >Sure it is. What good does it to to make a deal where you let yourself >die, if someone can Dramatic Upheaval inbetween and take it away from >you? Table split deal. I agree to roll over and give you two VPs when I've got three - the obvious example being two combat decks next to each other that would otherwise annihilate each other. When I roll over, *there are no other decks on the table*. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:52:44 -0400, R. David Zopf wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 06:10:37 -0400, Charles Lechasseur wrote: >> >> >Deals are covered by the rules ... >> >> The rules don't say anything about deals. > >I think we're all pretty clear on your (redundantly posted) opinion of this >thread's subject at this time. Thanks, Pip. That is not an opinion; it is a fact. I agree that it shouldn't need repeating but Charles still seems to think that deals are in the rules. They are not. Andrew

I've been reading this group since 1995 and this is by far the most boring and irrelevant thread i've ever witnessed. I'd appriciate it if people could at least lose their temper and start swearing a bit to liven things up. Matt Green

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:mnpkivo1da7o7g86q...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yep. Your position is all clear to us, even Charles. Thanks... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > True. I wandered a little. I just don't feel that you can prevent > players from (effectively) self-ousting, so it's pointless to try. From > that, it follows that players should certainly be allowed to self-oust > (when they are unable to gain additional VPs). Yet you agree that players who want to be oust themselves should do so through the rules (as opposed to just picking up their cards). Adding another rule is just an extension of that. <snip> > So all I have to do now to self-oust is get some other player to make an > offer he doesn't intend to keep? <shrugs> Sure. Although I can't see why, off the top of my head -- it's not like saying, "X hunts. Y hunts. Z hunts. During influence, I transfer down to 1. Your turn." is that difficult, either. Again, I'm not trying to keep people from doing it. I'd just like ways for other players to be able to respond. > Will the player actually be required to > be holding an Eagle's Sight or Life Boon or can he lie about that as well? > Am I required to pretend I believe this offer is genuine or would it be > cheating unless I really believed it? Let 'em lie. No requirement. The only point of abuse I could see would be the predator, who of course wants to see his prey ousted. But that would most likely conflict with the "maximize VPs" rule -- predator offering to Life Boon his prey might need an explanation for the judge. > I sympathize with the problem you are trying to address, but I just don't > see your proposed solution helping that much. Yeah. I got that. =P --Colin McGUigan

On 1 Aug 2003 06:01:28 -0700, athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) scrawled: >> >As it is ... a Judge could force a player to agree to a tablesplit >> >deal. >> >> no, they can't. > >Sure they _could_. >As per the rules, you have to play so that you maximise your VP's. >fact. >So ... we have a situation where Player A offers Player B a tablesplit >deal. Let's suppose the deal is legal. That would mean that the deal >is a way for both players to maximise their VP's. Else it wouldn't be >legal. >So if player B now refuses to accept the deal, that would mean he is >not playing to maximise his VP's. That is not legal. Thus, as per the >current rules, the Judge would have to force him to accept it. what if...ah, an excellent way to start a response...anyway... what if the deal was for 2vps, and i was pretty sure i could get 2 vps some other way. the deal would still be legal, if i wanted to take it. but i wouldn;t be obliged. it all comes down to the 'reasonable' term, which is left intentionally vague, i beleive, so that sure forcing of players to take deals is not in fact how a judge should rule. in fact, the player making the offer might in fact be totally planning on backstabbing. so while, if the deal is kept, i will get 2 vps. but if i dont take it maybe i can get 1. but if the deal isn't kept, i get 0. does the judge ask the 3vp end: "are you going to backstab?" that's kind of, well, a dead giveaway when the judge comes back to the player and says 'it looks like you can get 1 vp on your own. the deal gives you 2vps. i have ruled you are allowed to decline the deal if you wish'. obviously the guy is going to backstab. maybe at the time, the guy thought he wouldn't backstab, and tells the judge this. then when the time comes for rolling over to give the other guy 2vps, he decides 'nah, i want extra vps to help my seating choice if i get the finals (after hearing cheering from his nemesis on the other table)', and only _then_ decides to backstab. the 2vp player got a judge to tell him he had to take the deal, and now he has 0 vps. (the player winning the game can do whatever he wants once he's won (3vps). he's already acheived the objective of the game). > >> if a judge tried that on me, i'd point out all the reasons why it was >> wrong. if they insisted, i'd follow his instructions, as they ARE the >> judge. but then i'd report him to the VEKN (which i don't think has >> actually ever happened, has it?) and politely decline to play in >> further events judged by them. > >I would do the same. But still, the rules are as they are. And the >Judge has to obey them. Stupid? Yes. One of the reasons i'm trying so >hard to change it. i don't think it needs changing. >> there is no way a player can know for sure that the person offering >> him the deal can pull off their end, whether the player themself can >> pull off their OWN end, and whether or not the other guy will actually >> keep the deal. > >See the above. Either you have no other way of getting VP's, in which >case the deal would be legal, and you have to accept the deal because >you have to maximise your VP's, or there is a chance of getting VP's >without the deal, in which case the deal would be illegal. unless the vp allotment is equal to the vps you could get some other way. or there is backstabbing involved. or circumstances change big time. >> ruling out table-split deals rules out the ability to negotiate your >> way out of a tight spot caused by random seating and your nemesis deck >> next you you. >> > >Either play with dramatic upheaval, or try to keep the possibility of >"nemesis-decks" to a minimum. Strong focused decks (as in comparison >to toolbox decks) are risky, and if your deck has no chance to oust >your prey .. it's not his fault. so now i _have_ to play toolbox. i'm not allowed to play ay other decks i like. thanks. >> that's hardly sportsmanlike. >> > >It's hardly sportsmanlike that players with inferior decks or >playstyle win against those who have made good decks (even if it's >just because it's the nemesis - bad luck) or are just playing better, >just because they are whining for table-split deals. >You can't oust your prey? Maybe it's your fault whining? it's called negotiation. it's a multi-player game. what do you expect? a person who says 'oi gimme 2 vps at the end by fallin over', and the guy says 'bugger off'. so, they hate deals. the other guy at the table says 'i think you'll have X and Y trouble with Z and Q. I can help you with X. in fact, i'll help you get a game win. all i ask in return is a bit of R at time T, and then you fall over for me at the end. You'll already have won, so what's those extra vps to you? you know it'll be a struggle without my assistance. i even have this card here (cardname) which i can use to (something for him)" that's not whining. it's player interaction on a strategic level. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The Wizkids usually award a major prize in their tournaments for >fellowship. For example, the fellowship winner in the Marvel World >Championship got the same huge bundle of product as the champion. >Fellowship means good sportsmanship and, because this is difficult to >define exactly, is usually awarded by a judge's decision or by popular >vote. You consider this a good thing? It's not fair if up to the judge as the judge can't be aware of enough. It's not fair by popular vote as that just leads to whoever people like to begin with winning, which in turn causes people to suck up to other players just to get great prizes, or causes people to collude in voting. If I were going to make a big deal of rewarding sportsmanship, I'd give everyone the same stuff except the people who acted unsportsmanlike during the event. Can achieve about this effect by kicking out particularly unsportsmanlike players.

My example was with Player B having "no chance" of getting any VP's. Not even 2. Please don't change the example i made, and rather keep to the situation i drew up. Because in my example deal making would be the only way to get VP's for player B at all. Thus, when player B refuses to accept the deal, he would play against his maximum VP's. However ... that's not what my whole argument is about (at least ... it wasn't intended to). In my opinion, table split deals are not sportsmanlike. Obviously .. you think that they are sportsmanlike ... so the whole discussion about how to prevent such deals without interfering with "normal" deals will go in circles anyway. Angus

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:08:53 GMT, "Sascha" <shol...@gmx.at> scrawled: >My example was with Player B having "no chance" of getting any VP's. Not >even 2. >Please don't change the example i made, and rather keep to the situation i >drew up. >Because in my example deal making would be the only way to get VP's for >player B at all. Thus, when player B refuses to accept the deal, he would >play against his maximum VP's. ok...i still think it's impossible to judge if the deal is the only way to get vps (due to the possibility of backstabbng, etc) >However ... that's not what my whole argument is about (at least ... it >wasn't intended to). > >In my opinion, table split deals are not sportsmanlike. >Obviously .. you think that they are sportsmanlike ... so the whole >discussion about how to prevent such deals without interfering with "normal" >deals will go in circles anyway. I think they are neutral. I do not consider them 'unsportsmanlike', but I don't think they are particularly worthy of being considered 'sportsmanlike'. I also think they are worth having in the game for the situations where players can geniunely use such a deal. or, even just the possibility of the deal being there allows for some sort of negotiation, at least. Those table split deals can be unsportsmanlike. But that is because of the players, not the fact that the deal opportunity exists. Like others have said, education is probably the better option to 'fix' this, if it is a problem in your area. Also, consider if there are still all 5 players on the table at the time a 3/2 is proposed. Why the hell aren't the other 3 methuselahs forging a (possibly temporary) alliance against the other two? Usuaully, because they are trying to get the most they can out of the situation _right now_, before the dealers can get them. They might want to consider a more long-term view. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a346f9cb.03080...@posting.google.com>, mgreen02 <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> writes: >I'd appriciate it if people could at least lose their temper and start >swearing a bit to liven things up. The fuck we will. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <QO2dnTYhkY5...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Life Boon in particular is already quite corner case. >> I'd never even really thought about LSJ's suggestion until now, but >>it >> sounds like a damn fine play to me, if you can pull it off. > >How so? You spend pool to keep someone in the game who, even if >they're not ousted by their predator the next turn, will almost >certainly attempt to just transfer themselves out again? > >Guess I could see it in a HoS millstone, but other than that... Did you even *read* LSJ's suggestion? >Not even if you need that vampire (the one you're influencing) and >you've got another Methuselah offering to Life Boon you when you get to >zero? That's not a situation of a Methuselah who wants to transfer themselves out and sod off. That's quite probably a situation of: "Crap, if I could just get Beast out, I'd kill him!" "Go ahead. You'll hit zero, but I'll toss a Life Boon your way." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <capjiv4754ifl0fp1...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >>Yes. I would be satisfied with all concrete zero-pool actions being >>illegal. ie, you may not Pentex Subvert someone when at 2 pool. You >>may not transfer your last pool to a vampire. > >these i agree with as 'concrete' you're paying as they are >played/done. Following on from LSJ's example: "Damnit, I've got a load of masters in my hand and I can't afford to play them." "Well, play one of them and I'll Sudden Reverse it, so you can get to a new card." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <peakiv0nr4dlc2h06...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: <forcing deals on someone> >if a judge tried that on me, i'd point out all the reasons why it was >wrong. Four simple words: "I think he's lying." [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:43:53 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >In message <capjiv4754ifl0fp1...@4ax.com>, salem ><salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >>>Yes. I would be satisfied with all concrete zero-pool actions being >>>illegal. ie, you may not Pentex Subvert someone when at 2 pool. You >>>may not transfer your last pool to a vampire. >> >>these i agree with as 'concrete' you're paying as they are >>played/done. > >Following on from LSJ's example: > >"Damnit, I've got a load of masters in my hand and I can't afford to >play them." >"Well, play one of them and I'll Sudden Reverse it, so you can get to a >new card." one of them necessary evils needed to make the rule do what it is intended to do. i never said it wouldn't hurt the odd corner case scenario. can we, as a player community, live with the repercussions of not being able to play the odd card that would 'normally' oust us, even if given assurances by other meths to keep you alive, in the interests of making the game appear, and maybe even actually be, more sportsmanlike? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <m8inivo9prskkgu4t...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >can we, as a player community, live with the repercussions of not >being able to play the odd card that would 'normally' oust us, even if >given assurances by other meths to keep you alive, in the interests of >making the game appear, and maybe even actually be, more >sportsmanlike? If a player thinks they're dead and wants to leave the game, can we live with the repurcussions of pissed off players being forced to be there, bored out of their heads, as a buffer from the next player for the next half hour when they'd really like to go and get a drink? [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > can we, as a player community, live with the repercussions of not > being able to play the odd card that would 'normally' oust us, even if > given assurances by other meths to keep you alive, in the interests of > making the game appear, and maybe even actually be, more > sportsmanlike? I think we can. We already have, for instance, the rule that you can't diablerize your own vampires. Why is that? I can certainly think of times when you'd want to (Fame, Soul Gem, it being easier to influence out another copy than rescue, etc) that are so much less cornercase than some of the examples being described here. --Colin McGuigan

In article <Vuacna0ndLg...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote: >We already have, for instance, the rule that you can't diablerize your >own vampires. Why is that? I can certainly think of times when you'd >want to (Fame, Soul Gem, it being easier to influence out another copy >than rescue, etc) that are so much less cornercase than some of the >examples being described here. actually, you can diablerize your own vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Vuacna0ndLg...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> writes: >We already have, for instance, the rule that you can't diablerize your >own vampires. You might. The rest of us don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 19:08:01 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >In message <m8inivo9prskkgu4t...@4ax.com>, salem ><salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >>can we, as a player community, live with the repercussions of not >>being able to play the odd card that would 'normally' oust us, even if >>given assurances by other meths to keep you alive, in the interests of >>making the game appear, and maybe even actually be, more >>sportsmanlike? > >If a player thinks they're dead and wants to leave the game, can we live >with the repurcussions of pissed off players being forced to be there, >bored out of their heads, as a buffer from the next player for the next >half hour when they'd really like to go and get a drink? half an hour to get ousted after they think they're already dead? interesting. for social play, do whatever the heck you want. leave the pool counters behind, or whatever. for tournaments, sure. make them sit. i expect players to be there for the event, if they have bothered to turn up and play. if they turned up to play, but don't want to when they get in a bind, they're not really interested in playing anyway. i seem to be arguing FOR making a rule to prevent self oust. Which is odd, since I don't know if i am actually in favour or not. but to return to my origional question, it wasn't meant to be rhetorical. i was genuinely asking for opinions about whether we could live with it? i think we can. other opinions obviously may differ. _should_ we live with it? possibly not worth the effort. making it would aggravate the people who get bored and want to quit when they are losing. not making it seems to be causing a lot of players who want to take advantage of other people not being able to quit upset. who's opinion carries more weight? we can't really know even what criteria we should be using for that. let alone actually measing it community wide. it's all very messy. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <01cqivol36ogdud3u...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> writes: >half an hour to get ousted after they think they're already dead? >interesting. Sure. Happens a fair bit. The player can't do anything. The player can't go anywhere. But the player is being kept there as a buffer, to stop *his* predator bleeding you. Or similar sorts of things. You want some blood-gain but they've got Klaus van der Veken which would shut your hunting ground down, or something similarly improbable. So you rush his predator, to stop him ousting him. He doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of going anywhere - he's never EVER going to get through you - but having him there as a buffer suits you. And with a highly tense, highly subtle game, a couple of turns of that can easily turn into a long, long time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 01 Aug 2003 18:58:19 GMT, Curevei wrote: >>The Wizkids usually award a major prize in their tournaments for >>fellowship. For example, the fellowship winner in the Marvel World >>Championship got the same huge bundle of product as the champion. >>Fellowship means good sportsmanship and, because this is difficult to >>define exactly, is usually awarded by a judge's decision or by popular >>vote. > >You consider this a good thing? It's not fair if up to the judge as the judge >can't be aware of enough. It's not fair by popular vote as that just leads to >whoever people like to begin with winning, which in turn causes people to suck >up to other players just to get great prizes, or causes people to collude in >voting. It's up to the judge how he awards this prize and various methods are used. Myself, I award the prize outright if there is an oustanding candidate. Otherwise, I make a weighted draw. And, of course, if anyone whines that "it's not fair", he thereby rules himself out of contention and his objection need not be considered :) Andrew

Pardon slow response turnaround. Needed some spare time to actually do this. =) In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.030731...@fnord.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> mumbled something about: >On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Derek Ray wrote: > >> I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't >> have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" >> if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can block. > >I will always try to stay in a game as long as possible (except in casual >play when the outcome is certain and others are waiting to start a new >game) and would certainly encourage others to do the same. But for >tournament play I prefer the "must play to win or attain maximum VPs >if winning is impossible" rule. It's simple. Except that people aren't currently playing by that rule, and it's highly likely that such a rule is impossible to enforce because of the way it's vaguely worded. For example, after transferring 4 of your last 6 onto a minion and tapping out bleeding: "Since I can't block all his actions no matter what, I'm trying to bluff him into thinking I have a Wake". >> What possible excuse do you have, IN GAME CONTEXT, to not attempt to >> block that doesn't rely on the benefices of another? > >Honor a deal that gained some VPs I wouldn't normally be able to get? As you point out, that's a different can of worms related to the deal itself as opposed to the transferring out. >That's not the can of worms I'm trying to get into though. The proposed >rule seemed flawed to me, so I thought I'd hammer away at it a bit and see >what came of it. I know. That's why I reformulated the original question above to isolate the circumstances according to "not blocking because I have other defenses", and "not blocking because i'm hoping someone else will save me". =) >VTES is a very political game. I played in the NAC last weekend and I >noticed that at each of my tables, the player who talked the most and cut >the most deals won. That's not to say that the winning players didn't >also have the best decks, best strategy and best (let's face it) luck. >But I think it does suggest that many top players can talk a good game. I >think we knew that. Yes. Some of that should probably be removed, since I think it is starting to unnecessarily penalize deck construction. Toolbox v. Focus has always been a classically balanced scenario, but I think right now toolbox is the ONLY way to go, since that's the only way you'll ever have anything to offer in the inevitable deals that start coming up. Not that I mind in-game deals, don't get me wrong -- but it's the ones where VP start getting carved up and handed out that bug me. Again, I think this is wandering off the subject here. =) >Should I be able to win games by convincing other players they have no >chance to win and should simply oust themselves? Sounds terrible when I >put it that way, but bluffing and (in-game) intimidation is certainly >important strategy. Otherwise bruise & bleed decks wouldn't need any >bleed cards. I wouldn't want to remove bluffing and/or intimidation from the game at all. But I don't see how either of the above could ever lead to self-ousting, either. "I'll kill your minion if you don't block this bleed that will oust you." >> >"you must block" helps the game even less than rules like "you must put >> >Smudge in your crypt" or "you must wear pants while drafting" would. >> >> Opinion: I don't want to see people drafting without pants. > >I didn't either. Unless it's Christian. >> The choice is: making one person unhappy who was going to lose anyway >> and who will STILL be unhappy, or making a second person unhappy because >> they WEREN'T screwed. It's terrible sportsmanship and it's kingmaking. >> Just truly pathetic gamer-shit that has a DIRECT parallel to "I'm taking >> my ball and going home". > >Agreed. But should this idea be enforced by a communal sense of fairness >and sportsmanship or should it actually be in the rules? Judging from how many times people self-oust and/or threaten to, I'm guessing that it needs to be in the rules. >> >Forcing players to remain in a game they feel is hopeless will only >> >encourage sloppy play and random actions (i.e. rush cross-table because >> >someone didn't call you a Consanguinous Boon). >> >> If they're that hosed, they probably can't do anything effective anyway. > >Maybe. I've seen players who (probably prematurely) consider their >situations to be hopeless do something like that. "Hosed" depends on the Can't legislate against bad play. If they're sufficiently premature about it, though, then the self-oust situation isn't actually in play at all... it's hard to be "premature" when you're at 3 pool. I think what you're thinking of is more the scenario where someone gets their first minion Rotschrecked and diablerized, and assumes their game is completely lost, without considering if that might have been the only Rotschreck in the deck. They immediately begin making deals to throw away their VP to disrupt the table. >perspective of the "hose-ee." A newbie might lose his favorite minion to >torpor and consider his game over. A top player will still see a path to >victory and keep fighting. see above. sufficiently premature panic is not going to trigger the self-oust, because they usually have 14 pool =) >> If they can rush cross-table, why not rush upstream and try to kill all >> their predator's minions? > >Would be a good plan. Occasionally, there are reasons it couldn't happen >(Secure Haven, predator has better combat, etc.). I'll tend not to rush >my predator if I'm very sure I'll be ousted right away anyway. Why ruin >his game? I also won't go down without a fight. Why ruin my >grand-predator's game? But if I think there's any chance rushing backward >will give me a couple more turns at least, then I'll do it. i don't think we're in disagreement anywhere here: take actions that give you a chance to survive at least a couple more turns, because you may be able to pull something out of nothing. In the qualifier, I played POT Rush. I sat down in the 2nd round behind someone who was playing !Gangrel Anarchs with Flesh of Marble, Claws, and bleeds for 1. On the face of it, this means that I am just dead in the water. But as it turns out, I hung in there and kept pushing at him, and was able to steal 1VP from that game where I really shouldn't have had any... because he ran out of Claws and Flesh right about when I put Fame and a Haven on Zachary. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20030801022625...@mb-m07.aol.com>, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) mumbled something about: >>> >And I have to block that bleed for 2 when I have 2 pool? What if my prey >>> >>> I am only proposing penalizing action, not inaction. However, I don't >>> have a problem telling you "yes, you must attempt to block this bleed" >>> if it's your last 2 pool and you have an untapped minion who can block. >> >>I will always try to stay in a game as long as possible (except in casual >>play when the outcome is certain and others are waiting to start a new > >But what are your thoughts regarding self-ousting when you're going to get >ousted anyway? Say you have 1 pool left and you're being bled (and can't I would forbid it. Make someone take the action to oust you -- don't just hand them six pool out-of-turn. >block). Can you DI some action modifier (stealth, bleed, whatever) to oust >yourself to prevent your predator from successfully bleeding you? Or take the Under my proposed rule, this would be forbidden since paying the cost of the card played will definitely oust you. >classic example of having 3 pool left and being bled for 5 or 6. Can you >self-oust to Archon Investigate that bleed? Or how about during a political Under my proposed rule, this would be forbidden -- see above. >action that you know will lead to your ousting? Should you be allowed to spend >your last pool on a Business Pressure? Under my proposed rule, this would be forbidden. You could spend yourself down to 1, but would be unable to move the last pool off. Considering your chosen example, if you'd like to bring up a specific situation where you believe you did the right thing, you're welcome to, but understand that I am not going to be very forgiving about any kingmaking or out-of-game considerations that you may try to hold up in your defense. If you remember our discussion about the "warning" tone in people's voices, I suggest you think about that carefully prior to responding. >>Would be a good plan. Occasionally, there are reasons it couldn't happen >>(Secure Haven, predator has better combat, etc.). I'll tend not to rush >>my predator if I'm very sure I'll be ousted right away anyway. Why ruin >>his game? I also won't go down without a fight. Why ruin my >>grand-predator's game? But if I think there's any chance rushing backward >>will give me a couple more turns at least, then I'll do it. > >Just wanted to make a side note that, on a few occasions when I have been in a >seemingly hopeless situation, I have committed random cross-table actions with >the specific intent of de-stabilizing the table. In those situations, if you do >manage to de-stabilize the table you might very well have another chance at >winning. (Not to say you should torporize all of your grandpredator's minions >on a whim...). I consider this to be bad play, if the actions are truly random. Destabilizing a table in this manner does nothing other than disrupt the game and minimize the effect of skilled play. If, on the other hand, you torporize two of your grandprey's minions under the theory that your grandpredator will now be able to Rush forward and kill your predator's minions, thus saving you from being ousted, then I would point out that your actions aren't actually random at all. >Hey, when you're in an uncomfortable situation, you might as well make everyone >else feel uncomfortable as well! =D Misery loves company, but nobody loves this attitude. While I assume you're joking, it's still probably worth mentioning. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <capjiv4754ifl0fp1...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:35:09 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >scrawled: > >> You may not Clandestine >>Contract someone when at 1 pool, saying "but it may be blocked!" You >>may not bid 5 for the Hostile Takeover when you only have 5 pool. > >These i disagree with. you should be allowed to do them. they are not >definates, as the cost is not payed at the time you are 'announcing' >the cost. They are, however, definite from the player's perspective. Barring outside assistance, you will definitely oust yourself. If you allow the loophole of "outside assistance", you make the rule unenforceable, because someone could ALWAYS DI the card or play Eagle's Sight, etc. >>Wealth action when on 1 pool even though you have both .44s and Leather >>Jackets in your deck. You MAY put yourself on zero blood in combat >>facing a minion with 1 strength at close range with Tension in the Ranks >>in play and you at 1 pool, hoping to draw into a Fortitude prevent card. >>(don't have a way to prevent the damage with the disciplines on you? >>not legal. yes, that call can be made at 100% accuracy.) > >i think it should be legal regardless of what disciplines you have. >there is nothing definate about going to torpor. Well, this is pretty situational, really, and I was just using Fortitude prevent as an example. An ANI/PRE minion can play Terror Frenzy, for example, hoping to draw into a Staredown to avoid being hit. I can't think of a contrived enough situation off the top of my head where it would be illegal, but I did want to point out that there are probably some situations where you can say "You're suiciding. There is no card in the game that can save you if you spend the blood for that card." I wouldn't expect them to arise very frequently if at all. >>What's the difference? In the top four actions you are depending on >>someone else's assistance to stop you from dying; a Sudden Reversal, or >>blocking the Contract, or someone bidding more, etc. All external >>factors, not at ALL under your control. > >I think the difference shouldn't be who's control the things are under >but the directness of the pool cost. The directness of the pool cost is inherent in the cost of the card itself, however. Again, if you allow the loophole above regarding "but someone else might save me!" then you make the rule unenforceable. >>In the bottom three, you can save yourself later in the action through >>either getting lucky on the VW draw, getting lucky on the Fortitude >>draw, or through voting down your own Empowerment. >> >>It's actually a pretty easy line to draw. And it's overdue, IMO. > >i don't think your line is quite so easy. i am rather inclined to I'm willing to sit and listen to examples as long as necessary. =) >think _some_ line is necessary, though. a lot of my players mistakenly >beleive it's illegal in tourney rules to suicide, and a lot of new >players really hate to see it happen (which might contribute to >difficulties keeping the new players playing). It can be summed up as: Nobody likes a quitter. In very few games is a resignation accepted. Chess is one, and it is seen as a mark of respect because of the zero-luck factor, something almost no other game has. >I think a rule could be: > >You can try and get yourself ousted if you can't reasonably get any >more vps. I would never specifically permit any action other than "trying to win at all costs", however. It just encourages people to do the wrong thing. >You can't directly spend your last pool yourself, though. Reworded above: You may not make transfers to a minion, or play a card whose cost would oust you. This implicitly permits transferring X-1 pool to a minion, where X is your pool, without directly encouraging it. >Implications: >You're allowed to decline to block stuff that will kill you. Yes. I don't like the idea of forcing people to block things, and I don't think it's necessary to do so yet (although if it comes to that, I don't have a problem with phrasing the rule in such a way to force people to attempt to block or otherwise defend if they have an untapped minion.) I don't like the idea of forcing people to admit the contents of their hands in some fashion -- hand information should be secret to the player alone, and if he chooses to not play a Wake, that's his business. Not to mention that hand contents are practically unenforceable and are a slippery slope to even step onto. >You can take actions that if unblocked (even if the target cannot >block or whatever) will kill you. Only if the "killing" is not part of the cost of the action. >You can call a vote that will kill you (and you may vote in favour). I do not believe you should be allowed to vote in favor unless by doing so you will be also gaining at least one VP. (I don't want to rule the "I nuke the table with Ancilla Empowerment and guarantee myself the Game Win since I already had 1 VP coming in" plan away, because it's often highly effective.) >It's not as harsh a line as it could be, but it's easier to see, and >prevents the standard 'transfer out' problem (thus giving all other >methuselahs one last ditch effort to maniplulate the table to their >advantage). Exactly my point. If someone is on the slow decline or the fast decline it doesn't really matter; what matters is that their predator still has to take the action to remove them from the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <MPG.1993b692c...@news.optonline.net>, Snapcase <shotgu...@optonline.net> mumbled something about: >In article <qn5jivojeef676cdv...@4ax.com>, >lor...@yahoo.com says... > >> Yes. I would be satisfied with all concrete zero-pool actions being >> illegal. ie, you may not Pentex Subvert someone when at 2 pool. You >> may not transfer your last pool to a vampire. You may not Clandestine >> Contract someone when at 1 pool, saying "but it may be blocked!" You >> may not bid 5 for the Hostile Takeover when you only have 5 pool. > >Hmm... This would outlaw playing Archon Investigation while at 3 pool. >This provides too much comedy to be banned. Not interested in comedy; interested in game balance. Playing AI while at 3 pool is unfortunately an excellent example of the "fuk u pr3dat0r!" type of play that I'm tired of seeing -- the type of play that penalizes playing well. Then again, it's pretty rare that you get the opportunity to play AI while exactly at 3 pool without someone doing something silly like overboosting the bleed more than necessary. >Seriously though; something like Temptation of Greater Power blurs the >line a little bit with the "credit" system. Yep. And the "credit" system is pretty easy to directly calculate too, though; you have 5 pool, you can bid 9 for a minion. Spend 4 right away, put 5 on credit. Fail to cover your credit, oustage. >> (don't have a way to prevent the damage with the disciplines on you? >> not legal. yes, that call can be made at 100% accuracy.) > >A bit cumbersome, since it requires a vamp to be in combat and then the >combat/strikes to resolve successfully. It seems that would also outlaw >blocking a bleed from a minion with at least 1 bleed/1 strength (while >at 1 pool) with Smudge with 0 blood on him and a Tension in play; I >think a player should be able to make that kind of play. Well, I don't think there's going to be very MANY situations where damage is totally impossible to prevent. See reply to salem. In the case above, Smudge can play disciplineless Dodge. The above example is sufficiently contrived as to be extremely unlikely to ever occur in actual play, but it is covered by an already-existing ruling: If everything you do will oust you, you are free to be ousted in the manner you wish. So if you're at 1 pool and a minion with Aching Beauty is bleeding you, you're free to block or not block, as you choose. >> It's actually a pretty easy line to draw. And it's overdue, IMO. > >Stopping the "transfer out" and paying for masters/actions that cost >pool if such things would kill you is pretty easy. The rest gets a bit >trickier. Eh, not that much. It's key to focus on concrete things when possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <c9aviv83hckvgdrsr...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>> Opinion: I don't want to see people drafting without pants. >> >>I didn't either. > >Unless it's Christian. Can we get that VTES in LA webcam along? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray expounded: > >classic example of having 3 pool left and being bled for 5 or 6. > >Can you self-oust to Archon Investigate that bleed? Or how about > >during a political > Under my proposed rule, this would be forbidden -- see above. I don't like this one. Suppose you have a bleed reduction card that would keep you in against a bleed of 3 but not against a 5 or 6. You should have the threat of AI available. EG Predator has a bonding and a conditioning in hand and a base bleed of 2. If they play bonding you live: you want to be able to threaten them with AI if they play the conditioning. I bet you reckon this is worth sacrificing for the greater good ;-) > >Hey, when you're in an uncomfortable situation, you might as well > >make everyone else feel uncomfortable as well! =D > Misery loves company, but nobody loves this attitude. While I assume > you're joking, it's still probably worth mentioning. If the table is looking stable and you are set to be ousted I reckon that destabalising the table is worth a try: hit your great grand- predator hard and your predator might feel the pressure...

James Coupe wrote: > You might. The rest of us don't. Well, gotfrikkit. I have no idea where I got that from, then. Nevermind. --Colin McGuigan

In message <MPG.1999d241c...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray expounded: >> >classic example of having 3 pool left and being bled for 5 or 6. >> >Can you self-oust to Archon Investigate that bleed? Or how about >> >during a political >> Under my proposed rule, this would be forbidden -- see above. > >I don't like this one. Suppose you have a bleed reduction card that >would keep you in against a bleed of 3 but not against a 5 or 6. You >should have the threat of AI available. What threat? You're ousted. I gain six pool. You have no threat other than a spiteful attempt to spoil your predator's game for having beaten you. If I have seen you play Telepathic Counter, yes, I may well bleed you for 5 or 6 when you are only at 3 pool... at which point you have two options: Reduce it below 3, or be ousted. If you can't reduce it below 3, you lose. Spending that 3 on AI is nothing more than spite. >EG Predator has a bonding and a conditioning in hand and a base bleed of >2. If they play bonding you live: you want to be able to threaten them >with AI if they play the conditioning. I'll say "You're bluffing," play Conditioning, oust you, and gain 6 pool. Every time. Sometimes you'll have AI. This happens. At GenCon, I played a game that came down to myself and Paul Johnson where he had about 387937197 minions and 5 pool, and I had Gustav Mallenhous and 9 pool. I had 2VP, he had 1VP, and it was my turn. I had a Foreshadowing Destruction and Daring the Dawn in hand. I bled unblockably for 5, he played AI, and won the game. If he had said beforehand "I have the AI", I would still have made him prove it. The VP and/or Game Win is worth more than the bluff will ever be at this point -- and unlike your example above, I didn't even have a guaranteed VP if he played AI. >> >Hey, when you're in an uncomfortable situation, you might as well >> >make everyone else feel uncomfortable as well! =D >> Misery loves company, but nobody loves this attitude. While I assume >> you're joking, it's still probably worth mentioning. > >If the table is looking stable and you are set to be ousted I reckon >that destabalising the table is worth a try: hit your great grand- >predator hard and your predator might feel the pressure... That's not destabilizing the table. That's attempting to REstabilize the table in your own favor. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2nho1rcPr7L$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: >In message <c9aviv83hckvgdrsr...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> Opinion: I don't want to see people drafting without pants. >>> >>>I didn't either. >> >>Unless it's Christian. > >Can we get that VTES in LA webcam along? He's in Minnesota. But I'll forward your request on for consideration. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <0zSdnTciJsO...@speakeasy.net>, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> You might. The rest of us don't. > >Well, gotfrikkit. I have no idea where I got that from, then. > >Nevermind. My guess is confusion with the self-contestation rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <MPG.1999d241c...@news.freeserve.com>, > Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: > > >>Derek Ray expounded: >> >>>>classic example of having 3 pool left and being bled for 5 or 6. >>>>Can you self-oust to Archon Investigate that bleed? Or how about >>>>during a political >>> >>>Under my proposed rule, this would be forbidden -- see above. >> >>I don't like this one. Suppose you have a bleed reduction card that >>would keep you in against a bleed of 3 but not against a 5 or 6. You >>should have the threat of AI available. > > What threat? You're ousted. I gain six pool. The threat of being AI'ed so that the predator doesn't bleed for 5 or 6 and you stay in the game. A TC and an AI in hand vs. a predator with Ozmo and a Govern with no other bleed modifiers leaves your predator in a bind - she can oust you (at the cost of his minion), or she can coax out the TC and try again next turn. Your proposed rule would leave Ozmo would be free to bleed with Govern with no retaliation. The rule has benefited the predator's game by giving him the gift of a ready Ozmo after the oust that she otherwise wouldn't have. > You have no threat other than a spiteful attempt to spoil your > predator's game for having beaten you. She hasn't beaten you until you're ousted. If she has to sacrifice Ozmo to "beat you", then she'll have to decide if that sacrifice is worth it. No need to spare her the decision and gift her a ready Ozmo with her VP. If you have 1 pool, a ready untapped minion with +1 strength, and your predator's Sylvester Simms with 1 blood comes to bleed you, then blocking with your only minion would be just a spiteful attempt to spoil your predator's game for having beaten you? You would rather the Methuselah be forced to not block and just go out with a whimper? What if you had a maneuver in your hand? And then what if you knew Sylvester's controller also had a maneuver? And so on... > If I have seen you play Telepathic Counter, yes, I may well bleed you > for 5 or 6 when you are only at 3 pool... at which point you have two > options: Reduce it below 3, or be ousted. If you can't reduce it below > 3, you lose. Spending that 3 on AI is nothing more than spite. Or rather, bleeding for 5 or 6 when your prey "has beaten you" by preparing for big bleeds is nothing more than taking your lumps for the VP. No free lunch. If your predator is playing with an open hand and shows a Conditioning and bleeds with a vampire with dom while you're at 1 pool, you would call playing the Telepathic Counter to reduce the bleed by two and thereby forcing the Conditioning (at the cost of a blood) "nothing more than spite" as well? No, you should be able to play the TC and cost your predator a Conditioning from her hand and a blood from her vampire to get the VP, just like you should be able to play the AI and cost her a minion to get the VP. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <3F2FD700...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> What threat? You're ousted. I gain six pool. > >The threat of being AI'ed so that the predator doesn't bleed for >5 or 6 and you stay in the game. I see. I suppose I am more easily able to directly reduce the equation down to its relevant parts. With the prevalence of Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure, and Rush combat, I'm not sure I'd ever hold off in that situation... assuming I even actually knew the AI was in my prey's hand. You are of course well aware of my own opinion on strategy: failure to go for the oust when the cards are in your hand is generally a massive misplay. There have been situations in the past, and there will be again in the future, where the circumstances are such that the statement above is wrong; but given that V:TES is a limited-information game, I don't see that it's ever possible to know that it's "safe" to hold back for a turn (without of course additional information such as that gained from Revelations). >A TC and an AI in hand vs. a predator with Ozmo and a Govern with >no other bleed modifiers leaves your predator in a bind - she can >oust you (at the cost of his minion), or she can coax out the TC >and try again next turn. Again, this assumes that you have extra information from Revelations, and that the table is "safe" to hold off for that turn, and that the situation is actually Ozmo with a DOM skill card and a Conditioning in hand, so he can bleed for 5 and make your TC useless as defense. In the above situation, Ozmo can ONLY oust if he plays Govern and the prey plays AI. Other three circumstances: a) Ozmo plays Govern, prey plays TC and is at 1 pool b) Ozmo bleeds for 2, prey plays TC and is at 3 pool c) Ozmo bleeds for 2, prey ignores it and is at 1 pool In the revised situation, Ozmo still has no incentive to hold off. If he bleeds for 5, he'll get the oust instantly as AI gets played. Otherwise, you still have scenarios b) and c) above; no matter what happens, Ozmo is going to have to play Conditioning at some point. If my prey is looking to AI Ozmo, then he will happily play the TC on Ozmo's cardless bleed, forcing Ozmo to -still- bleed for 5 with the Conditioning or wait two turns for the oust -- totally an unsafe play. >Your proposed rule would leave Ozmo would be free to bleed with >Govern with no retaliation. The rule has benefited the predator's >game by giving him the gift of a ready Ozmo after the oust that >she otherwise wouldn't have. Yes. I have no problem with this particular benefit, because the circumstances under which it may arise are so rare as to be almost -never- seen. I have only seen a self-ousting AI once, myself; have you seen it more often than that? I have FREQUENTLY seen a prey at 4 pool chunk the AI as defense when someone tried to finish them off -- I consider this an excellent play. But since everyone would be aware of the "can't play something you can't pay for without dying" rule in advance, surely the prey would realize that his AI becomes useless at 3 pool, and would either try to play it in advance or just discard it as worthless for the future. As it stands now, AI is a worthless card at 2 pool. I have no problem with changing that threshold to 3 pool, because the circumstances are still the same: it's a case of not having the proper cards in hand to defend oneself against ousting, for one reason or another. >> You have no threat other than a spiteful attempt to spoil your >> predator's game for having beaten you. > >She hasn't beaten you until you're ousted. If she has to sacrifice >Ozmo to "beat you", then she'll have to decide if that sacrifice >is worth it. No need to spare her the decision and gift her a >ready Ozmo with her VP. Well, this type of situation doesn't really matter one way or the other, frankly -- it's sufficiently rare. What's actually under discussion is whether this particular side effect of having a rule stating "You may not play cards you cannot pay the cost of if the cost would oust you" is still an overall good thing or not. I don't consider the self-ousting AI to be a sufficiently common scenario to weigh into the primary decision. Yes, I do consider that burning your last 3 pool to burn your predator's vampire when you cannot save yourself to be spiteful, solely due to the magnitude of the effect. Either way it does not improve your current game, so no logical in-game reason can be applied to the action -- and since it doesn't improve your current game, it doesn't matter if the option is now removed from the game. >If you have 1 pool, a ready untapped minion with +1 strength, and >your predator's Sylvester Simms with 1 blood comes to bleed you, >then blocking with your only minion would be just a spiteful >attempt to spoil your predator's game for having beaten you? You >would rather the Methuselah be forced to not block and just go >out with a whimper? What if you had a maneuver in your hand? And >then what if you knew Sylvester's controller also had a maneuver? Reducing it to the simplest argument: Block, probably be ousted, don't block, definitely be ousted. I wouldn't force either a block or a no-block. Even though I can conceivably KNOW that due to the 7 Master cards in my hand, if Sylvester is trying to "trap" me by suiciding himself for victory then I will lose because I must strike-hands and cannot avoid doing so, this doesn't fall under the intentionally-narrow scope of the rule proposed. Losing a minion to torpor is also less significant than having one burned, and in the above example, my predator KNOWS that Sylvester will have to go to torpor in order to oust me in that fashion. All the information is on the table, in contrast with the AI example above. Perhaps Sylvester doesn't intend to go to torpor because he has a Pulse and is simply attempting to tap me out -- perhaps Sylvester is going to cycle a maneuver, knowing that I will not maneuver back even if I can, and then another minion will bleed me. This is a different situation than playing a Master card whose effect ousts me, however; it is again a case of being unable to have the cards in hand to defend oneself. If the best counterarguments to "you can't play a card whose cost would oust you, and you can't transfer your last pool" are all super-contrived corner-case scenarios like the above, by the way, then the argument "for" is already logically made. >> If I have seen you play Telepathic Counter, yes, I may well bleed you >> for 5 or 6 when you are only at 3 pool... at which point you have two >> options: Reduce it below 3, or be ousted. If you can't reduce it below >> 3, you lose. Spending that 3 on AI is nothing more than spite. > >Or rather, bleeding for 5 or 6 when your prey "has beaten you" by preparing >for big bleeds is nothing more than taking your lumps for the VP. My prey hasn't beaten me; he just got ousted. It cost me X resources to do so, and X happened to include a minion at that point. >No free lunch. Not a problem. Changing the threshold from 3 pool to 4 is somehow providing a free lunch to big bleeders? >If your predator is playing with an open hand and shows a Conditioning >and bleeds with a vampire with dom while you're at 1 pool, you would >call playing the Telepathic Counter to reduce the bleed by two and >thereby forcing the Conditioning (at the cost of a blood) "nothing more >than spite" as well? Hardly. One blood to pay for Conditioning doesn't even remotely compare to a totally burned vampire. >No, you should be able to play the TC and cost your predator a >Conditioning from her hand and a blood from her vampire to get the VP, >just like you should be able to play the AI and cost her a minion to >get the VP. Playing the TC doesn't oust you. Playing the AI does. Again, this is all just a side-issue as to whether or not such a rule would be beneficial. Removing the ability to self-oust with AI and burn your predator's minion on the way out is just not significant in comparison to the potential benefits achieved by removing self-ousts from the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > Well, this type of situation doesn't really matter one way or the other, > frankly -- it's sufficiently rare. What's actually under discussion is > whether this particular side effect of having a rule stating "You may > not play cards you cannot pay the cost of if the cost would oust you" is > still an overall good thing or not. Sorry. Didn't notice that the drift was on. I just picked up on the "AI at 3 pool is plain spiteful" charge and hopped on board there. [My preceding point-for-point response snipped] As you were... > If the best counterarguments to "you can't play a card whose cost would > oust you, and you can't transfer your last pool" are all super-contrived > corner-case scenarios like the above, by the way, then the argument > "for" is already logically made. Heh. Nice. The best counter-argument: Since cards with costs are pay to play, if you can pay, you can play. No contrivances. BTW, what happens under your proposed rule when you play an action card that costs pool but, during the course of the action, you lose enough pool so that paying the cost of the action will oust you? Are you ousted? Does the action fizzle? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3F30004...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> Well, this type of situation doesn't really matter one way or the other, >> frankly -- it's sufficiently rare. What's actually under discussion is >> whether this particular side effect of having a rule stating "You may >> not play cards you cannot pay the cost of if the cost would oust you" is >> still an overall good thing or not. > >Sorry. Didn't notice that the drift was on. I just picked up on the >"AI at 3 pool is plain spiteful" charge and hopped on board there. I'm familiar with the tendency to get carried away in the details. =) >[My preceding point-for-point response snipped] > >As you were... > >> If the best counterarguments to "you can't play a card whose cost would >> oust you, and you can't transfer your last pool" are all super-contrived >> corner-case scenarios like the above, by the way, then the argument >> "for" is already logically made. > >Heh. >Nice. > >The best counter-argument: Since cards with costs are pay to play, if >you can pay, you can play. No contrivances. Yes, and that is the current state of affairs. Now that we're back to debating things that matter... ;) The original proposition was: you shouldn't be able to transfer out, under the assumption that transferring out guarantees a 0% chance of winning, and we'd like people to all be at least TRYING to win, even if it's only hanging in there by a fingernail and hoping to get lucky. This was the impetus for the introduction of the "Game Win" tournament rule. The immediate counterargument was that if the intent is to stop people from self-ousting, there are numerous ways to self-oust with Master cards, not the least of which being paying the cost when you have exactly that amount of pool. The obvious modification to the rule led directly to the wording above; rewritten more carefully, it would be: "You may not play a card whose cost would oust you, and you may not spend your last pool for a transfer or effect if doing so would cause you to be ousted." This wording is: - narrowly scoped (playing a card, making a transfer, or any situation where you can spend pool as part of an effect) - narrowly applied (only affects a small portion of gameplay; does not attempt to legislate broad strategy decisions or force active play on part of players) - clearly worded (easy to make rulings on) - addresses a specific issue (self-ousting) (I find it interesting that I am using many of the same criteria the Supreme Court uses to rule on the constitutionality of laws, by the way. Leads one to believe that the Founding Fathers may just have had somethin' goin' on between their ears after all.) >BTW, what happens under your proposed rule when you play an action card >that costs pool but, during the course of the action, you lose enough >pool so that paying the cost of the action will oust you? Are you ousted? >Does the action fizzle? Per your previous ruling on paying the costs of actions: The acting minion/Methuselah pays as much of the cost as he/she is able, and then the action fizzles if there is cost remaining that is unpaid. So both: You are ousted and the action fizzles if there is cost unpaid. The action also fizzles if the acting minion leaves play (cf. previous ruling on Blood Brother Ambush playing Burning Wrath), so if you are ousted by events in the course of an action, it naturally ends even if the action would otherwise be successful. I'm not sure there are any cards in print which would let this happen, by the way, but it's comparable to this potential scenario: Assume two new cards have been printed: Vagrant's Rush, an action card to enter combat at 3 stealth, costing 1 pool, and Fog of Confusion, a reaction card which allows you to change the target of a (D) action directed at a minion you control to another minion you control. I am at 2 pool. I play Vagrant's Rush and target Aaron Duggan, which is legal by the above rule. Talley plays Fog of Confusion and selects Moncada as the new target of my action. The action is successful, and before combat is entered I am ousted by Moncada's special; the action fizzles and my predator gains 6 pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3F2FD700...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >If your predator is playing with an open hand and shows a Conditioning >and bleeds with a vampire with dom while you're at 1 pool, you would >call playing the Telepathic Counter to reduce the bleed by two and >thereby forcing the Conditioning (at the cost of a blood) "nothing more >than spite" as well? This isn't entirely comparable. By playing AI - assuming you *do* play it, and there isn't a cross-table SR or some similar effect that may or may not exist - you will be ousted. By playing Telepathic Counter, you will be ousted if the Conditioning is played *AND* you don't draw - say - a My Enemy's Enemy in the redraw. Additionally, a lower amount on the bleed in the end (lowered by 2, perhaps) may encourage another Methuselah to play Major Boon. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <6d00jv8ougcdjghvu...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >In message <3F30004...@white-wolf.com>, >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > >>BTW, what happens under your proposed rule when you play an action card >>that costs pool but, during the course of the action, you lose enough >>pool so that paying the cost of the action will oust you? Are you ousted? >>Does the action fizzle? Which reminds me, I'm not certain if this has been ruled on in the past or not, but it relates to this issue and should be brought up. I oust my prey with an action modified by Daring the Dawn. I am at 1 pool. Tension in the Ranks is in play. Daring the Dawn's current card text: "Daring the Dawn: Action Modifier, Fortitude [for] Vampires cannot block this action. -{The acting}- vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action {resolves}." (snip) As I understand event ordering, this should be the sequence of events: Action is successful. Action resolves: - Prey loses pool (per criteria set down by action) - Prey is ousted - I gain 1 VP - I gain 6 pool After action resolves: - Acting vampire goes to torpor - I burn 1 pool for Tension in the Ranks Correct? Contrast with sequence of events assuming the action is combat with a Famous vampire: Action to enter combat is successful. Combat ensues: - pre-range and maneuvers happen - I strike to send prey's Famous vampire to torpor - Prey strikes to send my vampire to torpor - Strikes resolve: ---- Prey and I go to torpor simultaneously ---- Prey burns 4 pool for Fame + Tension, I burn 1 pool for Tension ---- Prey and I are ousted simultaneously ---- I gain 1 VP ---- My predator gains 1 VP ---- My predator gains 6 pool etc. The difference here being that combat is part of the resolution of the action, and since I am going to torpor during the action itself, I no longer have the 'window' to gain 6 pool before I am ousted. Right? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> escribió en el mensaje news:CwrVQdp5CBM$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3F2FD700...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >If your predator is playing with an open hand and shows a Conditioning > >and bleeds with a vampire with dom while you're at 1 pool, you would > >call playing the Telepathic Counter to reduce the bleed by two and > >thereby forcing the Conditioning (at the cost of a blood) "nothing more > >than spite" as well? > > This isn't entirely comparable. > > By playing AI - assuming you *do* play it, and there isn't a cross-table > SR or some similar effect that may or may not exist - you will be > ousted. Unless another Methuselah plays Life Boon on you ;-) [...] Greetings, Damnans

> >Derek Ray wrote: > >> Well, this type of situation doesn't really matter one way or the other, > >> frankly -- it's sufficiently rare. What's actually under discussion is > >> whether this particular side effect of having a rule stating "You may > >> not play cards you cannot pay the cost of if the cost would oust you" is > >> still an overall good thing or not. [snip volumes] Apologies for jumping in late game and all that but to me an obvious and less painful solution to this (although I don't actually think it needs addressing) is to defer to a judges decision. If there *has* to be a 'rule' stating in some way that the self oust is not within the remit of 'playing to win' then surely the judge should have the final say and be able to assess each situation on it's respective merits/flaws? I don't think the 'not being able to play your last pool' in a self oust situation would lend anything to the game and yet further constricts the player. It would also grate terribly with a few cards and hamper/prohibit possible future exploration of this critical stage of the ousting process. Just think it would be over-management, that's all. Rob

Derek Ray wrote: > I oust my prey with an action modified by Daring the Dawn. > I am at 1 pool. > Tension in the Ranks is in play. > > Daring the Dawn's current card text: > > "Daring the Dawn: Action Modifier, Fortitude > [for] Vampires cannot block this action. -{The acting}- vampire takes 2 > aggravated damage (not preventable) after the action {resolves}." (snip) > > As I understand event ordering, this should be the sequence of events: > > Action is successful. > Action resolves: > - Prey loses pool (per criteria set down by action) > - Prey is ousted > - I gain 1 VP > - I gain 6 pool > After action resolves: > - Acting vampire goes to torpor > - I burn 1 pool for Tension in the Ranks > > Correct? Correct. > Contrast with sequence of events assuming the action is combat with a > Famous vampire: > > Action to enter combat is successful. > Combat ensues: > - pre-range and maneuvers happen > - I strike to send prey's Famous vampire to torpor > - Prey strikes to send my vampire to torpor > - Strikes resolve: > ---- Prey and I go to torpor simultaneously > ---- Prey burns 4 pool for Fame + Tension, I burn 1 pool for Tension > ---- Prey and I are ousted simultaneously > ---- I gain 1 VP > ---- My predator gains 1 VP > ---- My predator gains 6 pool > > etc. > > The difference here being that combat is part of the resolution of the > action, and since I am going to torpor during the action itself, I no > longer have the 'window' to gain 6 pool before I am ousted. Right? Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]