Nergal storyline tournament finals:
A - B - C - D - N
I'm playing Nergal.
Player D starts off by saying that he wants me off the board first,
since he's seen the deck and it's pretty scary and besides, he'd rather
play a normal game. I point out the likelihood that the game will go
to time, and that if it times out, I lose automatically.
20 minutes left, all players are still alive. I finally convince them
that I can't win, because I can't oust 4 players in 20 minutes. I make
an offer to B: I will oust your prey, so you will win, if you give me
the Nergal deck. He accepts. C is upset, saying that it is illegal
play to do that. I counter that prizes are legal things to divide up,
and that I'm unable to win anyway so I can lose any way I choose. He
says that even so, he will not play with me if I play that way.
What to do? B and I decided that it wasn't worth upsetting him, so we
discontinued the deal. I continued trying to oust him, though, since
he was *my prey* and at 3 pool, and I thought ousting in turn order was
smarter (so there's only 1 guy on me at the end), but of course it
didn't matter and we reached time.
D admits after the game that he only wanted to draw attention to me
because he was in 1st place going in, and he knew that if I was the
table's target, nobody would be going after their real prey. This way,
we would time out and he would win. I don't know if he was thinking
about the 6 pool I'd give everyone, or the fact that the first VP would
be for everyone and so wouldn't remove his lead, but I agreed with him.
After all, it worked and he won on a time out.
I realized the next day that it was an admission that he was stalling,
and that I wasn't mad about it. I usually hurry other players along,
but I am trying now not to be a dick about this sort of thing, and I'm
surprised about my lack of indignation surrounding this.
So I suppose I have a lot to think about:
Hypothetically, If Nergal existed in a preliminary round, would an
attempt to oust someone ever violate play-to-win? (After all, they are
all his prey.)
Should I say something to Player C? I'm sure this will not be the only
game we play together in which I cannot win, and I don't need any
tensions in my playgroup. But I don't want to be in a position where I
lose simply because other players have a moral boycott on some of my
options.
What does it say about the state of our metagame (or the game at large)
if the players ENTER the finals planning for a time out? I mean, if
after 1hr30 you think it'll time out, that's one thing, but at the very
beginning?
Why would I be mad if a player plays slowly to take advantage of the
time limit, but not be mad if he chooses a strategy specifically
because it will take advantage of the time limit? I just saw it as a
good tactical move. Is it against tournament rules?
What do you think? Comments?
-- Brian
It is unsportsmanlike conduct of C to refuse to play against a valid
deal. There are penalties in the tournament rules to deal with this
(IIRC).
As you present it, I believe the deal to have been a valid one from
what I can see.
As the #1 seed in the finals, being aware a time-out will make you win
is good strategy, IMHO. Stalling the game in executing that strategy is
not allowed, but a (number of) statement(s) about the perceived power
of the Nergal deck, etc., in order to sway the other players, is.
That's not stalling, as I see it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> It is unsportsmanlike conduct of C to refuse to play against a valid
> deal. There are penalties in the tournament rules to deal with this
> (IIRC).
You may think so, buddy, but let me break one critical "rule" to you
that you've forgotten:
THE GAME REQUIRES PLAYERS IN ORDER TO PLAY.
If you make people angry enough, in whatever fashion, they will,
simply... not play. And what sort of recourse do you have against them?
Tell them they can't play? ... Oh, wait. Right.
In-game dealing for prizes has been ruled to be legal, but is going to
be a game-killer every time it comes up. People did not come to a
tournament to enter a popularity contest, they came to play a game.
So yeah, you just mark "C" down as unsportsmanlike all you want. You
might well find that _all_ the players not involved in that particular
'deal' never come back. Then where will you be?
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDTPk0tQZlu3o7QpERAtYKAKDk0ZlgB5FyfjTM9TGGy36wSWw7mgCghF9S
4lnXORxukgLSjee+oR+OCY8=
=Q/Wf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Should I say something to Player C? I'm sure this will not be the only
> game we play together in which I cannot win, and I don't need any
> tensions in my playgroup. But I don't want to be in a position where I
> lose simply because other players have a moral boycott on some of my
> options.
You're on tenuous ground at the moment. You aren't in danger of losing
any games -- you're in danger of having players simply vanish.
As I said to tobias, in-game dealing for prizes has been ruled legal.
But I can think of no better way to anger everyone else who's not
involved than doing so, especially in the fashion you did.
Even final-table poker deals to split up the money a certain way and
then play it out require the full agreement of _everyone_ at the table.
If a single person objects, the tournament director will not allow the
deal to go through -- and if he catches people making "side" deals to
work together for some split of the prize money, he'll nail them on the
spot. (This isn't to say there aren't hidden deals happening, but the
point is that they're hidden by definition).
> What does it say about the state of our metagame (or the game at large)
> if the players ENTER the finals planning for a time out? I mean, if
> after 1hr30 you think it'll time out, that's one thing, but at the very
> beginning?
It means we still have scared players.
It's one thing to, as #1 seed, come in and remember "if the table times
out, I win -- so it's actually worse for me to be ousted than it is for
me to just sit here and defend". That makes sense. But the rest of the
table DOES have something to gain, so their pressure to move should
naturally offset the #1 seed's urge to sit in place.
If the rest of the table isn't doing this, (ESPECIALLY the #5 seed, who
needs to be going balls-out), then they're just scared or don't really
understand how to win, even after all this time.
> Why would I be mad if a player plays slowly to take advantage of the
> time limit, but not be mad if he chooses a strategy specifically
> because it will take advantage of the time limit? I just saw it as a
> good tactical move. Is it against tournament rules?
Hair-thin difference; playing slowly is something that cannot be
directly countered in-game by the other players, except by damaging
their own strategy (playing too fast to pay attention to make up for
it). Playing a defensive strategy, on the other hand, CAN be countered
in-game -- if your goal is to Minion Tap Arika and 5th Tradition her
every turn, for example, this strategy can be countered easily by (a)
dunking Arika, (b) dunking the Prince, (c) both. But if I play a 60
Computer Hack deck and every action takes me a minute of dithering and
pondering "well, which minion should I use?"... the only counter to this
is for other players to simply take less time on their own turns, which
is guaranteed to hurt their own play.
So we have the rule against stalling, but not against defensive play.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDTPujtQZlu3o7QpERAlITAJ91HSOvhCO+lSwWW0UXD2dv1VQkBgCg6kq8
mCzohdcNDK8SHZXDOsNgABw=
=9Dm4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I have not forgotten that "critical "rule"".
If you make people angry enough, through proper play, and they choose
not to play, then they should indeed not be playing this game. Whether
it's a finals prize-deal, a vote backstab, or a crosstable rush -
they're all play to win (if done properly).
Whether I or you personally like the legality of in-deal gaming should
be irrelevant from a judge's viewpoint. We can lobby for changes to the
designer or the tournament rules team, just like we can lobby for any
other change in the game.
That's my as-a-judge opinion.
As a player? Well, if I play by the rules, I should be playing to win,
but apparently I am letting that avenue be barred by serious social
issues. It's going to come down to a social conflict involving my
entire play group. I'm going to have to assess with everyone at the
finals table (and possibly outside the table as well) how people are
going to react to me pushing that deal through or not (assuming my
dealpartner will follow my lead, for the moment). If I'm going to lose
1 player (player C) to forcing it through, and the rest is with me (as,
rules-wise, they should be, although they may dislike the flavor of the
deal), then I might go ahead, and talk to player C afterwards (if he'll
let me).
If I'm going to lose my entire playgroup, or a really significant
chunk, I might cut my losses and not do it. But it will mean having
caved to social pressure and thus not being allowed to play the game a
legal way. That's a slippery slope.
<firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129106818.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't think so. There is a salient difference between adopting a strategy
to acheive table balance until a specific event occurs, and stalling. So
long as his play or negotiations didn't delay the ability of others to have
their fair chance to play the game, he wasn't stalling. In this format, the
first place player _does_ have an interest in the game progressing along a
certain path (ousting Nergal first maintains the staus quo = best scenario
for the first place player), but he had no way of knowing whether or not the
game would go to time, or if Nergal would fall quickly, leaving him with a
new situation to deal with. Unless he was slow-playing on top of his
negotiations against Nergal (or at some point grossly and obviously working
to keep Nergal in the game, despite his negotiations to the contrary), I
wouldn't rule that he was stalling.
> and that I wasn't mad about it. I usually hurry other players along,
> but I am trying now not to be a dick about this sort of thing, and I'm
> surprised about my lack of indignation surrounding this.
>> So I suppose I have a lot to think about:
>
> Hypothetically, If Nergal existed in a preliminary round, would an
> attempt to oust someone ever violate play-to-win? (After all, they are
> all his prey.)
>
> Should I say something to Player C? I'm sure this will not be the only
> game we play together in which I cannot win, and I don't need any
> tensions in my playgroup. But I don't want to be in a position where I
> lose simply because other players have a moral boycott on some of my
> options.
>
Definitely speak up about this. Attempt to arrive at some agreement.
Preferably, Player C should be aware that you accomodated his "moral
boycott" in this instance, to preserve the goodwill of the group, but that
future tournaments will follow tournament rules, and so hopefully he will be
prepared in the next event for such a situation, (possibly making use of the
rule himself!). I agree with Derek, if you weren't aware of this twist in
the nature of VTES tournaments, having it sprung on you in a finals would be
a shock. (I'd also like to see the provision adopted that deals which
involve prizes must be approved/agreed upon by _all_ active players at the
finals table).
> What does it say about the state of our metagame (or the game at large)
> if the players ENTER the finals planning for a time out? I mean, if
> after 1hr30 you think it'll time out, that's one thing, but at the very
> beginning?
>
Was this truly what you think Player #1 was doing? I don't get that
impression from what you've described of game play so far...
> Why would I be mad if a player plays slowly to take advantage of the
> time limit, but not be mad if he chooses a strategy specifically
> because it will take advantage of the time limit? I just saw it as a
> good tactical move.
Agreed.
> Is it against tournament rules?
>
Don't think so/wouldn't rule that way, myself.
> What do you think? Comments?
>
I think that your table may not have realized the full scope of the bias in
benefit that the strategy Player #1 offered had, until after the tournament
was over. Player #1 is a crafty player, but did so within the scope of the
rules...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> Nergal storyline tournament finals:
>
> A - B - C - D - N
>
> I'm playing Nergal.> D admits after the game that he only wanted to draw attention to me
> because he was in 1st place going in, and he knew that if I was the
> table's target, nobody would be going after their real prey. This way,
> we would time out and he would win. I don't know if he was thinking
> about the 6 pool I'd give everyone, or the fact that the first VP would
> be for everyone and so wouldn't remove his lead, but I agreed with him.
> After all, it worked and he won on a time out.
So Brian, who ended up winning then? What clan was D playing?
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> So Brian, who ended up winning then? What clan was D playing?
The winner of the Tacoma storyline was Cory, playing for clan Gangrel.
-- Brian
Derek Ray wrote:
> You're on tenuous ground at the moment. You aren't in danger of losing
> any games -- you're in danger of having players simply vanish.
Well, I don't think I'm "in danger" quite yet. He seems like a pretty
mature guy, and we all like him, and I don't think he's thinking about
bailing or anything. It's just about keeping everyone happy.
> As I said to tobias, in-game dealing for prizes has been ruled legal.
> But I can think of no better way to anger everyone else who's not
> involved than doing so, especially in the fashion you did.
How was the way I offered this deal more anger-inducing than another
way?
> > Why would I be mad if a player plays slowly to take advantage of the
> > time limit, but not be mad if he chooses a strategy specifically
> > because it will take advantage of the time limit? I just saw it as a
> > good tactical move. Is it against tournament rules?
>
> Hair-thin difference; playing slowly is something that cannot be
> directly countered in-game by the other players, except by damaging
> their own strategy (playing too fast to pay attention to make up for
> it). Playing a defensive strategy, on the other hand, CAN be countered
> in-game -- if your goal is to Minion Tap Arika and 5th Tradition her
> every turn, for example, this strategy can be countered easily by (a)
> dunking Arika, (b) dunking the Prince, (c) both. But if I play a 60
> Computer Hack deck and every action takes me a minute of dithering and
> pondering "well, which minion should I use?"... the only counter to this
> is for other players to simply take less time on their own turns, which
> is guaranteed to hurt their own play.
>
> So we have the rule against stalling, but not against defensive play.
OK. Thanks for your take, I hadn't thought of it that way.
-- Brian
> > I realized the next day that it was an admission that he was stalling,
>
> I don't think so. There is a salient difference between adopting a strategy
> to acheive table balance until a specific event occurs, and stalling. So
> long as his play or negotiations didn't delay the ability of others to have
> their fair chance to play the game, he wasn't stalling.
OK, you and Derek both see this, now I see it this way, too.
> Unless he was slow-playing on top of his
> negotiations against Nergal (or at some point grossly and obviously working
> to keep Nergal in the game, despite his negotiations to the contrary), I
> wouldn't rule that he was stalling.
If he was grossly and obviously working to keep Nergal in the game, how
would that be stalling? By previous standards, as long as he wasn't
working SLOWLY to keep Nergal in the game, he should be fine.
> > Should I say something to Player C? I'm sure this will not be the only
> > game we play together in which I cannot win, and I don't need any
> > tensions in my playgroup. But I don't want to be in a position where I
> > lose simply because other players have a moral boycott on some of my
> > options.
> >
> Definitely speak up about this. Attempt to arrive at some agreement.
> Preferably, Player C should be aware that you accomodated his "moral
> boycott" in this instance, to preserve the goodwill of the group, but that
> future tournaments will follow tournament rules, and so hopefully he will be
> prepared in the next event for such a situation, (possibly making use of the
> rule himself!). I agree with Derek, if you weren't aware of this twist in
> the nature of VTES tournaments, having it sprung on you in a finals would be
> a shock. (I'd also like to see the provision adopted that deals which
> involve prizes must be approved/agreed upon by _all_ active players at the
> finals table).
Or just banned altogether.
> > What does it say about the state of our metagame (or the game at large)
> > if the players ENTER the finals planning for a time out? I mean, if
> > after 1hr30 you think it'll time out, that's one thing, but at the very
> > beginning?
> >
> Was this truly what you think Player #1 was doing? I don't get that
> impression from what you've described of game play so far...
Yeah, before he took his first action, he announced that his plan was
"die, Nergal, die" and began bleeding. I'm not convinced it was a
problem, though.
-- Brian
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> 20 minutes left, all players are still alive. I finally convince
> them that I can't win, because I can't oust 4 players in 20 minutes.
> I make an offer to B: I will oust your prey, so you will win, if you
> give me the Nergal deck. He accepts. C is upset, saying that it is
> illegal play to do that. I counter that prizes are legal things to
> divide up, and that I'm unable to win anyway so I can lose any way I
> choose. He says that even so, he will not play with me if I play
> that way.
I'm confused. Prize splitting is legal? All I can find in the Judges'
Guidelines (http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html) is
#161, which forbids bribery, with the following attached "philosophy":
> Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
> violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:
>
> * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as
> cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would
> be acceptable.)
>
> * All players involved in all affected games agree on
> the outcome.
It seems that prize splitting is legal, only if all players at the table
(since it's the final table) agree. So Player C was in the right. Or
is that wrong?
> Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
> violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:> * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as
> cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would
> be acceptable.)> * All players involved in all affected games agree on
> the outcome.
Huh looks like the "ethics don't matter; just to play to win" rules
lawyers are in the wrong. Awesome.
[ quoted text not captured ]
If all players agree, then there is no violation of that particular rule.
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
To a bribe in general other than a prize-split?
In other words: does a prize-split require consent from all other
players other than the, say 2, making the deal?
> To a bribe in general other than a prize-split?
>
> In other words: does a prize-split require consent from all other
> players other than the, say 2, making the deal?
Man. It seems that lately there is generally a total lack of reading
comprehension going on with this list...
Thanks to all for backing my perspective in this.
You know who you are
Brian, I would like to sit and discuss this further, over beers or
coffee, my treat.
Marc, Player C
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:38M3f.14671$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:>> I think you are confuzing things here.
...
>> Indicates that prize splitting is legal play to win.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the 'all players in all affected games' statement
>> means - perhaps LSJ can clarify?>
> If all players agree, then there is no violation of that particular rule.
Now I'm confused. If three players are playing a game, and A offers part
of the first place prize to B to help him gang up on C, and B has no chance
to win first place himself, is it or is it not legal for A to bribe B in
that manner? (Assume C vociferously objects.)
That, to me, is an out-of-game consideration, pure and simple. I can't
imagine what difference it makes whether the bribe comes out of the prize
or out of A's wallet, bribery is bribery.
Fred
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:51:34 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
<dont...@mymail.com> wrote:
>
>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>news:38M3f.14671$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...>> tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:>>> I think you are confuzing things here.>...>>> Indicates that prize splitting is legal play to win.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the 'all players in all affected games' statement
>>> means - perhaps LSJ can clarify?>>
>> If all players agree, then there is no violation of that particular rule.>
>Now I'm confused. If three players are playing a game, and A offers part
>of the first place prize to B to help him gang up on C, and B has no chance
>to win first place himself, is it or is it not legal for A to bribe B in
>that manner? (Assume C vociferously objects.)
According to the ruling posted previously, it is against the law.
Now, if C were included in the prize split, or if A&B waited until
AFTER C was ousted, then it would be legal.
>That, to me, is an out-of-game consideration, pure and simple. I can't
>imagine what difference it makes whether the bribe comes out of the prize
>or out of A's wallet, bribery is bribery.
I have the same opinion. But then again, I'd rather have these matters
public, than private. It's like table split deals. I dislike the
concept, but I'd rather know that's what's happening, than two people
agreeing under a different pretext.
Morgan Vening
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:38M3f.14671$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
>>>>>I think you are confuzing things here.>> ....>>>>Indicates that prize splitting is legal play to win.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what the 'all players in all affected games' statement
>>>means - perhaps LSJ can clarify?>>
>>If all players agree, then there is no violation of that particular rule.>
> Now I'm confused. If three players are playing a game, and A offers part
> of the first place prize to B to help him gang up on C, and B has no chance
> to win first place himself, is it or is it not legal for A to bribe B in
> that manner? (Assume C vociferously objects.)
It is legal for the offer to be made and the deal to be offered and
accepted and upheld.
In your example, of course, it would be legal even without the
prize offer -- it seems everyone is playing to his or her best advantage
in any event.
> That, to me, is an out-of-game consideration, pure and simple. I can't
> imagine what difference it makes whether the bribe comes out of the prize
> or out of A's wallet, bribery is bribery.
The prizes for a game are prizes of the game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:%Ty4f.15849$QE1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> Now I'm confused. If three players are playing a game, and A offers part
>> of the first place prize to B to help him gang up on C, and B has no chance
>> to win first place himself, is it or is it not legal for A to bribe B in
>> that manner? (Assume C vociferously objects.)>
> It is legal for the offer to be made and the deal to be offered and
> accepted and upheld.
>
> In your example, of course, it would be legal even without the
> prize offer -- it seems everyone is playing to his or her best advantage
> in any event.
Ah, you're assuming that B is C's predator, which I didn't actually state.
I knew what I was thinking - you need to work on your mindreading. :-)
No, I meant that A was offering B part of the prize to help him gang up
on C so that A could sweep the end of the game - so that would require
that A was C's predator.
In any event, you seem to have given a clear ruling none the less But
I believe it's a bad one.
>> That, to me, is an out-of-game consideration, pure and simple. I can't
>> imagine what difference it makes whether the bribe comes out of the prize
>> or out of A's wallet, bribery is bribery.>
> The prizes for a game are prizes of the game.
In short, any form of bribery for considerations in the game is legal as
long as it doesn't exceed the value of the prize. Granted, that limits
the extent of the outside consideration but it's still an outside
consideration. Trying to view it as "playing to his or her best
advantage" is a poor excuse for allowing it, IMHO. If that's a reason,
then I don't see what why any form of trade that players can claim
is "playing to (their) best advantage)" isn't OK. In that case, Daneel
is completely correct: one can consider it to be to their best
advantage that their clan be given a leg up in the Storyline metacontest.
Therefore, they might use their position in the final (be it playing a
Nergal deck or just a second deck representing the same clan) to throw
the finals to another player playing the same clan.) A player might
agree to settle for a single VP and throw someone else a game win in a
Continental Qualifier if what they really care about is being qualified
and the single VP is all they need in the last round.
These are both bastardizations of the principle that players are always
supposed to be playing for the best position possible in the tournament
at all times. The idea that tournament prizes are OK as bribes even if
other considerations aren't is another such bastardization. I don't
see the difference. As Derek says, this sort of thing can lead to loss
of players.
Fred
tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> It is unsportsmanlike conduct of C to refuse to play against a valid
> deal. There are penalties in the tournament rules to deal with this
> (IIRC).
You may think so, buddy, but let me break one critical "rule" to you
that you've forgotten:
Yeah, I agree that you have to have people play, but if the people are
going to cry every time things don't go their way, we all might as well
not play. Tell you what, let's all sign a petition that half of us will
refuse to play every time a malk S&B deck hits the table, the other
half that we won't play if Arika comes out. Then we can have a lot of
fun. It might make me a big jerk, but as soon as someone says, "I
won't play if you do that," I am immediately calling their bluff. I'm
doing it, now if you're going to cry, just stand up and quit and stop
being such a whiner... Just my two cents.
~m
nozle...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, I agree that you have to have people play, but if the people are
> going to cry every time things don't go their way, we all might as well
> not play. Tell you what, let's all sign a petition that half of us will
> refuse to play every time a malk S&B deck hits the table, the other
> half that we won't play if Arika comes out. Then we can have a lot of
> fun. It might make me a big jerk, but as soon as someone says, "I
> won't play if you do that," I am immediately calling their bluff. I'm
> doing it, now if you're going to cry, just stand up and quit and stop
> being such a whiner... Just my two cents.
And people DO stand up, and quit, and you lose your playgroup because
you were a bullheaded idiot. You win!
There is invariably a better way to resolve these disputes than to
simply say "fuck you, I'm doing it anyway". That simply escalates the
stakes of the issue without attempting to address the underlying problem.
It should be obvious that people dealing others out of prize support is
significantly different than people refusing to play just because Arika
and/or 1994 Malkavian bleed is in the game. The former is going to push
people to an extreme far more often than the latter will... and it will
be easier to talk people away from their extreme position in the latter
case than in the former.
If it's not obvious to you, well, just run a V:TES money tournament
sometime for a significant amount of money, and start making deals in
the finals for half the first place money. Preferably make it of the
form where everyone pays an entry fee and it all goes into a pool for
1st/2nd/etc. place.
You'll learn quickly, I assure you.
[ quoted text not captured ]