Quote from a finnish tourney report;
"Some players seemed to be on the gray area. In a four-player table, 2
players (predator and prey) made a table-splitting deal before the game
started, because that othewr was playing CEL GUN rush, and the other
mono potence, with mostly close range combat. The deal was that the POT
player (the predator) would only rush backwards, while his prey would
take 2 vp's and then fold. I do not know whether it would have violated
the play-to-win rule, but our prince said it would not. I would have
begun raving if I would have been in that table because I think that
kind of dealing is unsportsmanlike. "
Sounds like a violation of the play to win rule to me. Rather than
play to win (and 1 likely would if they could take down the non weenie
rush decks) they played to a tie.
Thoughts?
G
talonz wrote:
> Sounds like a violation of the play to win rule to me. Rather than
> play to win (and 1 likely would if they could take down the non weenie
> rush decks) they played to a tie.
>
> Thoughts?
Got a link to the report? What were the two other decks?
My knee-jerk reaction is that the "play-to-win" part is irrelevant,
and
what's more relevant is that the two players were morons for not
wanting to try to win. It could very well be that given the other
decks
at the table (and I suppose given their own decks), it might have
been
a higher percentage play for them to split the table 2-2, but who
gives
a shit? Take a shot at the win. Nothing says "make the finals" like
winning games.
It seems that nearly every time someone asks a "play to win"
question, it's about a table-splitting deal. Stop trying to split
tables! Instead of coming up with some grandiose master plan
that will theorically score you the big win in one glorious master
stroke, only to be thwarted when the rest of the table rallies
against you or when table discussion drags the game into a
timeout, take things one VP at a time. It's much more
manageable, much more likely to be accepted by another
player as a deal, much more flexible, and much less easily
thwarted or BACKSTABBED.
You wanna make the finals? You wanna win tournaments? Quit
worrying about VPs and try to win some games already.
- Ben Peal
Ben Peal wrote:
> Got a link to the report? What were the two other decks?http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=33fba04880850b85dcadf0a89e9bdf84
It's not a complete report, but I was hoping that some other local
player would write what happened after I left.
The players that made the deal were playing:
POT rush starring Theo and Beast
CEL rush with .44's
Oh and what I did not mention in the Path of Blood, was that the deal
was made because those dealmakers feared that they would only destroy
each others' vampires if they did not make that table-splitting deal
(x_x)...
The other players were playing:
Ayo Igoli vote
Jaroslav Pascek wall with melee weapons
Ayo got a Haven Uncovered played on her (crosstable, by the POT rush
player) on the round she came out. She survived the first rush (made by
the same player that played the HU) but ran out of S:CE against the CEL
gunners before she could take an action. Jaroslav's was Decapitated by
Theo Bell immediately after showing his head. So, the result of the
game was decided before the game started, and the game was over after 4
or 5 rounds.
snip
> You wanna make the finals? You wanna win tournaments? Quit
> worrying about VPs and try to win some games already.
Amen.
-Antero
Ben Peal schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
what if methuselah A makes a deal with B so that A gets second and B
gets first (for example i a vote that would oust A otherwise)?
antero wrote:
> The players that made the deal were playing:
> POT rush starring Theo and Beast
> CEL rush with .44's
>
> Oh and what I did not mention in the Path of Blood, was that the deal
> was made because those dealmakers feared that they would only destroy
> each others' vampires if they did not make that table-splitting deal
> (x_x)...
Yeah, that's generally implied in any deal between combat decks. :)
> The other players were playing:
> Ayo Igoli vote
> Jaroslav Pascek wall with melee weapons
>
> Ayo got a Haven Uncovered played on her (crosstable, by the POT rush
> player) on the round she came out. She survived the first rush (made by
> the same player that played the HU) but ran out of S:CE against the CEL
> gunners before she could take an action. Jaroslav's was Decapitated by
> Theo Bell immediately after showing his head. So, the result of the
> game was decided before the game started, and the game was over after 4
> or 5 rounds.
The deal went according to plan. :)
Here's the thing:
From the looks of things, the players assessed the situation
correctly.
It's very likely that they would have destroyed each other had they
not
made a deal. It appeared as though they had a high-percentage chance
of getting 2 VP each if they made a deal. The plan worked exactly
the
way they had envisioned it.
However, you're looking at (I assume) a 3-round tournament. Even
with
just 13 players, you'll still likely need a game win to make the
finals,
since there are 9 total tables. A couple of tables will go to time,
and
one or two people will get 2 GW, but even then, odds are that you
need
a win. Also, a win in an environment like that is almost assuredly
going
to get you into the finals, so why even care about 2 VP?
- Ben Peal
[ quoted text not captured ]
It is illegal to make deals before the game starts (well, to honor such
deals over PTW, any way).
Deals must be made based on game state.
talonz schrieb:
> Quote from a finnish tourney report;
>
> "Some players seemed to be on the gray area. In a four-player table, 2
> players (predator and prey) made a table-splitting deal before the game
> started, because that othewr was playing CEL GUN rush, and the other
> mono potence, with mostly close range combat. The deal was that the POT
> player (the predator) would only rush backwards, while his prey would
> take 2 vp's and then fold.
>> Thoughts?
>
the weenie cel gun guy had either a bad deck (cel gun should own mono
pot close range combat) or no knowledge of the game (the mono pot guy
would have been forced to first take care of his predator while the
cell guy easily could have build up and gain a significant advantage)
s.
> My knee-jerk reaction is that the "play-to-win" part is irrelevant,
> and
> what's more relevant is that the two players were morons for not
> wanting to try to win.
There are currently no rules against being a moron.
Oscar Garza
Organized Play Coordinator
OrgPlay wrote:
> > My knee-jerk reaction is that the "play-to-win" part is irrelevant,
> > and
> > what's more relevant is that the two players were morons for not
> > wanting to try to win.
>
> There are currently no rules against being a moron.
Indeed, and I hope there never is - I'd have to quite playing.
Witness1
-the fuckingest retard that plays this game
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> the weenie cel gun guy had either a bad deck (cel gun should own mono
> pot close range combat) or no knowledge of the game (the mono pot guy
> would have been forced to first take care of his predator while the
> cell guy easily could have build up and gain a significant advantage)
According to the first post, the mono pot deck had mostly ranged
combat.
- Ben
Howdy,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Errr... Actually, according to the OP, the potence deck had 'close'
range combat. So I'd have to agree with Stefan, the guns should have
had no incentive at all to deal.
Alex
wumpus wrote:
> Errr... Actually, according to the OP, the potence deck had 'close'
> range combat. So I'd have to agree with Stefan, the guns should have
> had no incentive at all to deal.
Oops. I can't read. Yeah, the cel-gun deck shouldn't have bothered
dealing. However, my point still stands. Even if the potence deck
and
cel-gun deck had the potential to kill each other, they still
should've
gone for the win and not the split, since all that would matter for
getting
into the finals was a game win.
- Ben Peal
> It is illegal to make deals before the game starts (well, to honor such
> deals over PTW, any way).
> Deals must be made based on game state.
If I have reason to infer the game state will change over the next few
turns, is that legal? Like, the Ravnos player is kinda scary now, but
if he drops a Week of Nightmares, it'll be too late, so let's kill him
now? The WoN reasoning isn't based on game state; it's based on the
assumption that WoN is in that player's deck, and I think it should be
legal. (Maybe it is already.)
More important to me is this hypothetical situation:
I am playing my stealthy Korah Pander deck. I have tested this deck
extensively over the last 3 years and am perfectly confident that it
will be unable to oust an Auspex wall, and will likely time out if AUS
is its prey. Moreover, I have learned since Nights of Reckoning's
release that it will almost always lose when a skilled Imbued player is
its predator or prey.
In the first round of a tournament, Josh Duffin is my prey. He is
all_powerful. (playing imbued). I am familiar with the decklist, and
have used it to test against. When the game concludes, he has
successfully prevented me from ousting him and has gone on to oust me.
In the second round of the same tournament, Josh Duffin is my predator.
(It's not a multi-deck tournament.) Josh's predator is a deck which I
am confident will be unable to oust Josh without help.
(rhetorical question for emphasis): How much more information do I need
in order to legally make a deal to oust Josh? The game state appears
to be [no information], but I would argue that the cards in my deck and
the cards in his deck (as well as the seating order) comprise a lot of
information about the state of the game. I can reasonably infer that
The Unmasking will hit the table at some point, given he and I survive
that long. I can also infer that he will be bleeding me for two with
each minion--and I can determine all this before the game has begun
without unwarrantedly jumping to conclusions.
I believe this would be an example of a time when I could offer my
grandpredator "I will help you oust your prey, if you like" before the
game has begun without it being illegal play. It certainly seems (to
me) to be the most logical thing to do, based on our respective decks'
compositions, experience in similar situations, and table positions.
So I suppose I'll put forth a syllogism:
1.) Assume ousting Josh seems like the most reasonable course of
action to me.
2.) I believe the play-to-win rule does not prohibit players from
taking what they think is the most reasonable course of action.
Therefore
3.) The play-to-win rule won't stop me from making a deal to oust Josh
before the game begins, given that I know a lot about the game state
from the contents of the decks involved, the seating order, and the
effectiveness record (win/loss ratio etc.) of each deck present against
each of the other decks involved.
Now, all that being said, I think the "right" thing to do in those
circumstances is to just wait 2 or 3 turns to make the deal, since you
never know whether your grandprey's Beast will suddenly take offense at
some card Josh plays and try to pound the hell out of him. Waiting a
few turns, I think, is usually a smarter play, and the one I would
make. But I'm not arguing that dealing to oust Josh before the game
begins given the above circumstances is the absolute best play, just
"sufficiently reasonable" to warrant not being prohibited by the rules.
-- Brian
Not really trying to oust Josh. ...yet.
> Oops. I can't read. Yeah, the cel-gun deck shouldn't have bothered
> dealing. However, my point still stands. Even if the potence deck
> and
> cel-gun deck had the potential to kill each other, they still
> should've
> gone for the win and not the split, since all that would matter for
> getting
> into the finals was a game win.
Uh, except that you're not supposed to delve into these out of game
considerations. Play the game at hand, not with regard to the finals,
but with regard to the current game.
I personally don't like that rule but I believe it is a rule
nonetheless.
-- Brian
Brian wrote:
> > Oops. I can't read. Yeah, the cel-gun deck shouldn't have
> > bothered dealing. However, my point still stands. Even if
> > the potence deck and cel-gun deck had the potential to kill
> > each other, they still should've gone for the win and not the
> > split, since all that would matter for getting into the finals was
> > a game win.
>
> Uh, except that you're not supposed to delve into these out of game
> considerations. Play the game at hand, not with regard to the finals,
> but with regard to the current game.
Right, so, instead of trying to win, they should just try to win.
Sounds good.
- Ben Peal