VTES rule : you must play to win.
Unnoficial rule : you can make deals, and sometimes although they are not
"losing deals for VPs", honouring them prevents you from maximising your VPs
(example : "I won't bleed for 3 turns" ; the situation changes, and you know
that to bleed is to win, to honour your deal is to lose).
Question to LSJ : does a player have the right to keep such a deal (which
wasn't a deal for VPs and therefore didn't have to be accepted by a judge,
or could have seemed legal at a time and becomes illegal) although it means
not maximising VPs, or does he have the duty of breaking the deal ?
Orpheus, very tired after judging in a tournament full of (mostly illegal)
deal propositions.
Orpheus wrote:
> VTES rule : you must play to win.
>
> Unnoficial rule : you can make deals, and sometimes although they are not
> "losing deals for VPs", honouring them prevents you from maximising your VPs
> (example : "I won't bleed for 3 turns" ; the situation changes, and you know
> that to bleed is to win, to honour your deal is to lose).
What is this "unofficial rule" marker?
Official V:EKN rule/rulings:
You can make deals. And sometimes (the majority of the time, in fact), when
Methuselah who has to uphold the "and then, later..." part of the deal will
be in the position that honoring the legally-made deal isn't "maximizing
her GWs or VPs), she is still allowed to honor the legally-made deal under
the "sportsmanship" rules (of which "play to win is a part).
> Question to LSJ : does a player have the right to keep such a deal (which
> wasn't a deal for VPs and therefore didn't have to be accepted by a judge,
> or could have seemed legal at a time and becomes illegal) although it means
> not maximising VPs, or does he have the duty of breaking the deal ?
This "deal for VPs" is just smoke - the rules are the same for all deals,
whether they involve VPs or not.
A player has the right to honor a legally-made deal.
A deal that was legal at the time won't "become" illegal, in any event.
--
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/
> A player has the right to honor a legally-made deal.> A deal that was legal at the time won't "become" illegal, in any event.
What is an illegal deal?
Chuck Arnett wrote:
> What is an illegal deal?
One that violates the play-to-win rule at the time you make it. This
is, of course, a huge grey dubious area left to the judge's discretion,
but the gist is, if you have a chance of getting, say, 3 VPs, then you
can't make a deal where you'll only get 2. But, if you only have a
chance of getting 2 (or less) VPs, then such a deal is fine.
--Colin McGuigan
[ quoted text not captured ]
And that is where the margin is very thin. Over last tournament, I have
ruled a certain number of deals illegal, and have been proved right by the
following of events in 90% of these cases (the rest was too cloudy, but I
still believe I was right) because the players had a chance, ever so slight,
to succeed without dealing the VPs too early in the game, which they did.
I believe that deals for VPs are just the lazy way : as with "true"
vampires, the promises are made to be broken, and you must struggle
(eternally ?) throughout the games to gain what you want, not just say "3 /
2 ?!" once in a game and play the rest without thinking. At least, not until
you have absolutely no chance of winning.
If the judges had been too lenient, the actual Champion of France would have
accepted a losing deal in the finals !!!
--
Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia
Howdy,
Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<T4OcnUfqMJt...@speakeasy.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Heh. I guess he didn't believe me when I said:
"Unfortunately, collusion, like illegal deal-making (giving away a win
or VP that you have a chance at getting w/o the deal) is almost
impossible to prove. Barring someone foolishly admitting that that's
what they're doing, there's really no way to call bad dealmaking
collusion, just as delusional beliefs about game state are perfectly
reasonable justification for bad deals."
On our local forum.
Thanks,
Alex
[ quoted text not captured ]
Remember: judge's don't have to "prove" illegal deal making.
The player making the deal must convince the judge it's legal if the
judge's judgment is that it is illegal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> but the gist is, if you have a chance of getting, say, 3 VPs, then you
> can't make a deal where you'll only get 2. But, if you only have a
> chance of getting 2 (or less) VPs, then such a deal is fine.
>
AFAIK you could make a deal for 2 when you could get 3 if you were
convinced that 2 would be enough for the game win. your first priority
is to play to win.
Chris.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:26:50 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>Alex Broadhead wrote:>> Howdy,
>>
>> Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<T4OcnUfqMJt...@speakeasy.net>...
>>>>>Chuck Arnett wrote:
>>>>>>>What is an illegal deal?>>>
>>>One that violates the play-to-win rule at the time you make it. This
>>>is, of course, a huge grey dubious area left to the judge's discretion,
>>>but the gist is, if you have a chance of getting, say, 3 VPs, then you
>>>can't make a deal where you'll only get 2. But, if you only have a
>>>chance of getting 2 (or less) VPs, then such a deal is fine.>>
>>
>> Heh. I guess he didn't believe me when I said:
>>
>> "Unfortunately, collusion, like illegal deal-making (giving away a win
>> or VP that you have a chance at getting w/o the deal) is almost
>> impossible to prove. Barring someone foolishly admitting that that's
>> what they're doing, there's really no way to call bad dealmaking
>> collusion, just as delusional beliefs about game state are perfectly
>> reasonable justification for bad deals."
>>
>> On our local forum.>
>Remember: judge's don't have to "prove" illegal deal making.
>The player making the deal must convince the judge it's legal if the
>judge's judgment is that it is illegal.
can't the player alternatively just quietly let the judge know that
his real plan is to break the deal and get a GW that way, if that is
indeed their intent?
but if the judge said 'deal illegal' to the whole table, and then the
player whispers something to the judge, and the judge says 'erm,
actually, it's ok', does that not take a lot of the bluff and scheming
out of vtes?
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
salem wrote:
> can't the player alternatively just quietly let the judge know that
> his real plan is to break the deal and get a GW that way, if that is
> indeed their intent?
Still, yes.
> but if the judge said 'deal illegal' to the whole table, and then the
> player whispers something to the judge, and the judge says 'erm,
> actually, it's ok', does that not take a lot of the bluff and scheming
> out of vtes?
No.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4017B441...@white-wolf.com>...
> salem wrote:
> > can't the player alternatively just quietly let the judge know that
> > his real plan is to break the deal and get a GW that way, if that is
> > indeed their intent?
>
> Still, yes.
So I can lie to the table and not to the judge and that makes a deal
legal?
What if I never get the opportunity to break the table deal? What if I
break my deal with the judge that I'll break my deal with the table?
Making deals (side plans) with judges seems unethical in the highest.
Jeff Kuta wrote:
> So I can lie to the table and not to the judge and that makes a deal
> legal?
No. The deal is legal or not based on the judge's judgement, regardless
of what you say to the table or to the judge.
> What if I never get the opportunity to break the table deal? What if I
So long as you're playing to win, you're fine (w.r.t. to the non-existent
deal). It's the "playing to win" that normally forces one to break an
non-existent deal.
> break my deal with the judge that I'll break my deal with the table?
You don't make deals with the judge. You make deals with other
Methuselahs.
> Making deals (side plans) with judges seems unethical in the highest.
As you say. But we're not talking about making deals with judges.
[ quoted text not captured ]
chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.0401...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
You guys worry to much. As far as I am concerned, as long as people
are playing the great game of vtes and are spending quality time with
the good company that this game provides we are all 'playing to win'.
kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.04012...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Baah.
You sound like a Successories poster...
;-)
J/K
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
salem expounded:
> can't the player alternatively just quietly let the judge know that
> his real plan is to break the deal and get a GW that way, if that is
> indeed their intent?
>
> but if the judge said 'deal illegal' to the whole table, and then the
> player whispers something to the judge, and the judge says 'erm,
> actually, it's ok', does that not take a lot of the bluff and scheming
> out of vtes?
I was always of the opinion that the judge should only tell teh player
for whom the deal is illegal that it is illegal. Thus allowing a chance
for them to tell the judge they intend to break it. Only at the time of
having to 'pay up' on the illegal deal should the judge tell the rest of
the table.
Thus the judge must *always* take the player on the losing end of a deal
aside for a private talk and *never* declare that a deal is legal. (only
play should be ruled on publicly)
Is there any reason this can't work?
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<401807D...@white-wolf.com>...
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > So I can lie to the table and not to the judge and that makes a deal
> > legal?
>
> No. The deal is legal or not based on the judge's judgement, regardless
> of what you say to the table or to the judge.
>> > Making deals (side plans) with judges seems unethical in the highest.
>
> As you say. But we're not talking about making deals with judges.
Maybe I should restate this a bit.
Player wants to make a questionable (not play to win) deal. Player
calls the Judge over and says, "Hey, this might look like an
questionable deal, but I think it's ok for me to break because I
intend to break the deal at a crucial time, gaining advantage by
playing to win."
Now, in my mind, if the Judge actually allows this to happen (using
their judgement), they are conspiring with a Player who is trying to
maintain a falsehood about the game. Basically, they are sanctioning
lying because they have knowledge the other players do not. Now, lying
between Players is no big deal in VTES, but when lying is *allowed* to
influence a Judge's decision, that really sounds just wrong to me.
If the Player received the Judge's blessing on the deal, then reneged
on their promise to the Judge (even if it was beyond their control),
then there would have to be serious penalties involved, for the Judge
(for being such a dupe and letting this happen) and Player (for
disobeying the Judge's, perhaps tacit, compulsion to follow through
with breaking the deal, in order to make the deal legal).
Sure, Judges aren't supposed to be moral arbiters, only rules
enforcers, but this scenario gets into a gray area that I hope most
Judges won't even touch.
Jeff Kuta expounded:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<401807D...@white-wolf.com>...
> > Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > > So I can lie to the table and not to the judge and that makes a deal
> > > legal?
> >
> > No. The deal is legal or not based on the judge's judgement, regardless
> > of what you say to the table or to the judge.
> >
> > > Making deals (side plans) with judges seems unethical in the highest.
> >
> > As you say. But we're not talking about making deals with judges.
>
> Maybe I should restate this a bit.
>
> Player wants to make a questionable (not play to win) deal. Player
> calls the Judge over and says, "Hey, this might look like an
> questionable deal, but I think it's ok for me to break because I
> intend to break the deal at a crucial time, gaining advantage by
> playing to win."
>
> Now, in my mind, if the Judge actually allows this to happen (using
> their judgement), they are conspiring with a Player who is trying to
> maintain a falsehood about the game. Basically, they are sanctioning
> lying because they have knowledge the other players do not. Now, lying
> between Players is no big deal in VTES, but when lying is *allowed* to
> influence a Judge's decision, that really sounds just wrong to me.
The judge should imo *never* (publicly) declare a deal illegal or legal
at the time of it being agreed; *only* when it comes time to keep the
bargain.
> If the Player received the Judge's blessing on the deal, then reneged
> on their promise to the Judge (even if it was beyond their control),
If it is beyond their control then they have still played legally. Being
unable to win is not illegal. So long as it was a genuine attempt to
win, the play is legal. Obviuosly if it is beyond their control then
they are not keeping the deal anyway (in any meaningful sense).
> then there would have to be serious penalties involved, for the Judge
> (for being such a dupe and letting this happen) and Player (for
> disobeying the Judge's, perhaps tacit, compulsion to follow through
> with breaking the deal, in order to make the deal legal).
If the player gets to the point of keeping the deal and does so then
they can and should face serious penalties from the judge because that
is a breach of the rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a8390106...@news.freeserve.com...
> Jeff Kuta expounded:> > Maybe I should restate this a bit.
> >
> > Player wants to make a questionable (not play to win) deal. Player
> > calls the Judge over and says, "Hey, this might look like an
> > questionable deal, but I think it's ok for me to break because I
> > intend to break the deal at a crucial time, gaining advantage by
> > playing to win."
> >
> > Now, in my mind, if the Judge actually allows this to happen (using
> > their judgement), they are conspiring with a Player who is trying to
> > maintain a falsehood about the game. Basically, they are sanctioning
> > lying because they have knowledge the other players do not. Now,
lying
> > between Players is no big deal in VTES, but when lying is *allowed*
to
> > influence a Judge's decision, that really sounds just wrong to me.
>
> The judge should imo *never* (publicly) declare a deal illegal or
legal
> at the time of it being agreed; *only* when it comes time to keep the
> bargain.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It is when the deal is made that its
legality is determined. How is the judge going to know, when it comes
time to keep the deal, whether a losing player had a reasonable chance
to get more VPs (or win the game) without the deal? The game state the
deal was made on is long gone.
If people want to take advantage of others' trustingness to make deals
and then break them, that's totally fine by me. But I don't think they
should need to rely on the judge to not tell their opponents when
they're making a losing deal that would be illegal if they weren't
planning to break it. That sounds confusing. What I'm trying to say
is, there should be plenty of ways to have intrigue and duplicity in a
game of VTES without needing to keep the judge from letting people know
that you're not really going to keep your losing deal. Anyone paying
attention should be able to tell that your losing deal isn't legal
unless you're planning to break it anyway.
> > If the Player received the Judge's blessing on the deal, then
reneged
> > on their promise to the Judge (even if it was beyond their control),
>
> If it is beyond their control then they have still played legally.
Being
> unable to win is not illegal. So long as it was a genuine attempt to
> win, the play is legal. Obviuosly if it is beyond their control then
> they are not keeping the deal anyway (in any meaningful sense).
No, making a losing deal when you have a reasonable chance to win the
game is illegal. So you can't make a losing deal unless you're planning
to break it. Knowing this, your opponent probably shouldn't take the
winning end of the deal with you. :-)
> > then there would have to be serious penalties involved, for the
Judge
> > (for being such a dupe and letting this happen) and Player (for
> > disobeying the Judge's, perhaps tacit, compulsion to follow through
> > with breaking the deal, in order to make the deal legal).
>
> If the player gets to the point of keeping the deal and does so then
> they can and should face serious penalties from the judge because that
> is a breach of the rules.
LSJ has said more than once that keeping a legal deal is legal. Keeping
an illegal deal is illegal, but the illegality exists from the moment
the deal is made - it doesn't come into being only when the deal is
kept.
Josh
just speculating at the moment
Joshua Duffin expounded:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I was not suggesting that the Judge should not be called at the time of
the deal being made. Merely that they should not tell the table what
their ruling on the deal is. In the event that the deal is illegal, the
party who must break the deal must clearly be informed of this at some
point.
It is perfectly arguable that the judge should not say anything (to
anyone) until the point of the (potentially) illegal play (when the deal
must be consumated). If this is accepted then judges should be called
when a potentially illegal deal is made and again when it is to be
consumated (whether or not they are going to rule it illegal).
> If people want to take advantage of others' trustingness to make deals
> and then break them, that's totally fine by me. But I don't think they
> should need to rely on the judge to not tell their opponents when
> they're making a losing deal that would be illegal if they weren't
> planning to break it. That sounds confusing. What I'm trying to say
> is, there should be plenty of ways to have intrigue and duplicity in a
> game of VTES without needing to keep the judge from letting people know
> that you're not really going to keep your losing deal. Anyone paying
> attention should be able to tell that your losing deal isn't legal
> unless you're planning to break it anyway.
Usually at this point someone else at the table will have explained why
they think it's an illegal deal (most illegal deals harm someone still
at the table).
Do you think that you should rely on the judge to tell you when someone
is making a deal that it would be illegal for them to keep? (that is the
logical corollary to what I think you are saying)
> > > If the Player received the Judge's blessing on the deal, then
> reneged
> > > on their promise to the Judge (even if it was beyond their control),
> >
> > If it is beyond their control then they have still played legally.
> Being
> > unable to win is not illegal. So long as it was a genuine attempt to
> > win, the play is legal. Obviuosly if it is beyond their control then
> > they are not keeping the deal anyway (in any meaningful sense).
>
> No, making a losing deal when you have a reasonable chance to win the
> game is illegal. So you can't make a losing deal unless you're planning
I don't think it would be illegal so long as you don't carry out your
intention. Either way it isn't in any way verifiable. Nor is it what I
was talking about. We are talking here about a Player telling the judge
they would break a deal and then failing to do so for reasons "beyond
their control" -I can't see how this could be construed as illegal play.
What would be illegal would be to take an action (or inaction) that is
in contravention of playing-to-win and furthermore is not covered by a
legal deal.
A situation "beyond their control" might be that they are ousted before
they can break a deal not to bleed in the next turn. It seems clear to
me that this would not be illegal play.
> to break it. Knowing this, your opponent probably shouldn't take the
> winning end of the deal with you. :-)
Quite true but not what I was talking about. The issue this raises is
whether the judge should be telling the opponent that they shoudln't
take the winning end of such a deal. I am of the opinion that they
shouldn't.
> > If the player gets to the point of keeping the deal and does so then
> > they can and should face serious penalties from the judge because that
> > is a breach of the rules.
>
> LSJ has said more than once that keeping a legal deal is legal. Keeping
> an illegal deal is illegal, but the illegality exists from the moment
> the deal is made - it doesn't come into being only when the deal is
> kept.
Yes it does. Making an 'illegal' deal is perfectly legal. It is *only*
the keeping of it (illegally) that is illegal. However whetehr the deal
will be illegal to keep is determined at the time that the deal is made
(though the actions that constitute keeping the deal may become legal
independently of the deal: eg if at that point you are going to lose
anyway)
In message <4c6f3f3e.04012...@posting.google.com>,
guenh...@mindspring.com (atomweaver) mumbled something about:
>kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote in message news:<6933e80c.04012...@posting.google.com>...
>>> You guys worry to much. As far as I am concerned, as long as people
>> are playing the great game of vtes and are spending quality time with
>> the good company that this game provides we are all 'playing to win'.>
>Baah.
>
>You sound like a Successories poster...
www.despair.com
=D
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.