GameWinRule:unenforceable?

>From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) >Subject: Re: GenCon 2001 and Tournament Report and Rambling, Long!! >Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad >Date: 2001-08-08 05:12:51 PST > > >shsoton wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> > Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player >> > taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it) >> > is taking a losing deal. >> Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals per >> se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown aspect ? > >I'm not *against* it, except that it is illegal. >If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a losing >deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you cannot win >anyhow (which is rare). So how is this enforced lsj? My prey takes one look at his preys vampire and offers a tablesplit. What is the judge supposed to do? What if he states he cannot win (or believes that at least) and therefore wants to maximize his vps with a split? G

talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message news:<86e3f5f4.0406...@posting.google.com>... > So how is this enforced lsj? My prey takes one look at his prey's > vampire and offers a tablesplit. What is the judge supposed to do? > What if he states he cannot win (or believes that at least) and > therefore wants to maximize his vps with a split? Taking this to extremes, I come to a tournament with a wallish deck and my prey has a very fast stealth-bleed deck. I know it takes too long for me to tool up to start blocking all his stealth, but in the long run, I know he won't be able to break through me, so I offer a 2-3 split where he gets the Game Win. I do this *EVERY GAME* as a strategy--I can wall up great, but I can't move forward at all BY DESIGN--and it ensures me high placement, perhaps getting into the finals with 4 or 6 VPs, assuming smaller (2-4 table) events since you need GWs to make the finals of large events. Then in the finals, I do the same thing, taking 2 VPs and second place, all for sitting on my ass the entire tournament. Sure, it may appear to be legal under VEKN rules, but it certainly seems to violate the spirit of "playing to win."

talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message > So how is [play to win] enforced lsj? My prey takes one look at his preys > vampire and offers a tablesplit. What is the judge supposed to do? It is enforced like any other rule - violations of the rule are noted and not allowed. If a violation is brought to the judge's attention after the fact, then the game is rewound to the point of the violation and the violation is removed. If a player refuses to play to win (or refuses to follow any of the rest of the body of rules), then that player should be removed (and game state corrected). > What if he states he cannot win (or believes that at least) and > therefore wants to maximize his vps with a split? If he can convince the judge that, based on game state, he cannot win, then he is free to procede with his not winning in whatever (legal) manner he chooses. It is quite difficult to "take one look at his preys vampire" in the early part of a game and deduce that one cannot win, however. What the player believes is of no relevance. It is what the judge believes that matters when it comes to a player's chances of winning. -- 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/

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com>... > talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message > > So how is [play to win] enforced lsj? My prey takes one look at his preys > > vampire and offers a tablesplit. What is the judge supposed to do? > > It is enforced like any other rule - violations of the rule are noted > and not allowed. Next question; where is the play to win rule? I'm looking at both the vekn tourney rules and judges guidelines and having a hard time finding it. > > What if he states he cannot win (or believes that at least) and > > therefore wants to maximize his vps with a split? > > If he can convince the judge that, based on game state, he cannot win, > then he is free to procede with his not winning in whatever (legal) > manner he chooses. It is quite difficult to "take one look at his > preys vampire" in the early part of a game and deduce that one cannot > win, however. > > What the player believes is of no relevance. It is what the judge > believes that matters when it comes to a player's chances of winning. I think this needs to be given fuller discussion in the judges guidelines. I think the average judge will look at a similar situation and rule that if he feels he cannot win, he can play to get whatever vps he can get, likely from his prey rolling over. The point being, the 'play to win, or play to max vps, or play however you like, in that order' is being taken too much at face value by players and judges alike. In another vein, you ruled previouslly that a 'losing deal' made when the player could still possibly win was illegal. Care to expand on that? Could not the deal above (look at first vamp, agree to help prey win for the rollover 2vps) be thus illegal? G

Geoff expounded: > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com>... > > talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message > > > So how is [play to win] enforced lsj? My prey takes one look at his preys > > > vampire and offers a tablesplit. What is the judge supposed to do? > > > > It is enforced like any other rule - violations of the rule are noted > > and not allowed. > > Next question; where is the play to win rule? I'm looking at both the > vekn tourney rules and judges guidelines and having a hard time > finding it. Try looking in the rulebook. I thought the VEKN also said something about it -an interpretation or something but I'm pretty sure it's in the rulebook. > In another vein, you ruled previouslly that a 'losing deal' made when > the player could still possibly win was illegal. Care to expand on > that? Could not the deal above (look at first vamp, agree to help > prey win for the rollover 2vps) be thus illegal? I would certainly rule it illegal. For a start the grand-prey might backoust (or do so much damage..).

"Geoff" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:86e3f5f4.04060...@posting.google.com... > Next question; where is the play to win rule? I'm looking at both the > vekn tourney rules and judges guidelines and having a hard time > finding it. I believe it is a combination of VEKN tournament rule 5.2, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, which states "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.)", and the "Object of the Game" from the beginning of the VTES rulebook, "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs". I would agree that more discussion of this in the judges' guidelines might be desirable, although I think it's also true that not all judges will end up interpreting "playing to win" in the same way anyhow. Josh being human and all

talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote: > Next question; where is the play to win rule? I'm looking at both the > vekn tourney rules and judges guidelines and having a hard time > finding it. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html#SEC2.3. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html#SEC5.2. > In another vein, you ruled previouslly that a 'losing deal' made when > the player could still possibly win was illegal. Care to expand on > that? Could not the deal above (look at first vamp, agree to help Google: "play win author:LSJ" If you like, throw "legal", "sportsmanship", and/or "deal" in the query as well. > prey win for the rollover 2vps) be thus illegal? Of course. That's what I said. It very likely is illegal, since there's virtually no chance to be unable to win at that point. [ quoted text not captured ]

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote: > Taking this to extremes, I come to a tournament with a wallish deck > and my prey has a very fast stealth-bleed deck. I know it takes too > long for me to tool up to start blocking all his stealth, but in the > long run, I know he won't be able to break through me, so I offer a > 2-3 split where he gets the Game Win. Which has the same effect of not offering the deal - unless you're actively helping him oust his preys (which would be a contradition of your premise). > I do this *EVERY GAME* as a strategy How do you force your prey to play a very fast stealth bleed deck every game? > Sure, it may appear to be legal under VEKN rules, but it certainly > seems to violate the spirit of "playing to win." If you have any Eagle's Sights, Life Boons, Major Boons, or any of a number of other cards common to wall decks, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that you lack a reasonable chance of winning, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > > Sure, it may appear to be legal under VEKN rules, but it certainly > > seems to violate the spirit of "playing to win." > > If you have any Eagle's Sights, Life Boons, Major Boons, or any of a > number of other cards common to wall decks, you'd have a hard time > convincing a judge that you lack a reasonable chance of winning, IMO. Use Ani int retainers and no auspex. Omit those cards. Since it is the whole strategy for the deck NOT to win this shouldn't be a problem.

> Of course. That's what I said. It very likely is illegal, since > there's virtually no chance to be unable to win at that point. Of course, talking is not prohibited. So the player of the wall deck can propose such a deal, the player of the FFWSB deck can accept, the deal can be labelled illegal by observing judges, and the game can then proceed in its natural state (that is, the wall deck blocking backwards, the SB ousting three players and dying horribly when it reaches the wall). I'm yet to see a judge take the cards of a player and play in his or her stead. Bye, Daneel

Timlagor wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And, again, in that case it doesn't matter if you make the deal or not - the game ends up the same way, since you cannot affect it (other than by staying in the game). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a23a105e.04060...@posting.google.com>, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about: >> Of course. That's what I said. It very likely is illegal, since >> there's virtually no chance to be unable to win at that point. > >Of course, talking is not prohibited. So the player of the wall deck >can propose such a deal, the player of the FFWSB deck can accept, the >deal can be labelled illegal by observing judges, and the game can >then proceed in its natural state (that is, the wall deck blocking >backwards, the SB ousting three players and dying horribly when it >reaches the wall). And the players can be ejected. >I'm yet to see a judge take the cards of a player and play in his or >her stead. I'd award zero pool and 1VP, and tell the player to take their cards with 'em if they aren't going to listen to my rulings. Some of you have no balls, I swear. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

LSJ wrote: > > And, again, in that case it doesn't matter if you make the deal or not - > the game ends up the same way, since you cannot affect it (other than > by staying in the game). Wouldn't he be getting 1.5 VP more with the deal as compared to without it? If he does not make the deal and simply sits there till time runs out he gets 0.5 points, and the bleeder got 3.5 and a GW. Unless I'm reading things wrong... With the deal he makes he gets 2 points. (I don't really see any reason why the bleeder deck would make the deal though, he gets the win anyway) //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<tjecc0h6mu53r1r00...@4ax.com>... > >I'm yet to see a judge take the cards of a player and play in his or > >her stead. > > I'd award zero pool and 1VP, and tell the player to take their cards > with 'em if they aren't going to listen to my rulings. > > Some of you have no balls, I swear. ;) The problem is that playing in a way or another is not something you can define and set in stone. I deliberately used the example where the seating suggests at a most likely outcome for the game - been there, done that from both sides. It is quite likely that the fast Stealth-Bleed deck will oust his or her prey before anyone ousts anyone else, and with the acquired momentum may well sweep through the remaining two players, but will have no chance whatsoever against the wall deck. Of course, a successful wall deck will _try_ to prevent the prey from scoring a VP, but I'd bet on the Stealth Bleed in the majority of the cases. So we are having a situation where the outcome is likely. The judge may rule against the deal (as he should, simply because it's too early in the game), but there is a good chance the game will proceed that way regardless of the ruling (or the deal). So should he kick the players out for... playing their decks? Or penalize them for arrogance (or predicting the outcome)? I'm basically pondering here, by the way, as when I'm playing I never do collusion (and on the tournaments I judged no such claim was ever voiced). When I did see collusion though I was always stuck with a laissez-faire judge, who was either very forgiving or too afraid to make a drastic decision. I guess where I play we are not used to cheaters... So they are that more destructive when they finally pop up. Bye, Daneel

In message <a23a105e.04060...@posting.google.com>, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<tjecc0h6mu53r1r00...@4ax.com>... >> >I'm yet to see a judge take the cards of a player and play in his or >> >her stead. >> >> I'd award zero pool and 1VP, and tell the player to take their cards >> with 'em if they aren't going to listen to my rulings. >> >> Some of you have no balls, I swear. > >;) > >The problem is that playing in a way or another is not something you >can define and set in stone. I deliberately used the example where the Nor is the outcome of a game something you can define and set in stone. >So we are having a situation where the outcome is likely. The judge >may rule against the deal (as he should, simply because it's too early >in the game), but there is a good chance the game will proceed that >way regardless of the ruling (or the deal). So should he kick the >players out for... playing their decks? Or penalize them for arrogance >(or predicting the outcome)? If one or more players are clearly playing in a fashion to honor the deal, even though it was judged illegal, then they can pick up and walk out. You _will_ obey the judge's rulings. If the events predicted in the deal end up happening simply by the nature of the seating arrangement, then that's different, and fine (AND one wonders why a deal would need to be made in the first place). This is what judges are for; I can assume that a competent judge would be able to watch the game state, and be called over if, say, the wall deck failed to ever take a forward action or attempt to block its prey's undirected actions. It's impossible to make 100% determinations from theoretical events. But I can certainly say that if I come over and see Eagle's Sight and 3 intercept in the wall deck's hand, and the players at that table tell me he's never even attempted to block any of his prey's bleeds, I'm going to be very suspicious, especially if I've just ruled the above-mentioned deal illegal on turn 2. And I'm going to tell that player so to his face (possibly away from the table), and point out that I have a lot of options available, INCLUDING removing him from the tournament... and he'd better do something to convince me he isn't trying to throw the game and honor a deal that was ruled illegal. And then we could see what happened after that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, > > Next question; where is the play to win rule? I'm looking at both the > > vekn tourney rules and judges guidelines and having a hard time > > finding it. > > I believe it is a combination of VEKN tournament rule 5.2, > Unsportsmanlike Conduct, which states "Players must not play toward > goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES > rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN > ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.)", and the "Object of the > Game" from the beginning of the VTES rulebook, "Your goal is to > accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by > rival Methuselahs". Geoff's inquiries and posting to our local (Seattle) forum have set off a veritable shitstorm of complaint about play to win, with Geoff and I pretty much being the only people in favor of it. I'm finding the whole controversy fairly surreal - do other playgroups have active opposition to 'Play to win'? If so, how do people deal with it? I'm responding here as I've made the following tongue-in-cheekish suggestion to placate the opposition: ----- In general: Would this be a preferrable construction to 'Play to win'? Instead of the current first sentence of the 'Object of the Game' section (p.4 BH Rulebook): "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs." The following could be substituted: "Your goal is either to accumulate the most victory points or not to. Players may play to win, to lose, to make other players win, to make other players lose, or to achieve whatever alternate victory conditions float their respective boats. Rival Methuselahs may be ousted by destroying their influence, if so desired." It'd probably need a little tightening up and/or other editing, but does that pretty much sum up the gist of the non-play-to-winners' position? ----- But perhaps that misrepresents the opposition? I don't really even know how to characterize their position, much less understand the extremely strong feelings the issue seems to generate. It's getting to the point that I'm not sure that I want to show up to the group in the future, though, which seems sad to me. Any suggestions? Alex

Alex Broadhead wrote: > > Any suggestions? Have these people been actively trying not to win so far? Did you not have good games with your group? If so, stay away. Find players that at least _try_ to beat you. If not, just let the discussion die and continue as you were. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > But I can certainly say that if I come over and see Eagle's Sight and 3 > intercept in the wall deck's hand, and the players at that table tell me > he's never even attempted to block any of his prey's bleeds, I'm going > to be very suspicious, especially if I've just ruled the above-mentioned Can you please explain to me why you'd want to block your prey from bleeding? It leaves one of your vamps tapped and gives your predator a free walk in. Let him bleed, means he is tapped and cannot block me! I'd say having more vamps then your predator and your prey being tapped out and not even trying to bleed to grab the Edge away from your prey, would be a strong indicator of the deal :) But I see no good reason to block your prey from bleeding your grandprey. That is, unless the grandprey is about to be ousted and you'd like to keep him around so you can gain that VP yourself. But then again, that would be 'trying to win'. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40C77520...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> But I can certainly say that if I come over and see Eagle's Sight and 3 >> intercept in the wall deck's hand, and the players at that table tell me >> he's never even attempted to block any of his prey's bleeds, I'm going >> to be very suspicious, especially if I've just ruled the above-mentioned > >Can you please explain to me why you'd want to block your prey from >bleeding? It leaves one of your vamps tapped and gives your predator a >free walk in. Let him bleed, means he is tapped and cannot block me! There are a number of reasons. One: People play with Wakes. Tapped almost never equals "cannot block", and also almost never equals "cannot defend". Most decks are designed to tap out every turn or leave a single vampire untapped, no more. Those that aren't are frequently intercept decks. Two: If you are an intercept/combat deck, you typically bleed very slowly; blocking your prey's action will let you put his vampire in torpor. From then forward, you can block all his rescue actions, putting more vampires in torpor. Eventually he has no ready minions, and you can neither Wake nor Deflect with a minion in torpor. Much more reliable than hoping he doesn't have a Wake. Three: If your prey is a stealth/bleed deck, and your grandprey cannot block the stealthy actions, but you can. It is in your best interest to prevent your grandprey from being ousted, thus causing your prey to gain 6 pool, a VP, and make him much harder to oust. I can keep going, but really, those three say enough. >I'd say having more vamps then your predator and your prey being tapped >out and not even trying to bleed to grab the Edge away from your prey, >would be a strong indicator of the deal :) Yep. That'd certainly be one reason. >But I see no good reason to block your prey from bleeding your >grandprey. That is, unless the grandprey is about to be ousted and you'd >like to keep him around so you can gain that VP yourself. But then >again, that would be 'trying to win'. Again, people play with Wakes. Tapped out is meaningless. If you're not going to try to win, then you won't find much useful discussion here, I'm afraid. The theory, strategy, and articles are based on people whose primary goal is to win the game, and whose secondary goal may be to win in a particularly wacky way, or with style, but it's still To Win. (See the Harbingers Brinksmanship deck for a particularly-wacky way to win). Someone who is just playing to fuck up other players' games... well, I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with two hours than play with someone like that. The game's fun but I'm not all that attached to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

What's Up, Doc? Heh. > > Any suggestions? > > Have these people been actively trying not to win so far? Did you not > have good games with your group? > > If so, stay away. Find players that at least _try_ to beat you. > > If not, just let the discussion die and continue as you were. You misunderstand the situation. It's not that they're not trying to beat me. It's that they can't agree that 'playing to win' should be the enforceable standard. I'm sure that, in their own minds, they are all trying to win (or at least trying to beat me, heh). But that hasn't stopped people from doing all sorts of disruptive stuff that is questionably directed towards victory. Stuff like randomly attacking people cross-table (because they're pissed at them), or taking one look at their prey or predator and deciding that they can't win and then making a deal that guarantees that, making other really stupid deals to split the table, or suiciding when some minor thing goes wrong, etc. It has been asserted that all of these behaviors can be explained away as clever bluffing, mad strategic posturing, etc., but I 1) don't believe that, and 2) don't see why it couldn't easily be explained to a judge if it was true. As to continuing as we were, well, I'm not sure I really want to spend the medium amount of effort it takes to keep up with V:TES (while married with kids) to play a game that is likely to be decided by random behavior. I don't get opportunities to play that often, and when I do I'd like it to be fun. Losing (or even winning) because players aren't playing to the same victory conditions isn't much fun. I like it to be about deckbuilding and play skill, not spite and 'honor'. Alex

in article cef10767.04060...@posting.google.com, Alex Broadhead at wum...@comcast.net wrote on 6/9/04 10:30 PM: > What's Up, Doc? > > Heh. > >>> Any suggestions? >> >> Have these people been actively trying not to win so far? Did you not >> have good games with your group? >> >> If so, stay away. Find players that at least _try_ to beat you. >> >> If not, just let the discussion die and continue as you were. > > You misunderstand the situation. It's not that they're not trying to > beat me. It's that they can't agree that 'playing to win' should be > the enforceable standard. I think YOU misunderstand the situation Alex. I've really tried to avoid this thread in our local group because it isn't about this "rule" entirely and is difficult to deal with even when it is a "simple" rules question. I. E. the thread on our local group is disgustingly laden with justification for having broken deals or played in certain ways in the last qualifier. EVERYONE was playing to win. If you had been there you would know that. You were not, because you have a life, but don't try to pretend that you understand what its about unless you were there. This "play to win" rule is absurd in V:TES. I've bluffed my way to victory in the final of last years qualifier by doing NOTHING for an hour of the game but giving people the impression that I had the perfect hand to ruin the first vampire that I blocked. If for instance my predator had called over a judge and said I wasn't playing to maximize my victory points would he have been justified? I would say no, but that零 not what every judge would say, and that零 the problem in my mind. The reason that it is a problem is that there are people that would say that it is not playing to win and thus I was cheating by breaking the rule. I might not in fact even have a chance to justify myself as the rule stands because it is up to the judge to decide (and whether to ask for justification or not). The impression of another person's motives is by nature subjective. This rule implies that it is either 1: not subjective, or 2: contextually possible to interpret. Whoa.. The first is just stupid and the second is at best iffy. If you really think you can prove motivation for action through interpretation of context then I suggest you take that up as a hobby instead of this silly game. We are all taking it way to seriously anyhow. If however this "rule" is what I think it ought to be and is more of a tool for a judge to suggest to players who seem to be there simply to ruin everyone else's day with their play that they pick it up a notch or pack it in then I'm all for it. But that零 not really much of a "rule" is it? If we get another person calling over a judge and claiming that two people that have never met each other before the tournament are in collusion and "cheating" I'm likely going to stop playing competitively. I had enough of that kind of slime ball cheese in chess tournaments. While I believe the intent of the rule was likely to prevent collusion it is extremely unlikely that this what was going on by nature of the two parties in question not knowing each other. You can win by using good deck creation skills, you can win by playing the cards well, you can win with good political skills, but if you play with tactics that are there to irritate and tear down the fun say by calling everything I do into question then find someone new to play. See I did tell you on the local group that you didn't get it and yet you still don't. The problem with the rule aside from the subjectivity of action is that its being abused to 1: irritate and bully players, and 2: justify deal breaking. > > I'm sure that, in their own minds, they are all trying to win (or at > least trying to beat me, heh). But that hasn't stopped people from > doing all sorts of disruptive stuff that is questionably directed > towards victory. Stuff like randomly attacking people cross-table > (because they're pissed at them), or taking one look at their prey or > predator and deciding that they can't win and then making a deal that > guarantees that, making other really stupid deals to split the table, > or suiciding when some minor thing goes wrong, etc. It has been > asserted that all of these behaviors can be explained away as clever > bluffing, mad strategic posturing, etc., but I 1) don't believe that, > and 2) don't see why it couldn't easily be explained to a judge if it > was true. To my knowledge you have never been present at a tournament where this rule has even remotely come into play. As for being say... Parity shifted by ones grandprey/predator well... That kind of thing can easily win that other person the game as can a cross table rush. Just because you didn't understand it or it didn't work out does not mean that it couldn't have. I really highly suggest that you read Robin's girls guide to Jyhad if it is still around. There were several very well thought out ways in which you can further your game with exactly the kind of tactics you just outliined even if they are simply acting pissed off and *gasp* in fact be playing to win. As I pointed out before... The judge does not have to ask your explanation the way it is now but that零 a double edged sword. One would assume that a judge would have a high level of play ability. Lets say they do and see a way to win that you don't. Should you have to play differently because you don't see how you could win thus eliminating the possibility of a cross table person being aided by you in order to get their help to get the maximum VP that you do see you can get? Perhaps the judge should have to tell you how to win with what you have? As absurd as that is it beats the other possibility that is that the judge does not have as developed a game. Should you have to be allowed to explain yourself? Its not that way now. If you had the possibility but were dealing with a judge who didn't understand it should you be forced to play to his level? Come on... > > As to continuing as we were, well, I'm not sure I really want to spend > the medium amount of effort it takes to keep up with V:TES (while > married with kids) to play a game that is likely to be decided by > random behavior. I don't get opportunities to play that often, and > when I do I'd like it to be fun. Losing (or even winning) because > players aren't playing to the same victory conditions isn't much fun. > I like it to be about deckbuilding and play skill, not spite and > 'honor'. I'm not sure we ever played the same game. Deckbuilding and play skill are only two of at least three components of V:tes. You have to have politics and the ability to understand, predict, and control people's behavior with the first two. I really doubt that I would have a hard time explaining any of my game play in any tournament I have ever played and I have always, without question, played to win. I do not feel that a judge, coming over to a table I've played at and looking at my cards would be able to understand how my actions further my position, nor should they have to put up with me explaining to them. The reason "playing to win" is not clear is that there are so many factors that go into that winning result. The balance of a table is extremely important as anyone at even a modicum of talent for the game will tell you. Understanding your resources, how your position looks to the table, what your actions to players other than your prey will do for your resources, etc etc etc are not simple or straightforward. Please stop pretending that they are. Since you've taken the last of the post to say that you are going to take your toys and go home because of the "random" behavior that decides games I'd like to suggest that there will always be something in games that strikes you as random because you didn't see it coming and don't understand it. I am taken completely by surprise on a regular basis playing the game and try to deal with it as best I can. If you find this intolerable I can understand your desire to stop. I myself am sick of the rules arguing. I deal with enough insanity, justification, and politics at work. I don't need it in my hobbies. You are free to play as you wish. If you tell me that I have to break a deal I made because I didn't see how honoring it would make me not "maximize my VP" then I'm likely to not play. I will never intentionally break a deal with someone who has treated me fairly. Its just a game. As for playing to win, again, I think anyone who has ever played against me would say that I do every time. scott

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<604fc0tva5umvoi9r...@4ax.com>... > Three: If your prey is a stealth/bleed deck, and your grandprey cannot > block the stealthy actions, but you can. It is in your best interest to > prevent your grandprey from being ousted, thus causing your prey to gain > 6 pool, a VP, and make him much harder to oust. I doubt that. You need a hell of a lot more cards to block the stealth-bleeder. Assuming an OBF vs. AUS scenario, the pivoting point cards are the AUS deck's Eagle's Sight cards and the OBF deck's Elder Impersonation. > The theory, strategy, and articles are based on people whose primary goal > is to win the game, and whose secondary goal may be to win in a particularly > wacky way, or with style, but it's still To Win. My primary goal when playing VTES is to have fun. To play a deck I find interesting, to try out combos, to observe the subtle changes in table balance, that kind of thing. I realize that VTES is balanced to be a competitive game, therefor in order to not ruin other people's fun I generally try to observe the "playing to win" rule, but taking steps to get closer to victory (or winning) does not really interest me. Playing my deck in different environments and making different choices is what really interests me (and what keeps me in the game). I've enjoyed games I lost and hated others I won. Bye, Daneel

In message <a23a105e.0406...@posting.google.com>, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<604fc0tva5umvoi9r...@4ax.com>... >> Three: If your prey is a stealth/bleed deck, and your grandprey cannot >> block the stealthy actions, but you can. It is in your best interest to >> prevent your grandprey from being ousted, thus causing your prey to gain >> 6 pool, a VP, and make him much harder to oust. > >I doubt that. You need a hell of a lot more cards to block the >stealth-bleeder. Assuming an OBF vs. AUS scenario, the pivoting point >cards are the AUS deck's Eagle's Sight cards and the OBF deck's Elder >Impersonation. The Eagle's Sight player has the advantage of a strike from nowhere (after the acting minion thought they were 'through'), and typically permanent intercept attached to the vampire as well. Often the Elder Impersonation or Call of the Hungry Dead will already have been played against one of your grandprey's blockers. Doubt it if you like, but it still works. You can't reach forward and stop +6 stealth, but you can routinely catch +3. And very few people play with +6 stealth anymore, because you can't move it out of your hand when people refuse to block. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com>... > > If he can convince the judge that, based on game state, he cannot win, > then he is free to procede with his not winning in whatever (legal) > manner he chooses. Does this presume a 'burden of proof' on the player being assessed then? > > What the player believes is of no relevance. It is what the judge > believes that matters when it comes to a player's chances of winning. Or as this points out, the judge is free to make a judgment for that player without the player proving anything? I think the latter is probably true, but in the case of the judge being undetermined or judging against that player, the player would then have the burden of proof placed on him to prove otherwise. I would also think it prudent to take that player aside as a judge to ask him what his plan to win is before making any snap judgements. G

"Geoff" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:86e3f5f4.04061...@posting.google.com... > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04060...@posting.google.com>... > > > > If he can convince the judge that, based on game state, he cannot win, > > then he is free to procede with his not winning in whatever (legal) > > manner he chooses. > > Does this presume a 'burden of proof' on the player being assessed > then? "Proof" is a poor choice of words, since this is a judgment call. The judge makes the judgment. The burden of convincing the judge that the one particular judgment a player favors is the correct/best one falls to that player. > > What the player believes is of no relevance. It is what the judge > > believes that matters when it comes to a player's chances of winning. > > Or as this points out, the judge is free to make a judgment for that > player without the player proving anything? "Proof" is hard to come by in most VTES game situations that require a judge's judgment. > I think the latter is probably true, but in the case of the judge > being undetermined or judging against that player, the player would > then have the burden of proof placed on him to prove otherwise. I > would also think it prudent to take that player aside as a judge to > ask him what his plan to win is before making any snap judgements. Of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

scott christofersen <schrist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BCED5D13.35D9%schrist...@hotmail.com>... > This "play to win" rule is absurd in V:TES. Explain. Do you not think that a sportsmanship rule to ensure that people play to win is helpful in avoiding absurd tablesplits that happened previouslly without this rule? Do you not agree that we should all be playing according to the stated goal of the game? Or is the application of the rule what you disagree with? > I've bluffed my way to victory > in the final of last years qualifier by doing NOTHING for an hour of the > game but giving people the impression that I had the perfect hand to ruin > the first vampire that I blocked. You didn't win that game. But you also weren't playing to not win. That is the key difference, and why your play was not questioned. > If for instance my predator had called > over a judge and said I wasn't playing to maximize my victory points would > he have been justified? I would say no, but that零 not what every judge > would say, and that零 the problem in my mind. I'm not convinced that any judge would rule against you in that case either. > The reason that it is a > problem is that there are people that would say that it is not playing to > win and thus I was cheating by breaking the rule. I don't know anyone who would say that in the specefic case, but lets say someone did. If your plan was valid (and I agree that it was) whats the problem? What other recourse does any player have in a tournament but to appeal to the judge if ingame discussion does not satisfy his concern that an illegal play is being made? By the very admission that you didn't act (although I know you did) you could not be ruled against. It is not the omission of action that is ruled as not playing to win, it is the action that contributes to *others* winning that is not playing to win, as I understand it. > I might not in fact even > have a chance to justify myself as the rule stands because it is up to the > judge to decide (and whether to ask for justification or not). This is true, although the first thing a judge should do imo in this case is take the player in question aside and ask the player 'what is your plan to win?'. This is standard in adjudicating unfinished games in another game I play, and I think it appropriate to apply it here as well. IE:before any determination or statement, ask the player his plan to win. > The > impression of another person's motives is by nature subjective. This rule > implies that it is either 1: not subjective, or 2: contextually possible to > interpret. > Whoa.. Ergo the above opinion on speaking to the player about his plans before anything else. > If however this "rule" is what I > think it ought to be and is more of a tool for a judge to suggest to players > who seem to be there simply to ruin everyone else's day with their play that > they pick it up a notch or pack it in then I'm all for it. But that零 not > really much of a "rule" is it? I believe it is to ensure the stated goal of the game is adhered to in general, and in specefic to all but eliminate tablesplitting. > If we get another person calling over a judge and claiming that two people > that have never met each other before the tournament are in collusion and > "cheating" I'm likely going to stop playing competitively. I have never seen that happen. Do you believe that's what was being said? > You can win by using good deck creation skills, you can win by playing the > cards well, you can win with good political skills, but if you play with > tactics that are there to irritate and tear down the fun say by calling > everything I do into question then find someone new to play. Do you honestly beleive that a call for a judgement is merely to irritate someone? As a tactic? And not simply a call for judgement on a perceived play error? > The problem with the rule aside from the subjectivity of action is that its > being abused to 1: irritate and bully players, If you can identify the specefic behaviour that is doing this, the player can be called for unsportsmanlike behaviour. > and 2: justify deal breaking. No one can be compelled to break a deal due to the gamewin rule unless the deal was illegally made in the first place. Assuming the deal was legal therefore, the players involved are free to do as they wish according to the rules. > > Just because you didn't > understand it or it didn't work out does not mean that it couldn't have. All the more reason to have a judge around. Perhaps the judge can, after consultation with the player calling the shift and as an impartial party, ensure that this action is within the stated goal of the game. > One would assume that a > judge would have a high level of play ability. Lets say they do and see a > way to win that you don't. Should you have to play differently because you > don't see how you could win If he rules that you can win, then play to win. What is so difficult with this? If the player can't see how they could win, perhaps they need to look at the gamestate again and revise their opinion of their chances? > thus eliminating the possibility of a cross > table person being aided by you in order to get their help to get the > maximum VP that you do see you can get? So long as you are playing to get the most vps, such action is not ruled out. > Perhaps the judge should have to > tell you how to win with what you have? No. > As absurd as that is it beats the > other possibility that is that the judge does not have as developed a game. > Should you have to be allowed to explain yourself? See above. A good judge should first put the onus on the player to explain his plan imo. > Deckbuilding and play skill are > only two of at least three components of V:tes. You have to have politics > and the ability to understand, predict, and control people's behavior with > the first two. Interesting how a broken deal can really mess with those predictions. I put to you however that if you take that possibility into account, you can predict multiple outcomes and thus plan accordingly. > I myself am sick of the rules arguing. I deal with enough insanity, > justification, and politics at work. I don't need it in my hobbies. I completely agree. I'm not interested in arguing so much as discussing the rule so that we all understand it and play under it appropriately. > You are free to play as you wish. So long as you are playing to win. > If you tell me that I have to break a deal I > made because I didn't see how honoring it would make me not "maximize my VP" > then I'm likely to not play. The only deal you would be forced to break would be an illegal one. > I will never intentionally break a deal with > someone who has treated me fairly. Then don't make an illegal deal. > Its just a game. As for playing to win, > again, I think anyone who has ever played against me would say that I do > every time. > scott Pretty much, yeah. For what its worth I think this case is very unlikely to come up again. Everyone's worries that every little thing will be questioned and examined is largely unfounded. G

>> This "play to win" rule is absurd in V:TES. > >Explain. Do you not think that a sportsmanship rule to ensure that >people play to win is helpful in avoiding absurd tablesplits that >happened previouslly without this rule? Do you not agree that we >should all be playing according to the stated goal of the game? Or is >the application of the rule what you disagree with? Why wouldn't someone try to win? I see three general possibilities. The first being players who don't care about the game from the standpoint of winning and losing - random game elements. How do you deal with these people? You hope they don't play tournaments (or at all, depending upon what you want from the game). You certainly don't expect them in the finals. Except, it is possible that someone engineered getting the player in the finals hoping to take advantage of their play style. Not likely. Anyway, a play to win rule isn't likely to impact these players sufficiently since they were already playing to screw up the game by not caring about trying to win in the first place. You can try to punish them. You run into the problem of how easy it is to justify bad play. Second group - colluders. I see no need for a play to win rule to deal with this group. Collusion is illegal per other rules. Third group - maximizing tournament position-ers. I don't see any problem here. These players want to win, they are even trying to win what should obviously be the goal - the tournament - by manipulating games during the prelims. The only time I can see worrying about the legality of whether someone is playing to win is when there's a suspicion of behavior that is already illegal per other rules - collusion, player intimidation, etc. In the case of random game elements, the much simpler way to go is likely to just ban them from future events (for instance, a two tournament ban). So, a specific play to win rule, besides being a royal bitch to enforce, shouldn't be necessary.

In message <20040610184032...@mb-m06.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >Third group - maximizing tournament position-ers. I don't see any problem >here. These players want to win, they are even trying to win what should >obviously be the goal - the tournament - by manipulating games during the >prelims. The goal of each game is to win by gaining the most VP. Without the play to win rule, the goal of each preliminary round game changes to "find a partner, make a 3-2 split deal quickly, and see who ends up getting the 3". Then the game changes away from V:TES and becomes Diplomacy. Deckbuilding moves away from most efforts to oust one's prey, and moves towards "what kind of deck can I build with the most to offer someone else at the table?" Succubus Club becomes the best card in the game. If I wanted to play Diplomacy, I'd do so. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The goal of each game is to win by gaining the most VP. > >Without the play to win rule, the goal of each preliminary round game >changes to "find a partner, make a 3-2 split deal quickly, and see who >ends up getting the 3". Only if you think you can get into the finals this way. Three tables isn't a big tournament; even a 2+F means 6 possible table wins. Being on the losing end of these deals twice is a pretty good way to not make the finals. Then, if this strategy works, everyone else is using it too, and what you get is some level of neutralization that returns the game to SOP. >Then the game changes away from V:TES and becomes Diplomacy. Like it is now? >Deckbuilding moves away from most efforts to oust one's prey, and moves >towards "what kind of deck can I build with the most to offer someone >else at the table?" Succubus Club becomes the best card in the game. I'd say we're already there, but ignoring that, if you want to be on the 3 VP side, you need to be able to oust people. >If I wanted to play Diplomacy, I'd do so. I don't think there's a problem when everyone adopts the same strategy. You still want to do better than your partner. You might have a falling out depending upon how the game goes, like someone offers a better deal. You still have to contend with opponents using a similar strategy and you have to deal with the problems that arise when either a 2/2 at a 4 player doesn't get either player enough or the problem of splits when there's a fifth player at the table. I see the reality being that there's no possible way you can stop people from playing for second. It's so easy to justify anything. Doesn't appear that I'm in a losing position? I'll just transfer up another vampire, putting me too close to death not to try and deal, with the justification that this is my only way of ousting my prey, and make a deal with my predator. Etc. Rather than have this same discussion every so often, it seems a lot easier to just accept that multiplayer CCG tournament play is about manipulating your position as best you can and live with how that doesn't always reflect the spirit of the game. While it's particularly a problem with multiplayer CCGs, it happens in two-players as well. Magic players concede matches all of the time to affect tournament position. It's the nature of tournaments that they aren't just a group of games.

In message <20040610205247...@mb-m26.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >>The goal of each game is to win by gaining the most VP. >> >>Without the play to win rule, the goal of each preliminary round game >>changes to "find a partner, make a 3-2 split deal quickly, and see who >>ends up getting the 3". > >Only if you think you can get into the finals this way. Three tables isn't a >big tournament; even a 2+F means 6 possible table wins. Being on the losing >end of these deals twice is a pretty good way to not make the finals. Then, if >this strategy works, everyone else is using it too, and what you get is some >level of neutralization that returns the game to SOP. No. Then you get games being decided in turn 3. I've been there; I've seen it; I don't ever want to go back. It's garbage, and the decks played frequently had nothing to do with the game's outcome. >>Then the game changes away from V:TES and becomes Diplomacy. > >Like it is now? It's not even remotely like that for me, and I went into the finals of the Southeast Regional qualifier in 2nd place. I don't think I even MENTIONED a deal about VPs at any point; I surely didn't offer one, and I definitely didn't accept one. Maybe the game is currently about trying to oust your prey, after all? Or maybe I'm just lucky? I did, after all, play a deck with absolutely no Dominate in it. >>Deckbuilding moves away from most efforts to oust one's prey, and moves >>towards "what kind of deck can I build with the most to offer someone >>else at the table?" Succubus Club becomes the best card in the game. > >I'd say we're already there, but ignoring that, if you want to be on the 3 VP >side, you need to be able to oust people. Twelve KRCs and six Parity Shifts in a deck serve this purpose adequately. For the worst example of this ever, one of the Texas guys played a deck with 15+ Bribes, 15+ KRCs, and a bunch of small caps. His entire plan was to throw KRC points on the prey of the person with vote lock, as well as 1-2 on his own at the same time. He took the wrong end of a 3-2 split three times in a row, and went into the finals in ... 3rd place? It was a deck which intended to do no more than qualify, but it was the most disruptive thing to sit near. It was named "Payola", and I believe it was TJ Fullington who played it, if you want to go look it up AND the corresponding discussions at the time. >>If I wanted to play Diplomacy, I'd do so. > >I don't think there's a problem when everyone adopts the same strategy. You I said, IF I WANTED TO PLAY DIPLOMACY, I'D DO SO. I want to play V:TES. >still want to do better than your partner. You might have a falling out >depending upon how the game goes, like someone offers a better deal. You still That was never how it actually happened. Clearly you weren't there. >have to contend with opponents using a similar strategy and you have to deal I SAID, IF I WANTED TO PLAY DIPLOMACY, I'D DO SO. >with the problems that arise when either a 2/2 at a 4 player doesn't get either >player enough or the problem of splits when there's a fifth player at the >table. What problems? Typically the guy with two predators was GONE in five turns. First problem solved; everyone turn towards the other two. >I see the reality being that there's no possible way you can stop people from >playing for second. It's so easy to justify anything. Doesn't appear that I'm You are welcome to try to justify certain actions to me. You had better not whine when I bust you on it and issue warnings and/or penalties. Yes, I am certain that I can identify what you are doing, and call you out on it. I really am THAT good, and I think most of you who say otherwise are a bunch of arrogant fools who think you can rules-lawyer your way out of trouble when you get caught; I know you're wrong, because I'm not afraid to say exactly what I see. I never have been and never will be, and that ALWAYS seems to be a surprise to people. >in a losing position? I'll just transfer up another vampire, putting me too >close to death not to try and deal, with the justification that this is my only >way of ousting my prey, and make a deal with my predator. Etc. That's what judges are for. Guess what... it doesn't matter what you actually say, it only matters what you do. >Rather than have this same discussion every so often, it seems a lot easier to >just accept that multiplayer CCG tournament play is about manipulating your >position as best you can and live with how that doesn't always reflect the >spirit of the game. While it's particularly a problem with multiplayer CCGs, >it happens in two-players as well. Magic players concede matches all of the >time to affect tournament position. It's the nature of tournaments that they >aren't just a group of games. In a two-player game, conceding a match should only ever affect your own tournament position. If something is occuring otherwise, perhaps the tournament structure is flawed... [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n9lgc0dbakkr74o14...@4ax.com>... > Doubt it if you like, but it still works. You can't reach forward and > stop +6 stealth, but you can routinely catch +3. And very few people > play with +6 stealth anymore, because you can't move it out of your hand > when people refuse to block. I thought that was what cards like Specialisation (and Dreams, Fragment, Barrens) are for. If you do Stealth-Bleed you will need to have a chance against both a "no blocker" and a "wall". This respectively requires zero to about +5 stealth to get by. A succesful Stealth-Bleeder will know that ousting the first prey is critical (and will aim to do so at all costs). Bye, Daneel

Derek Ray expounded: > >I see the reality being that there's no possible way you can stop people from > >playing for second. It's so easy to justify anything. Doesn't appear that I'm > > You are welcome to try to justify certain actions to me. You had better > not whine when I bust you on it and issue warnings and/or penalties. > > Yes, I am certain that I can identify what you are doing, and call you > out on it. I really am THAT good, and I think most of you who say > otherwise are a bunch of arrogant fools who think you can rules-lawyer > your way out of trouble when you get caught; I know you're wrong, > because I'm not afraid to say exactly what I see. I never have been and > never will be, and that ALWAYS seems to be a surprise to people. We'll just ignore all the times you come down on someone who is perfectly innocent shall we?

>He took the wrong end of a 3-2 split three times in a row, and went into >the finals in ... 3rd place? It was a deck which intended to do no more >than qualify, but it was the most disruptive thing to sit near. It was >named "Payola", and I believe it was TJ Fullington who played it, if you >want to go look it up AND the corresponding discussions at the time. The discussion seems to be mostly about how fatties are screwed and getting fatties out faster. >Yes, I am certain that I can identify what you are doing, and call you >out on it. I really am THAT good, and I think most of you who say >otherwise are a bunch of arrogant fools who think you can rules-lawyer >your way out of trouble when you get caught; I know you're wrong, >because I'm not afraid to say exactly what I see. I never have been and >never will be, and that ALWAYS seems to be a surprise to people. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be shown that some players currently are playing against the rules. That's because they don't need to be subtle. If judges really start cracking down, people will just get better at disguising their motives. Whenever you have illegal play based on motives, it's insanely hard to catch a good cheat. Anyway, I know people would rather play V:TES than "Diplomacy". But, I find it fundamentally in error to punish people for doing what's obviously in their best interests. In a way, what I'm saying is that if you want to play V:TES, don't play tournaments because they aren't V:TES, they are "tournament V:TES". >If something is occuring otherwise, perhaps the >tournament structure is flawed... A point I'm trying to get at is that the tournament structure is flawed. To eliminate playing to the tournament, you need to have single round events or something similarly unusual. The play to win rule only works in practice to the extent that it conforms to the player's advantage. Maybe unusual doesn't have to be that unusual, though. First, eliminate the final table. The final table only gives chances of tournament victory to people who didn't do as well as others. Base tournament results on total results. Yes, this can mean someone has won before playing the final round. Whatever. Throwing VPs et al is done to make the final table. Even if you don't give prizes to finalists but only table winners and the overall winner, the finalists are benefitted by being there because it gives them a shot at the tournament win. Eliminate that shot. Of course, this opens up other problems. Players out of contention who still must play can throw tournaments based on personal preference. There may be no way to prevent tournament play from being flawed. Second, dole out prizes only in one of these ways: door prizes, even distribution to all players, for table wins. Even without a final table, you don't want players jockeying for positions to get "fifth" place prizes or whatever. Maybe sufficient table win prizes will help prevent players out of contention from screwing around.

Howdy, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nuthc09a6o5gv87p9...@4ax.com>... > In message <20040610184032...@mb-m06.aol.com>, > cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: > > >Third group - maximizing tournament position-ers. I don't see any problem > >here. These players want to win, they are even trying to win what should > >obviously be the goal - the tournament - by manipulating games during the > >prelims. OK, I'm reading this on Google, so I know I'm asking for this, but where the heck did this message come from? Why is it tacked onto Geoff's message when it is clearly a response to a message Curevei posted (which no longer seems to exist)? Puzzled, Alex

In message <MPG.1b33fbae9...@news.eclipse.co.uk>, Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] So far that's been zero. I expect it to be zero in the future, as well. And you, Tim, are EXACTLY the rules lawyer type I'm referring to. Whining about "but it's not a yes/no question", when something clearly IS a yes/no question, is just going to get you slapped with a bigger penalty because now I'm irritated. It's certainly not going to change my mind. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20040611144023...@mb-m04.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >>He took the wrong end of a 3-2 split three times in a row, and went into >>the finals in ... 3rd place? It was a deck which intended to do no more >>than qualify, but it was the most disruptive thing to sit near. It was >>named "Payola", and I believe it was TJ Fullington who played it, if you >>want to go look it up AND the corresponding discussions at the time. > >The discussion seems to be mostly about how fatties are screwed and getting >fatties out faster. Continue your research, then, and let me know your findings. There's PLENTY of discussion related to that type of deck. See also "Game Win". >>Yes, I am certain that I can identify what you are doing, and call you >>out on it. I really am THAT good, and I think most of you who say >>otherwise are a bunch of arrogant fools who think you can rules-lawyer >>your way out of trouble when you get caught; I know you're wrong, >>because I'm not afraid to say exactly what I see. I never have been and >>never will be, and that ALWAYS seems to be a surprise to people. > >I wouldn't be surprised if it could be shown that some players currently are >playing against the rules. That's because they don't need to be subtle. If >judges really start cracking down, people will just get better at disguising >their motives. Whenever you have illegal play based on motives, it's insanely >hard to catch a good cheat. You'd think so, wouldn't you? But V:TES is a pretty simple game, all things considered, and the rules about "all table talk must be in the open" handle collusion quite nicely. If people degenerate into collusion away from the table, sure, that might be harder to catch -- but it's also MUCH harder to do, and requires a degree of planning and luck. It would eliminate 95% of the problems, however. >Anyway, I know people would rather play V:TES than "Diplomacy". But, I find it >fundamentally in error to punish people for doing what's obviously in their >best interests. In a way, what I'm saying is that if you want to play V:TES, >don't play tournaments because they aren't V:TES, they are "tournament V:TES". You can fundamentally find it in error all you like, but rules are there for a reason. In this case, it's because the alternative was complete shit. >>If something is occuring otherwise, perhaps the >>tournament structure is flawed... > >A point I'm trying to get at is that the tournament structure is flawed. To >eliminate playing to the tournament, you need to have single round events or >something similarly unusual. The play to win rule only works in practice to >the extent that it conforms to the player's advantage. (By the way, i'm talking about the tournament structure where in one-on-one matches, it's to someone's advantage to lose their match. I do not believe the current tournament structure is significantly flawed. It may not be perfect, but it is noticeably better than the previous alternative, and definitely better than what you propose.) The play to win rule sometimes doesn't work because, as others have stated, some judges are very laissez-faire about enforcing the rule... and sometimes, people don't even bother calling the judge. Hey, if you want to de-facto waive the rules you play under... >Maybe unusual doesn't have to be that unusual, though. First, eliminate the >final table. The final table only gives chances of tournament victory to >people who didn't do as well as others. Base tournament results on total Uh, yes. That's why it's called a "final", and it's why they do things like play a "regular season" before some "playoffs" in professional sports. Otherwise, you could have a player in 2nd place who would lose to the players in 3rd, 4th, and 5th places... but he's never played them because of the size of the tournament. See also college football, where this sort of stupidity happens all the time... to the tune of once a year, in fact. It's accepted fact that the BCS is a horrible system right now, and that heavy, HEAVY sponsorship money is what prevents it from being changed. But this doesn't change the fact that every year, there is a controversy about the voting (VOTING! RIDICULOUS), and a public outcry for playoffs. >results. Yes, this can mean someone has won before playing the final round. >Whatever. Throwing VPs et al is done to make the final table. Even if you >don't give prizes to finalists but only table winners and the overall winner, >the finalists are benefitted by being there because it gives them a shot at the >tournament win. Eliminate that shot. Lousy idea. Again, see college football, where the best team usually doesn't win. What an awesome tournament structure choice! [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <cef10767.04061...@posting.google.com>, wum...@comcast.net (Alex Broadhead) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Plug the message-ID in my quote into Google and see what comes up. It's possible that Google is just jacked up again -- it's easily the worst option for reading newsgroups. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a23a105e.04061...@posting.google.com>, dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n9lgc0dbakkr74o14...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Absolutely incorrect. A successful stealth/bleeder knows that running over your first prey ASAP is the best way to get the entire table against you, and thereby lose with one miserable VP. Ideally, you want to run over your first AND second prey at the same time -- and at this point, there are no more allies on the table, because it's either a 3-way (everyone hates you anyway), or a 1-on-1 (best possible situation for you and your +12 pool). But to do this you are going to need some balance in your deck... some way to slow down and make it look like it's not your fault. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Again, see college football, where the best team usually >doesn't win. This doesn't hold up as an analogy. College football champion isn't decided entirely by best record which is what would happen if a final table was eliminated. (I believe) I agree with you about the stupidity of voting what the best team is. The major flaw in the BCS isn't the computers as numerous sports talking heads constantly bitch about but that polling factors into the equation.

In message <20040611194021...@mb-m05.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >>Again, see college football, where the best team usually >>doesn't win. > >This doesn't hold up as an analogy. College football champion isn't decided >entirely by best record which is what would happen if a final table was >eliminated. However, it is accepted practice to put the two teams with the best records into the "championship" game (to the point where losing one game is considered failure these days), and it is an excellent analogy for what happens if you try to hold a regular season without playoffs. Constant fighting, arguing, and nobody is ever really sure who was the best, because nobody played on a level playing field -- everyone played against different opponents. This is EXACTLY what it's like in a large tournament -- you only ever play 12 other people at most. In a tournament of 25, that's 12 people you never played against; and if I played against those 12, who's to say whether I'm better than you? There's no way to tell, of course; we didn't have the same field, and the outcome of one game doesn't influence the outcome of the next. Tournaments are played to determine a winner, a "best". It's the whole concept of "tournament", see. >(I believe) I agree with you about the stupidity of voting what the best team >is. The major flaw in the BCS isn't the computers as numerous sports talking >heads constantly bitch about but that polling factors into the equation. No, the flaw in the BCS is that it exists, period. An elimination bracket is the only way to guarantee that every team tries its hardest to win (losing never helps you), and that there is a reasonably good chance that the best team has won. Occasionally there will exist the A beats B beats C beats A circle, but it's pretty rare. [ quoted text not captured ]

Alex Broadhead wrote: > I'm sure that, in their own minds, they are all trying to win (or at > least trying to beat me, heh). But that hasn't stopped people from > doing all sorts of disruptive stuff that is questionably directed > towards victory. Stuff like randomly attacking people cross-table > (because they're pissed at them), I find that people often characterize a strategic move they cannot comprehend as 'stupid'. I like to act as if I really am doing something stupid because I am pissed at someone, to hide my real motives. Don't judge a book by it's cover. > or taking one look at their prey or > predator and deciding that they can't win and then making a deal that > guarantees that, making other really stupid deals to split the table, > or suiciding when some minor thing goes wrong, etc. It has been Yeah well, this sort of shit I don't like at all, not even if it _IS_ their best move :) > As to continuing as we were, well, I'm not sure I really want to spend > the medium amount of effort it takes to keep up with V:TES (while > married with kids) to play a game that is likely to be decided by > random behavior. I don't get opportunities to play that often, and > when I do I'd like it to be fun. Losing (or even winning) because > players aren't playing to the same victory conditions isn't much fun. Which is one more reason why my group sticks to Jyhad and playing for fun :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > Someone who is just playing to fuck up other players' games... well, I I case you had never noticed: if you fuck up all other decks and/or players, you win. But besides that, I always want to win, I just don't want it to be easy. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor wrote: > I case you had never noticed: if you fuck up all other decks and/or > players, you win. Not even close. The standard Anarch Revolt deck (something that plays 1-2 Anarch Revolt cards per turn, every turn, and usually either has weenie bleed for maximum forward momentum or weenie AUS for maximum defense. Or maybe Anson and a lot of Tap/Golconda for turns where you don't play 2 Anarch Revolts) demolishes pretty much every other deck at the table. And it is not all that likely to actually win as it is to make someone else win. Decks that just screw up everyone else usually just make the game wildly random. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > I find that people often characterize a strategic move they cannot > comprehend as 'stupid'. I like to act as if I really am doing > something stupid because I am pissed at someone, to hide my > real motives. I -- and everyone I know -- find that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Please give us an example of a 'strategic move' that the rest of your table 'couldn't comprehend'. > Don't judge a book by it's cover. You have based your playstyle on the RPG. You said that you allow cards to work differently than written because "it's fun". You play Chainsaw the way you want to play it instead of the way it's written. You play Cloak the Gathering the way you want to play it instead of the way it's written. You play Monocle of Clarity the way you want to play it instead of the way it's written. You said that allowing vampires to play action modifiers during their actions is "all kind of silly", and when presented with the current rules set and card text, you then stated that you "don't agree that the rules are 'clear' about these action modifiers that we just discussed." You believe that winning is not fun. You said that you are OK with VTES being a game whereby if a player is playing 'Strategy X', which forces the other player(s) to play 'Strategy anti-X'. (The definition of broken.) You said that the "play to win" rule was not common sense, but rather "a flaw in the human mind." (So players that try to win are flawed?) You said that "Having to use your mind, rather then just letting the cards play the game for you, that is fun." (How about using your mind to create a deck that tries to win?) You said that "Crazy stuff that surprises people is fun. Crazy stuff that throws them off-balance. Artsy stuff, like having to talk in rhymes. Coming up with silly questions for the monocle and having to think about the answer is fun, especially when it has to be in rhyme as well." (Crazy stuff like creating and playing a deck that tries to win and has fun doing it?) You said that "I've never felt game rules would have to be as watertight as laws, common sense usually fixes those people that want to abuse the rules." (Rules like: playing cards based on what's printed?) You said that you create 'losing decks' on purpose, in order to try to talk your way into something reasonable. (Like letting your playgroup allow you to win with a bad deck?) You said that "Winning is no fun, it's just income. The fun is in the surprised faces when you are doing something completely stupid. And even better are the faces of surprise when it later turns out to have been a good thing (even if you had not even planned it like that)." (So your goal isn't to create winning decks; your goal is to do something completely stupid and pray that it later turns out, by the good graces of god and the whimsy of the universe, to have allowed your bad, losing deck to accidentally gain a VP?) How *should* we judge you? > //Doc. > "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje 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

In message <40CB3BC2...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Someone who is just playing to fuck up other players' games... well, I > >I case you had never noticed: if you fuck up all other decks and/or >players, you win. No, actually, that's not true. Often you can simply ruin the game and make it completely random who wins, because your deck will accidentally fuck up people who are not your prey. It's "Most VP", not "Last Man Standing". [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, > > Stuff like randomly attacking people cross-table > > (because they're pissed at them), > > I find that people often characterize a strategic move they cannot > comprehend as 'stupid'. Cannot comprehend at all (as in couldn't be comprehended by a judge with access to private explanations), or just can't comprehend at the time given limited information? The argument is whether players should be able to call a judge over to evaluate play that looks like stupidity to them. > I like to act as if I really am doing something stupid because I am > pissed at someone, to hide my real motives. Well, duh. But you have real motives, right? And those motives have to do with winning the game, presumably? Do you deny that this sort of play (random aggression) happens? > Don't judge a book by it's cover. Ya know, I've read this whole freakin' book cover to cover several times. And most of the time when the title is 'I Like Combat But Don't Like You!', suprise!, _that's what the book turns out to be about_! I'm not really interested in reading that story again, especially if it's by the same author - it bored me the first time. By the end of the game, when the cross-tabler has lost badly (and entirely predictably), it's too late to do anything about it, as two players are already in smoking ruins. So in a tournament, at least, the _judge_ gets to look inside the cover. This is, BTW, precisely the structure of most of the immediate objections to 'play to win' - examples of how the player or other players have done things that didn't look like winning play, yet with an underlying plan for winning. Which is totally irrelevant - if the player really does have a plan (and it's not delusional) then the judge just says, "Play on," and the plan works or doesn't. Implicit in the objection also seems to be the assertion that non-play-to-win behavior just never happens, or is impossible to discern from winning play. To the former I say, "Wow, you live in the best of all possible worlds!" (One that doesn't include me, as I am, in fact, personally guilty of not playing to win at times.) To the latter I wonder, "Why have a judge at all, then?" You just need a timekeeper if judges can't be expected to effectively exercise discretion/judgement. Hope that helps, Alex

Kevin M. wrote: > The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > >>I find that people often characterize a strategic move they cannot >>comprehend as 'stupid'. I like to act as if I really am doing >>something stupid because I am pissed at someone, to hide my >>real motives. > > > I -- and everyone I know -- find that where there's smoke, > there's usually fire. > > Please give us an example of a 'strategic move' that the rest of your table > 'couldn't comprehend'. > > >>Don't judge a book by it's cover. > > > You have based your playstyle on the RPG. Strange assumption. > You said that you allow cards to work differently than written because "it's > fun". Again not true. > You play Chainsaw the way you want to play it instead of the way it's > written. This one at least is true, because we feel it should be a melee weapon (as that gas-powered thing later turned out to be, I was explained) I think it was an oversight in the original printing, but they stuck with it later. It simply makes more sense as a melee weapon (and still does not overpower it) > You play Cloak the Gathering the way you want to play it instead of the way > it's written. I play it as written :) I can't help they change the writing of newer versions. > You play Monocle of Clarity the way you want to play it instead of the way > it's written. I play it as written :) I can't help they change the writing of newer versions. > You said that allowing vampires to play action modifiers during their > actions is "all kind of silly", and when presented with the current rules You have a vivid imagination. I said having a tapped vampire use an action modifier on some other minion's action is kinda silly. > You believe that winning is not fun. Just playing to win, indeed is no fun. Playing to have an ejoyable social event and in the meantime trying to win, that is fun :) Not caring about whether you win is much better then all those people who can only sulk over not having won, even if they had a really nice game. > You said that you are OK with VTES being a game whereby if a player is > playing 'Strategy X', which forces the other player(s) to play 'Strategy > anti-X'. (The definition of broken.) Your fantasy is amazing. You should write books or such. Use this imagination to think up evil plots! > You said that the "play to win" rule was not common sense, but rather "a > flaw in the human mind." (So players that try to win are flawed?) Especially men seem to have the flaw that the only thing that matters in life is to win. Well, I got news for you, there's more to life then winning every game you play. Sometimes losing is more fun :) Yeah, I know this makes me the weirdo, since the majority thinks winning IS the most important thing. So what, just coz there's a majority doesn't mean they are right. > You said that "Having to use your mind, rather then just letting the cards > play the game for you, that is fun." (How about using your mind to create a > deck that tries to win?) So where does it say I don't try to win? I just don't care about it :) > You said that "Crazy stuff that surprises people is fun. Crazy stuff that > throws them off-balance. Artsy stuff, like having to talk in rhymes. Coming > up with silly questions for the monocle and having to think about > the answer is fun, especially when it has to be in rhyme as well." (Crazy > stuff like creating and playing a deck that tries to win and has fun doing > it?) > > You said that "I've never felt game rules would have to be as watertight as > laws, common sense usually fixes those people that want to abuse the rules." > (Rules like: playing cards based on what's printed?) Come on over and play Jyhad as it was printed then, I bet you'd keep running in to problems that you feel are fixed in VTES. > You said that you create 'losing decks' on purpose, in order to try to talk > your way into something reasonable. (Like letting your playgroup allow you > to win with a bad deck?) Losing decks as a term for 'deck that is not a stupidly simple deck that would win most of the time', yeah. I like putting a challenge in for myself. Trying to win with something that is not blatanlty obvious to be good. Having to use more then just simple cardpowers to win a game. If I wanted to win based just on the cards I'd play Magic again. > You said that "Winning is no fun, it's just income. The fun is in the > surprised faces when you are doing something completely stupid. And even > better are the faces of surprise when it later turns out to have been a good > thing (even if you had not even planned it like that)." (So your goal isn't Maybe you should stop putting quotes around things you are paraphrasing from memory (and maybe you should also note that your memory is not among the best) Playing just to win is not funny, and only done to generate income. Usually that income is more cards, sometimes it is 'honor' or however that player may feel it. > to create winning decks; your goal is to do something completely stupid and > pray that it later turns out, by the good graces of god and the whimsy of > the universe, to have allowed your bad, losing deck to accidentally gain a > VP? Today, I bled my predator with a computer hacking, at a point in the game where he was about to be ousting me. He thought it was just spite and vengeance for him almost killing me, while I knew his predator might be tempted to break a non-aggression deal they had made (in order to gain some votes on something his predator thought critical) if his pool was low enough. Turns out I was right, his predator ousted him, allowing me a few extra turns in the game. Unfortunately that did not help much, as I still didn't manage to draw the cards I needed to push my prey out of the game and stay in for the win, but still it was a tactical move not understood by the others at the table. It was based on my judgement of the way his predator would think about breaking a deal. I was praying that it turned out good, coz I might as well have used the extra bleed to lower my prey to 2 pool (and then be ousted and making sure my prey would be as well etc.), which almost the entire table (except the grand-predator that profited from my move) seemed to think was the better way to go. My move was deemed stupid by the oothers, but turned out to save my ass. Guess I'm stupid. > How *should* we judge you? Not at all, coz you do not know me. //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

Alex Broadhead wrote: > > Cannot comprehend at all (as in couldn't be comprehended by a judge > with access to private explanations), or just can't comprehend at the > time given limited information? The argument is whether players > should be able to call a judge over to evaluate play that looks like > stupidity to them. Well, if you call over a judge evry time something looks stupid to you, then you probably also expect the seemingly random player to explain. If the point was to seem random or erratic, then giving the explanation will definetly blow the cover. Even when done in secresy with just the judge who then comes back and say 'play on'. That will automatically mean there is some deeper meaning to the behaviour, and it will miss it's point entirely. I think I covered the parts I did not quote as well with this answer. Anyway, I think this is a bit of a problem, some people will think of something as random (or even worse, will abuse this to see if there is an explanation to an action they do not understand) and call over the judge, and then theyfind out it was either not random, or there is some form of hope the action will do good for the player. It gives away valuable information. I always try to win, no matter how bleak things look, but having to explain that your actions are aimed towards survival (a prerequisite to winning usually ;) ) and not revenge may not be in your best interest. So in order to play to win, you should not have to explain your motives. And yes, I do acknowledge there are erratic or randomly playing people. Of course. There's one in our group as well. Lots of hate and vengeance too. Some in my group think I am vengeful too, but that's mostly coz I think it benefits my play to strike that sort of fear into them. If people think you will do anything to wreak vengeance upon them they are less likely to choose you as a victim :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <40CB3BC2...@freemail.nl>, > The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: > > >>Derek Ray wrote: >> >>>Someone who is just playing to fuck up other players' games... well, I >> >>I case you had never noticed: if you fuck up all other decks and/or >>players, you win. > > > No, actually, that's not true. Often you can simply ruin the game and > make it completely random who wins, because your deck will accidentally > fuck up people who are not your prey. The trick is to fuck them up one by one, in the correct order :P [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CD082A...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Today, I bled my predator with a computer hacking, at a point in the >game where he was about to be ousting me. He thought it was just spite Not legal. Bleeds are directed at your prey, by default, and only explicit card text such as that on Night Moves and Cat Burglary can change this. The (D) symbol is only reminder text. This was mistakenly (and terribly) ruled otherwise while the game was under control of Wizards of the Coast, and this ruling was reversed to the current form by LSJ not long after he took over the net.rep position. If the (D) symbol were more than a reminder, the explicit text on Cat Burglary and Night Moves would not be necessary. I find it interesting that your idea of "play as written" actually means "play as written as long as it benefits me". I also find it interesting that even though you consider yourself so much better than your group and that you claim winning isn't that important... that you won't actually bother to explain decisions like the reverse-bleed to them at the time the decision is made, in the hope of raising their own skill level and providing you better competition, a better game, and some challenge, and instead delight in the anger and un-fun that you've generated for your predator and others. Again, it's a syndrome I hadn't expected to see in V:TES. I see it in a number of other games, though. Guess which other WotC game from around 1994 I've noticed it in? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CD0BA8...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >And yes, I do acknowledge there are erratic or randomly playing people. >Of course. There's one in our group as well. Lots of hate and vengeance >too. > >Some in my group think I am vengeful too, but that's mostly coz I think >it benefits my play to strike that sort of fear into them. >If people think you will do anything to wreak vengeance upon them they >are less likely to choose you as a victim :) Holy crap, man, are ALL of you fucked in the head? If I think you're the type of player who will randomly "take vengeance" on me cross-table, I just won't play with you anymore. Players like that not only aren't fun, they make _everything_ not fun. I prefer players with a more adult mentality, myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CD0C27...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> In message <40CB3BC2...@freemail.nl>, >> The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >> >>>Derek Ray wrote: >>> >>>>Someone who is just playing to fuck up other players' games... well, I >>> >>>I case you had never noticed: if you fuck up all other decks and/or >>>players, you win. >> >> No, actually, that's not true. Often you can simply ruin the game and >> make it completely random who wins, because your deck will accidentally >> fuck up people who are not your prey. > >The trick is to fuck them up one by one, in the correct order :P And now we no longer have someone who is just playing to fuck up other players' games -- we have a player who is trying to win by ousting successive preys. Thank you for demonstrating my point more than adequately. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kkckc01j50krotneh...@4ax.com>... > In message <a23a105e.04061...@posting.google.com>, > dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) mumbled something about: > >A succesful Stealth-Bleeder will know that ousting the first prey is > >critical (and will aim to do so at all costs). > > Absolutely incorrect. > > A successful stealth/bleeder knows that running over your first prey > ASAP is the best way to get the entire table against you, and thereby > lose with one miserable VP. I agree. In most cases the best way to play a Stealth-Bleed deck is anyway _except_ like a Stealth-Bleed deck. But, without any reliable means to seat-switch (except the risky Malkavian Rider Clause or Dia de los Muertos), or (except for Kindred Spirits) cross-table act, you will be stuck with doing things the hard way - ousting people in sequence. I emphasized the "first victim" because of the fully present and inevitable sequentiality. You may throw in a guy or two, or you may seem like being condemned to inaction, but you need to be able to do the oust. That's what the deck is for, that's what you constructed the deck for - to completely reduce the pool of your prey, with surgical precision if possible. It may take 5 stealth, it may take none, but whatever the case, you need to do it. If you get a wall prey, you need to oust him or her ASAP (before the deck gets moving with permanents, pool damage and poolgain). Otherwise, you can go on with the show and just play "toolbox" with some bleed and stealth thrown in ;) Bye, Daneel

Howdy, I'm not sure why I'm following up on this, as I've now examined some of the other threads you (The Doctor) are participating in, and they confirm that you play an extremely personalized version of the game and seem to have trouble understanding how that might make it difficult to generalize your experience to other players... Still, I guess the logical flaws you've run into here could be arrived at by other paths, and so are worth addressing. > > Cannot comprehend at all (as in couldn't be comprehended by a judge > > with access to private explanations), or just can't comprehend at the > > time given limited information? The argument is whether players > > should be able to call a judge over to evaluate play that looks like > > stupidity to them. > > Well, if you call over a judge evry time something looks stupid to you, > then you probably also expect the seemingly random player to explain. To the judge, yes. That would be why I called her. And who said anything about 'every time something looks stupid'? I'm only talking about when things look illegal. Stupid play in my favor I may choose to overlook. Stupid play in someone else's favor I may choose to point out. You're trying to paint me as unreasonable, but I really don't see anything unreasonable in desiring legal play, especially on something as fundamental as not playing to alternate victory conditions. > If the point was to seem random or erratic, then giving the explanation > will definetly blow the cover. Even when done in secresy with just the > judge who then comes back and say 'play on'. > > That will automatically mean there is some deeper meaning to the > behaviour, and it will miss it's point entirely. See, this is just plain silly. If I'm calling a judge over to check a deal or play or whatever, then I already believe that the player in question isn't playing to win. If I'm right, then the judge needs to do something to fix it, as the play in question isn't legal. If, however, I'm wrong, then I haven't really gained any advantage or information, at least not with respect to the legal progress of the game - there was only one legal path for the game to take! I have confirmed that we are still on that path, yes, which I had come to doubt, yes, but you posit a 'decision-point' which is not there - if I had assumed that the player were playing legally to begin with, then I would already be in conformity with the same final state achieved above. Here's the paths with respect to 'information': (A calls judge on B: either A was right to do so and B is playing illegally, or A was wrong and play resumes with A now believing play is legal.) OR (A believes play is legal, and doesn't call judge.) Only one legal result. I suppose there's another path: A believes play is legal while it, in fact, is not. But that one isn't germane to the argument about 'information gain'. > I think I covered the parts I did not quote as well with this answer. Hardly. > Anyway, I think this is a bit of a problem, some people will think of > something as random (or even worse, will abuse this to see if there is > an explanation to an action they do not understand) and call over the > judge, and then theyfind out it was either not random, or there is some > form of hope the action will do good for the player. It gives away > valuable information. The only information necessarily acquired is that play is legal, which is the expectation. This may not make it any more understandable, though I suppose it could. This problem (failed bluffing) doesn't strike me as being as bad as the other problem (not playing to win). > I always try to win, no matter how bleak things look, but having to > explain that your actions are aimed towards survival (a prerequisite to > winning usually ;) ) and not revenge may not be in your best interest. > So in order to play to win, you should not have to explain your motives. Other players in a tournament have the right to play the game according to the rules, and with good sportsmanship. Explanations in secret to a judge simply verify that that expectation is being met. > And yes, I do acknowledge there are erratic or randomly playing people. > Of course. There's one in our group as well. Lots of hate and vengeance > too. > > Some in my group think I am vengeful too, but that's mostly coz I think > it benefits my play to strike that sort of fear into them. > If people think you will do anything to wreak vengeance upon them they > are less likely to choose you as a victim :) So I should set a handgun on the table when I sit down? Again, sportsmanship and bluffing are not necessarily incompatible. But judges should be empowered to halt unsportsmanlike play. Alex

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <40CD082A...@freemail.nl>, > The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: > > >>Today, I bled my predator with a computer hacking, at a point in the >>game where he was about to be ousting me. He thought it was just spite > > > Not legal. Bleeds are directed at your prey, by default, and only > explicit card text such as that on Night Moves and Cat Burglary can > change this. > > The (D) symbol is only reminder text. This was mistakenly (and > terribly) ruled otherwise while the game was under control of Wizards of > the Coast, and this ruling was reversed to the current form by LSJ not > long after he took over the net.rep position. If the (D) symbol were > more than a reminder, the explicit text on Cat Burglary and Night Moves > would not be necessary. Really? Hmm, I think I'd like this. Hadn't noticed it on the search for rulings that applied to oure environment. Could you point me to it? > I find it interesting that your idea of "play as written" actually means > "play as written as long as it benefits me". Again people making strange assumptions. Why would you think so? > I also find it interesting > that even though you consider yourself so much better than your group Weird, because I explicitly explained that I am not better. SOme people assume I am better and it someties benefits me that they hink that way, making it easier to seem better :) I really suck at all games :) > and that you claim winning isn't that important... that you won't Indeed, winning isn't that important. Having a good time is important. Doesn't mean you stop trying to win, but it just isn't as important as having a good time :) > actually bother to explain decisions like the reverse-bleed to them at > the time the decision is made, in the hope of raising their own skill > level and providing you better competition, a better game, and some > challenge, and instead delight in the anger and un-fun that you've > generated for your predator and others. ??? You are talking in riddles here. What did I not explain? What did I not raise? anger? un-fun? Were you there? Guess not. > Again, it's a syndrome I hadn't expected to see in V:TES. Again, we don't play VTES :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Alex Broadhead wrote: > Howdy, > > I'm not sure why I'm following up on this, as I've now examined some > of the other threads you (The Doctor) are participating in, and they > confirm that you play an extremely personalized version of the game > and seem to have trouble understanding how that might make it > difficult to generalize your experience to other players... Still, I Well, personalized? It's just how the game developed (or failed to develop) in our group after disonnecting from official resources some 8 years ago :) > guess the logical flaws you've run into here could be arrived at by > other paths, and so are worth addressing. Thank you. :) I'm back here to learn mostly, and discussing things is a fast way into the process. We got only 4 weeks to prepare well, and there's so much to read :) > The only information necessarily acquired is that play is legal, which > is the expectation. This may not make it any more understandable, > though I suppose it could. This problem (failed bluffing) doesn't > strike me as being as bad as the other problem (not playing to win). Knowing that it is a legal play, gives you the knowledge that at least the judge is convinced there was indeed a play to win. The fact that whoever called over the judge was not able to see this benefit to the acting player makes this information valuable. They may now gain new insight that they would never have gained if the judge qould not have confirmed it as play-to-win, since they will not dismiss the move as 'silly' in their mind and forget, but keep on wondering what the benefit could be :) It's not too unlikely too happen, I think. But might be worth the sacrifise if it rules out some bad things. > So I should set a handgun on the table when I sit down? Only if it's the library card .44 magnum :) Keep things IN the game. > Again, > sportsmanship and bluffing are not necessarily incompatible. But > judges should be empowered to halt unsportsmanlike play. Amen to that. I just hope they don't jump to consclusions too quick :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CE0611...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> In message <40CD082A...@freemail.nl>, >> The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >> >>>Today, I bled my predator with a computer hacking, at a point in the >>>game where he was about to be ousting me. He thought it was just spite >> >> Not legal. Bleeds are directed at your prey, by default, and only >> explicit card text such as that on Night Moves and Cat Burglary can >> change this. >> >> The (D) symbol is only reminder text. This was mistakenly (and >> terribly) ruled otherwise while the game was under control of Wizards of >> the Coast, and this ruling was reversed to the current form by LSJ not >> long after he took over the net.rep position. If the (D) symbol were >> more than a reminder, the explicit text on Cat Burglary and Night Moves >> would not be necessary. > >Really? Hmm, I think I'd like this. >Hadn't noticed it on the search for rulings that applied to oure >environment. Could you point me to it? http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_1_1 They all apply to your environment. >> I find it interesting that your idea of "play as written" actually means >> "play as written as long as it benefits me". > >Again people making strange assumptions. >Why would you think so? Perhaps it's your approach towards conversation, which on many subjects is a lot of evasion and very little actual substance. >> I also find it interesting >> that even though you consider yourself so much better than your group > >Weird, because I explicitly explained that I am not better. SOme people >assume I am better and it someties benefits me that they hink that way, >making it easier to seem better :) See, this is just a bunch of doublespeak semantic crap and evasion. It's patently obvious that you believe you're a far better player than they are; you repeatedly state how you play "fun" decks in order to handicap yourself, and how you always seem to win, even when you play just the "fun" decks. For you to just verbally masturbate when asked a direct question, as in your above paragraph, ...it fools nobody and only makes you look stupid. >> actually bother to explain decisions like the reverse-bleed to them at >> the time the decision is made, in the hope of raising their own skill >> level and providing you better competition, a better game, and some >> challenge, and instead delight in the anger and un-fun that you've >> generated for your predator and others. > >??? >You are talking in riddles here. Let's go through it in small pieces. Did you explain to your predator at the time you bled backwards what you were trying to do? Usually if I'm about to oust my predator (something I have done when necessary in the past... often after having been bled for 11 in a single turn), I will explain that "You need to go; that was too much, too fast, and if you do that next turn, I'll be gone. You leave me no choice; sorry, I need to make sure you don't get a next turn." This goes a long way towards alleviating the hurt feelings, etc. that you yourself admit that you generated in your predator... ie, you ruined his fun, seemingly all for spite. It also goes a long way towards generating better opponents, something you will agree you desperately need in your group. Having one person dominate play all the time isn't really a fun game, except for that one person. Ideally, that person should be very interested in helping his opponents learn the game... unless he has a deep-seated inferiority complex, and that game is his only source of validation. >What did I not explain? What did I not raise? anger? un-fun? Go back, read your post, figure it out. You claim to be a bright lad. >Were you there? Guess not. Didn't have to be. You're a common type. >> Again, it's a syndrome I hadn't expected to see in V:TES. > >Again, we don't play VTES :) More verbal masturbation. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CE08B1...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Alex Broadhead wrote: > >> The only information necessarily acquired is that play is legal, which >> is the expectation. This may not make it any more understandable, >> though I suppose it could. This problem (failed bluffing) doesn't >> strike me as being as bad as the other problem (not playing to win). > >Knowing that it is a legal play, gives you the knowledge that at least >the judge is convinced there was indeed a play to win. The fact that >whoever called over the judge was not able to see this benefit to the >acting player makes this information valuable. Not true. They only know that the acting player believes there is a benefit to himself, not that there really IS a benefit. It could be a stupid play, but if the acting player has arrived at the decision through a valid belief in his own attempt to win, it must be allowed. (Wildly unsupportable beliefs are of course obvious and can be stomped on without remorse; statements like 'I have a Dramatic Upheaval in my deck' can be checked out by library inspection and crypt inspection.) Illegal play is prohibited, not stupid play. Huge difference. Attempting to win a table by the "salmon" method of going 2-1-1-1 is typically stupid play, but some people will try it anyway. It's not illegal... just unlikely. >They may now gain new insight that they would never have gained if the >judge qould not have confirmed it as play-to-win, since they will not >dismiss the move as 'silly' in their mind and forget, but keep on >wondering what the benefit could be :) This isn't any information that they hadn't previously known. They knew the play had to be legal, or it couldn't have been made. What they don't know is if the player in question is competent to determine whether or not the action will help him win. They are still capable of dismissing the move as silly; if they jump to conclusions and assume it must have SOME hidden benefit, they may well misread what is, in fact, just a silly move by someone who thought he was going to win by doing it. Besides, such situations are pretty rare. Someone ousting his predator, for example, is usually a hotly objected-to but fairly obvious immediate benefit; the prey gets no pressure or less pressure for at least one turn, maybe more. For this play to be legal, the prey must only have a decent reason to believe that his predator is an immediate threat to him. It's usually patently obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_1_1 > > They all apply to your environment. Ah, yes, I have planned to go through the whole rulebook thing later next week, first trying to find changed cards and all. I do have other things to do besides reading VTES rulings, cardtexts and rules :) Thank you for your pointer. > Did you explain to your predator at the time you bled backwards what you > were trying to do? Yes. I told him I was trying to make sure I'd survive by getting him low enough for his predator to consider ousting him. (his predator was at the toilet at that moment, btw) They did not believe it :) They all felt it was vengeance that was the lead of my action, and I idid not pursue the point any further untill I was later proved to be right, coz I saw no point in dragging the game (it took too long anyway, with one of the players being a newbie learning the game) So any more complaints? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40CE40FA...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec6_1_1 >> >> They all apply to your environment. > >Ah, yes, I have planned to go through the whole rulebook thing later >next week, first trying to find changed cards and all. I do have other >things to do besides reading VTES rulings, cardtexts and rules :) Well, of course. If I didn't type 100+ wpm I wouldn't be able to be as loquacious as I am on this group; I just don't have that time to spend in front of the machine. >> Did you explain to your predator at the time you bled backwards what you >> were trying to do? > >Yes. I told him I was trying to make sure I'd survive by getting him low >enough for his predator to consider ousting him. (his predator was at >the toilet at that moment, btw) *shrug* Was he able to come up with a reasonable objection? >They did not believe it :) They all felt it was vengeance that was the >lead of my action, and I idid not pursue the point any further untill I Question: It's usually obvious when someone is attempting to oust backwards in self-defense. It's got to be even more obvious if you play under rules where (D) bleeds can target anyone. Why would his (and their) initial reaction be "aw, you're just being a pill"? >So any more complaints? Oh, plenty. Be patient, they'll arrive as need be. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > "Proof" is a poor choice of words, since this is a judgment call. > The judge makes the judgment. The burden of convincing the judge > that the one particular judgment a player favors is the correct/best > one falls to that player. > > > > What the player believes is of no relevance. It is what the judge > > > believes that matters when it comes to a player's chances of winning. > > > > Or as this points out, the judge is free to make a judgment for that > > player without the player proving anything? > > "Proof" is hard to come by in most VTES game situations that require > a judge's judgment. > > > I think the latter is probably true, but in the case of the judge > > being undetermined or judging against that player, the player would > > then have the burden of proof placed on him to prove otherwise. I > > would also think it prudent to take that player aside as a judge to > > ask him what his plan to win is before making any snap judgements. > > Of course. I find this line of argument very unsettling. To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with even the spirit of the "Play to Win" rule. In poker tournaments, where real money is on the line, generally, any kind of deal you want to make with the other players is legal. Here are my thoughts: 1) You're requiring the judge to be as competent a player, possibly much more so, than the players themselves. So basically, to enforce the "Play to Win" rule, the Judge has to play the player's deck, make judgement calls about the best play and then penalize the player for not making them? That sounds pretty sketchy to me. Furthermore, the Judge / TO has to be aware of every deck strategy out there and how they play in all situations? Then you add on the table psychology? That sounds to me like as a judge you'd have to sit there and do nothing but watch the game, on top of being a better player than anyone else at the table to be confident enough to EXPEL A PLAYER for not playing the way you expect them to? I'll tell you right now that as a judge and tournament organizer, I'd rather chuck the whole rule and let players make any kind of deal openly than have to do that. 2) What about the fact that a player might be openly accepting a deal, with the intention of backstabbing the player later to increase their chances of winning? Case in point : suppose Arika S&B promises Rush/Grapple to split the table in exchange for not rushing Arika. Several turns later, Arika backstabs R/G and bleeds them out. As a judge, if you interfered with that play based on your interpretation of the rule, you would have prevented IMO a very good psychological/backstab play. If you don't like that example, I'm sure there are others you can come up with. 3) I realize Collusion could be a problem in a multiplayer game, and the "Play to Win" rule prevents that. But if that's the case, why not make the rule "No Collusion" rather than "Play to Win"? IMHO that represents the spirit of the rules better, and if the judge has to play detective to enforce the rule (which I think that he or she will have to do) sniffing out collusion sounds fairer and more even handed than forcing people to play their decks a certain way. Certainly this could be fleshed out more.. Cheers, Tim Wang www.eudemonia.net

The Doctor wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> Not legal. Bleeds are directed at your prey, by default, and only >> explicit card text such as that on Night Moves and Cat Burglary can >> change this. >> >> The (D) symbol is only reminder text. This was mistakenly (and >> terribly) ruled otherwise while the game was under control of Wizards of >> the Coast, and this ruling was reversed to the current form by LSJ not >> long after he took over the net.rep position. If the (D) symbol were >> more than a reminder, the explicit text on Cat Burglary and Night Moves >> would not be necessary. > > Really? Hmm, I think I'd like this. > Hadn't noticed it on the search for rulings that applied to oure > environment. Could you point me to it? 1) It's in the rules (bleeds being against one's prey by default and no omni-directability power being granted to the (D) symbol). 2) The July 7, 1998 RTR holds the reversal to the previous errata. http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7.htm -- 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/

ti...@hotmail.com (Tim Wang) wrote in message news:<703e9d27.04061...@posting.google.com>... > 3) I realize Collusion could be a problem in a multiplayer game, and > the "Play to Win" rule prevents that. But if that's the case, why > not make the rule "No Collusion" rather than "Play to Win"? No. There are certain decks that can hurt others greatly. No collusion would not address the instances of the "no collusion, play to screw" style. Play to win rule is great despite its unenforcability. Honest folk who strive for fair play now have a rule they can honestly abide by to play fair. ;) Bye, Daneel

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<h4hkc05282ctsu61v...@4ax.com>... > However, it is accepted practice to put the two teams with the best > records into the "championship" game (to the point where losing one game > is considered failure these days), and it is an excellent analogy for > what happens if you try to hold a regular season without playoffs. > Constant fighting, arguing, and nobody is ever really sure who was the > best, because nobody played on a level playing field -- everyone played > against different opponents. > > This is EXACTLY what it's like in a large tournament -- (snip) > An elimination bracket is the only way to guarantee that every team > tries its hardest to win (losing never helps you), and that there is a > reasonably good chance that the best team has won. Occasionally there > will exist the A beats B beats C beats A circle, but it's pretty rare. Not quite. If you have all contenders play against exactly the same opponents -- better yet if everybody plays against everybody -- the best way to guarantee the best contender wins is to look at the best overall record. Regularity over one or two lucky matches, that is. But I agree with you that if there's not a level playing field, you *must* have final rounds to try to guarantee that the best team/individual wins. > -- Derek Cheers, Luiz

Howdy Tim, > I find this line of argument very unsettling. To be honest, I'm > not sure I agree with even the spirit of the "Play to Win" rule. So you'd be down with the 'players may play to win, to lose, to make others win, to make others lose, or to whatever alternate victory conditions they so desire' alteration to the Object of the Game I proposed? If not, what would you replace it with? > In poker tournaments, where real money is on the line, generally, > any kind of deal you want to make with the other players is legal. Including collusive ones? Boy, that must make for pointless games. > Here are my thoughts: > > 1) You're requiring the judge to be as competent a player, possibly > much more so, than the players themselves. So basically, to enforce > the "Play to Win" rule, the Judge has to play the player's deck, > make judgement calls about the best play and then penalize the player > for not making them? See, this wildly misconstrues 'play to win'. The judge has no responsibility to insure players are making the _best_ plays possible. It's only in their purview to prevent plays that are illegal. There's a world of difference between the two. I'll certainly grant that there's less difference between stupid play and illegal play, but in no way grant that preventing illegal play in any way requires enforcing optimal play. Any path toward winning is an acceptable path. And even some paths that don't head towards winning are legal, presuming that the player attempting the path _believes_ the path to be winning, though this is where things get furrier. (If he believes it in the face of available evidence to the contrary - i.e. he's delusional - then the judge's responsibilities get tricky. Incompetent players are always tricky to handle, though. If he just doesn't know that the move is losing, well, he's still playing to win.) What's not acceptable is deliberately playing not to win, which is rightly labelled 'unsportsmanlike'. > 2) What about the fact that a player might be openly accepting a deal, > with the intention of backstabbing the player later to increase their > chances of winning? Case in point : suppose > Arika S&B promises Rush/Grapple to split the table in exchange for > not rushing Arika. Several turns later, Arika backstabs R/G and bleeds > them out. As a judge, if you interfered with that play based on your > interpretation of the rule, you would have prevented IMO a very good > psychological/backstab play. If you don't like that example, I'm sure > there are others you can come up with. How precisely it was illegal has not been specified here, but presumably is was the losing end of a 3/2 split? Which would make the Arika deck the predator of the Rush? Why would the Rush player make such a deal, especially if it allowed the Arika deck to build enough resources to oust it so quickly? Is he expecting the deal to be broken? He should, as it looks illegal _and_ stupid, as Arika decks shouldn't have much trouble with Rush, between S:CE, prevent _and_ Obedience. Generalizing, though, why shouldn't any two decks sitting down next to each other cut such a deal, if not for 'play to win'? Wouldn't other players at the table be right to object to having the game apparently decided in haphazard fashion by a lame deal? Would they be right to start suspecting collusion? Why play it out at that point? Oh, because one of the dealmakers _might_ break the deal after it was too late for the rest of the table to have any impact? This is Diplomacy, not Jyhad. Discouraging this kind of dealmaking and breaking is just fine by me. > 3) I realize Collusion could be a problem in a multiplayer game, and > the "Play to Win" rule prevents that. But if that's the case, why > not make the rule "No Collusion" rather than "Play to Win"? You need to review the relevant rules. Both 'play to win' and 'no collusion' are separate sections of the V:EKN tournament rules. The former is not a rule, per se, but a consequence of the 'sportsmanship' rules as applied to the Object of the Game. And, of course, while collusion involves not playing to win, not playing to win does not necessarily involve collusion. The collusion rules are a necessary, if almost entirely unenforceable, section of tournament rules. (Unenforceable, as the only way to 'prove' collusion is to get an admission from one or more of the players.) Collusion will generally require unsportsmanlike play, however, and that play can and should be prevented by the judge. Without the very basic tool of 'play to win' that would be impossible. Alex

In message <ee0501ad.04061...@posting.google.com>, lcm...@ig.com.br (Luiz Col?n) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<h4hkc05282ctsu61v...@4ax.com>... > >> This is EXACTLY what it's like in a large tournament -- >(snip) >> An elimination bracket is the only way to guarantee that every team >> tries its hardest to win (losing never helps you), and that there is a >> reasonably good chance that the best team has won. Occasionally there >> will exist the A beats B beats C beats A circle, but it's pretty rare. > >Not quite. If you have all contenders play against exactly the same >opponents -- better yet if everybody plays against everybody -- the >best way to guarantee the best contender wins is to look at the best >overall record. Regularity over one or two lucky matches, that is. True. A pure round-robin is also mostly-accurate in determining the best team, although it does not have the same guarantee of each team trying its hardest to win; there can be a point reached (and often is) where the #1 team is a mathematical lock to win, and then you have to deal with that team not putting forth its full effort after that. #1 tends to rise to the top; #2 and below get muddied. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray expounded: > True. A pure round-robin is also mostly-accurate in determining the > best team, although it does not have the same guarantee of each team > trying its hardest to win; there can be a point reached (and often is) > where the #1 team is a mathematical lock to win, and then you have to > deal with that team not putting forth its full effort after that. > > #1 tends to rise to the top; #2 and below get muddied. In VTES you don't have quite the risk of injury and tiredness (people being below peak from too much recent effort) that you get in sport so this should be less of a problem.

In message <MPG.1b399f3d5...@news.eclipse.co.uk>, Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] You don't think this game makes someone mentally tired to play? Especially if you force them to play the number of games required to complete a proper round-robin...? Besides, I wasn't talking about either being tired, or incapable of putting forth full effort. People who have already won tend to not care and will play differently than someone still trying to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >>>I find that people often characterize a strategic move they cannot >>>comprehend as 'stupid'. I like to act as if I really am doing >>>something stupid because I am pissed at someone, to hide my >>>real motives. >> >> I -- and everyone I know -- find that where there's smoke, >> there's usually fire. >> >> Please give us an example of a 'strategic move' that the rest of >> your table 'couldn't comprehend'. Huh. Where's the example? Oh, that's right. You can't provide one. ..and here we go! =) >>>Don't judge a book by it's cover. >> >> You have based your playstyle on the RPG. > > Strange assumption. It wasn't an assumption, Doctor. YOU SAID IT. MULTIPLE TIMES. http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C5C128.3000104%40freemail.nl "I mean, use your immortal strength to grab your way in, which seems like a mighty way to grab your opponent, then keep grappling till the second round. Quickly let go, to pull a chainsaw from under your jacket and shove it in your opponents face with your growing fury." http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C647D0.8060602%40freemail.nl "I am a Malkavian forever :)" http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C74DFE.50504%40freemail.nl "There is definetly a sense of roleplay in Jyhad. ... Denying there is roleplay in the game of Jyhad is like denying this game exists. Don't YOU feel like you are a mighty vampire controlling those lesser peons? Is your prey not truly your worst enemy? For the duration of the game, you are in your role as a Methuselah." http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40BCA5E5.9000104%40freemail.nl "As an attacker, you run into the alley with your claws ready, but once you get up close to your opponent you are in awe of the person who activated their Presence. You simply choose not to attack such a majestious being. Makes perfect sense to me, RPG-wise." http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40BC8EFE.5070802%40freemail.nl "Basically what we do in our rulings is check it against the roleplaying game. What is the effect of that thing in the RPG of Vampire:the Masquerade. And then we usually rule a card to mimick that effect." So, either you don't really base your playstyle on the RPG, and you don't really do what you said you do, above, or you *DO* really base your playstyle on the RPG. Which one is it? >> You said that you allow cards to work differently >> than written because "it's fun". > > Again not true. Again, Doctor, YOU SAID IT. http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C51D68.8090709%40freemail.nl "But I was referring more to Chainsaw :) It's gotten more use since we ruled it to melee. And it's fun :)" >> You said that you are OK with VTES being a game whereby if >> a player is playing 'Strategy X', which forces the other player(s) >> to play 'Strategy anti-X'. (The definition of broken.) > > Your fantasy is amazing. Actually, YOU are the one who lives in a fantasy, Doctor. Are you saying you DIDN'T advocate Strategy anti-X against Strategy-X? Well, guess what? YOU DID! http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C5C2D8.4020503%40freemail.nl "You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the controller comes up with good questions like that :)" > You should write books or such. > Use this imagination to think up evil plots! It isn't imagination, as YOU SAID THESE THINGS IN PRINT. Oh, and thank you for conceding the point to me by not answering. >> You said that "Winning is no fun, it's just income. The fun is in the >> surprised faces when you are doing something completely stupid. And >> even better are the faces of surprise when it later turns out to >> have been a good thing (even if you had not even planned it like >> that)." > > Maybe you should stop putting quotes around things you are > paraphrasing from memory (and maybe you should also note > that your memory is not among the best) I'm not paraphrasing from memory, Doctor Liar. Everything I've quoted in here YOU SAID IN PRINT. Maybe you should stop lying about MY bad memory and go back and read your own quotes! Oh, by the way, HERE'S WHERE YOU SAID IT: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40C647D0.8060602%40freemail.nl >> How *should* we judge you? > > Not at all, coz you do not know me. Sounds like we know you well enough, Doctor Liar. > //Doc. > "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje "Lying is OK as long as it serves my purposes." [ quoted text not captured ]

wum...@comcast.net (Alex Broadhead) wrote in message news:<cef10767.04061...@posting.google.com>... > Howdy Tim, > > > I find this line of argument very unsettling. To be honest, I'm > > not sure I agree with even the spirit of the "Play to Win" rule. > > So you'd be down with the 'players may play to win, to lose, to make > others win, to make others lose, or to whatever alternate victory > conditions they so desire' alteration to the Object of the Game I > proposed? If not, what would you replace it with? > At my game store, one player in particular (who to my knowledge has never gotten a single VP at a tournament or in a competitive environment) likes to play a Brujah rush deck, killing his predator, or cross table simply because he thinks someone doesn't respect him. I suppose you could say I should ban him from tournaments becuase he's being unsportsmanlike or doesn't play to win, but I'm not likely to do so. For one thing, he's a regular player, and the other players should metagame or expect him to play the way he does. Secondly, seating order always introduces a large element of random chance, and if his bullseye happens to fall on you, that's the luck of the draw. This isn't chess, and if White Wolf wants it to be more like chess, they should change the game rules rather than making judges into lawyers. So, he plays for his own motivations, and it makes him feel good to rush cross table and end up with no VPs. It's the other players' jobs to explain to him that's a bad idea, not mine, IMO. > > In poker tournaments, where real money is on the line, generally, > > any kind of deal you want to make with the other players is legal. > > Including collusive ones? Boy, that must make for pointless games. > Collusion is a difficult problem, I think, but I'm not saying I wouldn't expel someone for colluding. In poker, people often make deals because they believe that there is a good chance that the game will be decided by luck rather than skill, and they don't want to go through the motions. I think there should be room for that in VTES as well. Suppose it comes down to two players, 3-2, and the two players, acting in their own best interest, decide to allow the 2VP player to withdraw? That seems like it would violate the Play To Win rule, but I saw it happen at GenCon last year, with no complaints - it saved time and both of the players agreed it was a tossup who would win. On the other hand, if it seems like two players are colluding in order to take advantage of the tournament, by colluding from the beginning and trying to split up the prize (tricky to do IMO), I would probably disqualify them. [ quoted text not captured ] Diplomacy is already a huge part of the game. Are you saying that at the games you play in, deals between players (even predator-prey) aren't a large factor, sometimes even deciding factors in how a game turns out? Besides for which, in the example given, it may be obvious that a player is going to get backstabbed, but new players get outmanuvered like that all the time. The other players can (and do) try to persuade each other that one deal is bad, and another one is good. I think this is part of the fun of the game. So, it's illegal for a good player to try to make a deal with a newbie player, trying to get into a heads up situation with a player they know they can beat, after clearing the rest of the table? If I were a player outside the deal, I'd kick myself for not making the same deal, not trying to get someone expelled from the tournament. Now, going back to the example of the Newbie player who likes to rush cross table and never gets a VP - There's a choice here. You can kick the player out of the tournament. Or, you could let the experienced players try to do some diplomacy and show that they really can make psychological plays, by trying to manipulate the poor player. The poor player gets to stay in the game, might even learn something, and the "good" players might learn something too. > > Alex

In message <703e9d27.04061...@posting.google.com>, ti...@hotmail.com (Tim Wang) mumbled something about: >wum...@comcast.net (Alex Broadhead) wrote in message news:<cef10767.04061...@posting.google.com>... >> So you'd be down with the 'players may play to win, to lose, to make >> others win, to make others lose, or to whatever alternate victory >> conditions they so desire' alteration to the Object of the Game I >> proposed? If not, what would you replace it with? > >At my game store, one player in particular (who to my knowledge has >never gotten a single VP at a tournament or in a competitive environment) >likes to play a Brujah rush deck, killing his predator, or cross table >simply because he thinks someone doesn't respect him. I suppose you >could say I should ban him from tournaments becuase he's being unsportsmanlike >or doesn't play to win, but I'm not likely to do so. For one thing, Tim, I have to ask this. What the fuck? I mean, what the fuck? Now, before you lose your tree here because I said a naughty boo-boo, let me make clear that I would advocate banning this person from tournaments ONLY as a last resort. And for casual play, it's up to the individual players whether or not they can handle his antics... ie, whether they choose to play with him (I wouldn't). But make no mistake, these are antics. This guy is getting away with being a complete twat because you're all letting him. Has anyone sat him down and tried to explain to him that: 1) The point of the game is to get VPs by ousting your prey. 2) Ousting people who are not your prey not only doesn't win, it disrupts the game and ruins others' fun. 3) Disrupting the game because you didn't get the proper measure of "respect" is the act of a five-year-old child, and he should grow up. Seriously, dude, if you're going to sit there and let this guy be a total tard, he's going to keep doing it because he OBVIOUSLY thinks it's OK. On the other hand, if you want to nut up and tell him "look, it's time to try to play right, or time not to play", then MAYBE, just MAYBE he'll consider changing his ways. And if he openly refuses to change, then you can ban him with a clear conscience. But just sticking your head in the sand and disclaiming all responsibility, just because... >he's a regular player, and the other players should metagame or expect >him to play the way he does. ...I'm sorry, that's just crap. What happens when you try to bring a new player into the group and they unfortunately sit as tard-boy's grandpredator... and then tard-boy Rushes them off the table just because they didn't give him part of the pool from a Parity Shift, or anything ELSE that this loose cannon might decide is "lack of respect". I'll tell you what happens; new player leaves in disgust. >Secondly, seating order always introduces >a large element of random chance, and if his bullseye happens to fall >on you, that's the luck of the draw. This isn't chess, and if White Wolf >wants it to be more like chess, they should change the game rules rather They did. See "Players must play to win, or failing that, maximize their VPs." See also in the rulebook "The object of the game is to get the most Victory Points", and "A player whose prey is ousted receives one Victory Point". Sounds like this guy needs to discover the rulebook. >than making judges into lawyers. So, he plays for his own motivations, >and it makes him feel good to rush cross table and end up with no VPs. >It's the other players' jobs to explain to him that's a bad idea, not >mine, IMO. Absolutely false. YOU are the JUDGE. If you are not going to judge, then step down and let someone with a pair do the job. >Collusion is a difficult problem, I think, but I'm not saying I wouldn't >expel someone for colluding. In poker, people often make deals because >they believe that there is a good chance that the game will be decided >by luck rather than skill, and they don't want to go through the motions. No, they make deals (only at the very end of large tournaments with a significant cash prize, I might add) because they're greedy and want to get as much money as possible. Rather than leaving it up to luck, they are willing to sacrifice some potential winnings to ensure guaranteed money. There's no lack of interest in "going through the motions". At any given table during the course of the tournament, you're NOT going to see any deals -- any chips that someone else gets are chips that you DON'T get, and winning a hand happens rarely enough that you tend to want to get the whole thing every time. >I think there should be room for that in VTES as well. Suppose it comes >down to two players, 3-2, and the two players, acting in their own >best interest, decide to allow the 2VP player to withdraw? That seems like It can't be two players left and the score still be 3-2. It must either be 3-0, 2-1, or 1-1-1. Taking each case individually: 1) If the player with the 3-0 advantage wants to allow the opposing player to withdraw, or wants to roll over and give him 2VP, this is legal (although silly, as extra VP determine finals seating order and therefore you should always try to get as many as possible). The player with 3VP has already won, so he can continue to win in the manner he chooses. 2) If the player with the 2-1 advantage wants to allow the opposing player to withdraw, thus causing himself to win 3-2, this is legal from his view (although again, silly). If the player with 2-1 wants to roll over and give his opponent 3VP, I consider this to violate the play-to-win rule. If the player on the WRONG end of the 2-1 score is trying to get out with only 2VP, I'd want to feel confident that he was either actually in, or had reason to believe he was in, a hopeless position, as he is giving up his chance at a Game Win. Often this is true, but it is situationally dependent. 3) If the score is 1-1-1, then each player must attempt to oust the other. Mutual withdrawal does not provide a Game Win (2-2-1). Timeouts do not provide a Game Win (1.5-1.5-1). The only thing that will allow each player to play for the win here is to attempt to oust the other player. Fortunately, it is pretty rare to see people not duke it out in this situation; and conveniently, it only takes one person to decide he wants to try to win to force the other person to do the same. >it would violate the Play To Win rule, but I saw it happen at GenCon last >year, with no complaints - it saved time and both of the players agreed >it was a tossup who would win. On the other hand, if it seems like two players If it was really a tossup who would win, then it was in violation of the rule and it is a shame the judge wasn't called over. [ quoted text not captured ]

wum...@comcast.net (Alex Broadhead) wrote in message news:<cef10767.04061...@posting.google.com>... > Howdy Tim, > > > I find this line of argument very unsettling. To be honest, I'm > > not sure I agree with even the spirit of the "Play to Win" rule. > > So you'd be down with the 'players may play to win, to lose, to make > others win, to make others lose, or to whatever alternate victory > conditions they so desire' alteration to the Object of the Game I > proposed? If not, what would you replace it with? > I'm actually okay with that rule. Let me give an example: At my game store we have a player who often plays a Brujah deck and likes to rush backwards, rush cross table at people who annoy him, and generally do anything except bleed his prey. To my knowledge, he has never gotten a single VP in a tournament or competitive game. Now, if I'm judging a tournament where he wants to play, should I kick him out? I say no. If you're the kind of player who is can't deal with the luck of the seating order and the suck up to a newbie diplomacy that's required, I don't think there should be a rule to bail you out. This player always plays the way he does, and I'm not going to prevent him from doing it because he has fun doing it, and he's not trying to collude to steal the tournament prize, even if a bunch of good players might claim he's not "playing to win" (and are probably even right). > > In poker tournaments, where real money is on the line, generally, > > any kind of deal you want to make with the other players is legal. > > Including collusive ones? Boy, that must make for pointless games. > Collusion is a problem, and I would disqualify someone if I thought they were colluding to abuse the tournament and steal the prizes. However, there are other reasons why people at the table could make deals. At poker tournaments, a legitimate reason for a deal is because the players believe that there's a good chance that luck rather than skill will determine the outcome. I think this is fair since it reduces the amount of luck and reduces the time it takes to finish the round, both of which are good for the tournament. This could easily happen in VTES with two players facing heads up and deciding to let one player withdraw. I saw that happen at GenCon last year and I think it was a fine, based on the above reasons, although it shouldn't have been allowed according to the "Play to Win" Rule. [ quoted text not captured ] So, suppose that the deal is being made with a newbie, and the potential backstabber is an experienced player who's just being manipulative? As others have written, and I agree, VTES is a psychological game just as much as it's a game of deckbuilding and playing your cards, perhaps even more so. If a deal is bad, the other players should be trying to explain it, not the judge. If I were a player at the table, I'd be kicking myself for not trying to make a deal with the inexperienced player, not calling over a judge. > Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] Clap clap clap! Take a bow! :D

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rubkc09gds40vdi7h...@4ax.com>... > In message <MPG.1b33fbae9...@news.eclipse.co.uk>, > Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> mumbled something about: > > >Derek Ray expounded: > >> >I see the reality being that there's no possible way you can stop people from > >> >playing for second. It's so easy to justify anything. Doesn't appear that I'm > >> > >> You are welcome to try to justify certain actions to me. You had better > >> not whine when I bust you on it and issue warnings and/or penalties. > >> > >> Yes, I am certain that I can identify what you are doing, and call you > >> out on it. I really am THAT good, and I think most of you who say > >> otherwise are a bunch of arrogant fools who think you can rules-lawyer > >> your way out of trouble when you get caught; I know you're wrong, > >> because I'm not afraid to say exactly what I see. I never have been and > >> never will be, and that ALWAYS seems to be a surprise to people. > > > >We'll just ignore all the times you come down on someone who is > >perfectly innocent shall we? > > So far that's been zero. I expect it to be zero in the future, as well. > I admit I'm not the best player, judge or tournament organizer, maybe not even a very good one, but I'm pretty sure if I let someone judge a tournament with that attitude in my store I'd lose all my players fast. I'm curious - exactly what kind of play environment would you be in to enforce the "Play to Win" rule the way it sounds like you want to enforce it - by assuming everything in a game of VTES is totally obvious to you, and requiring players to have to be able to explain on demand to a judge how it is they intend to win? Do the other players in the events you run cheer you on when you kick someone out of the tournament for percieved "not playing to win", or is it just because you know you're right and it's not open to debate? I don't know about you, but I charge money for my tournaments, and that means I'd better try to make it a good play experience for everyone who plays, including people who are just there to have fun and may not have any intention of playing super competitively - those are exactly the kind of people I need to retain. Kicking someone out of a tournament for cheating is something serious. I question the fairness of any judge who believes that disqualifying a player is a matter of "Balls" or some other macho emotion, especially when they think it's an at-a-glance-100%-no-doubt kind of judgement.

Tim Wang wrote: > > I admit I'm not the best player, judge or tournament organizer, maybe > not even a very good one, but I'm pretty sure if I let someone judge a > tournament with that attitude in my store I'd lose all my players > fast. I'm curious - exactly what kind of play environment would you be > in to enforce the "Play to Win" rule the way it sounds like you want > to enforce it - by assuming everything in a game of VTES is totally > obvious to you, and requiring players to have to be able to explain on > demand to a judge how it is they intend to win? Do the other players > in the events you run cheer you on when you kick someone out of the > tournament for percieved "not playing to win", or is it just because > you know you're right and it's not open to debate? I don't know about > you, but I charge money for my tournaments, and that means I'd better > try to make it a good play experience for everyone who plays, > including people who are just there to have fun and may not have any > intention of playing super competitively - those are exactly the kind > of people I need to retain. Kicking someone out of a tournament for > cheating is something serious. I question the fairness of any judge > who believes that disqualifying a player is a matter of "Balls" or > some other macho emotion, especially when they think it's an > at-a-glance-100%-no-doubt kind of judgement. Admittedly I know very little about either you or Derek, but by the sounds of it I'd rather play in your tournaments then Derek's. There's more to life then enforcing rules or playing to win. Making things enjoyable for all is way more important. //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

Kevin M. wrote: >>>You have based your playstyle on the RPG. >> >>Strange assumption. > > It wasn't an assumption, Doctor. YOU SAID IT. MULTIPLE TIMES. No I did not. The examples you provided do not say I base my playstyle on the RPG :) Some of them say that we rule cards to work lke they would in the RPG, and some others say that there is a sense of roleplay to the game of Jyhad. > So, either you don't really base your playstyle on the RPG, and you > don't really do what you said you do, above, or you *DO* really base > your playstyle on the RPG. > > Which one is it? None of them say I play my game of Jyhad as if I was playing Vampire: the Masquerade. >>>You said that you allow cards to work differently >>>than written because "it's fun". >> >>Again not true. > > Again, Doctor, YOU SAID IT. > > http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C51D68.8090709%40freemail.nl > "But I was referring more to Chainsaw :) > It's gotten more use since we ruled it to melee. And it's fun :)" Saying it is fun does not mean that was our reason to do it :) Your logic is flawed. >>>You said that you are OK with VTES being a game whereby if >>>a player is playing 'Strategy X', which forces the other player(s) >>>to play 'Strategy anti-X'. (The definition of broken.) >> >>Your fantasy is amazing. > > > Actually, YOU are the one who lives in a fantasy, Doctor. > > Are you saying you DIDN'T advocate Strategy anti-X against Strategy-X? > Well, guess what? YOU DID! > > http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=40C5C2D8.4020503%40freemail.nl > "You better hurry up in screwing the vamp with the monocle if the > controller comes up with good questions like that :)" So you would say you better not play anything against a strategy that is killing you? Of course you have to get against something that you are going to die from. Survival is a prerequisite to winning, so if that means you have to get medieval on your predator, that's what you do. After all, you have to do whatever it takes to win(within the game), right? > It isn't imagination, as YOU SAID THESE THINGS IN PRINT. Well, all you have shown is that you did not read it accurately. Either that or you work in the Bush or Kerry campaign :) >>>How *should* we judge you? >> >>Not at all, coz you do not know me. > > Sounds like we know you well enough, Doctor Liar. Funny how people who try to tell lies about other people tend to call them liars. You really must be working for some presidential campaign. > "Lying is OK as long as it serves my purposes." Ah, at least you provide a quote of your own saying as well. I wonder if anyone would agree to this, I certainly don't. //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

In message <703e9d27.04061...@posting.google.com>, ti...@hotmail.com (Tim Wang) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rubkc09gds40vdi7h...@4ax.com>... >> In message <MPG.1b33fbae9...@news.eclipse.co.uk>, >> Timlagor <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> mumbled something about: >> >> >Derek Ray expounded: >> >> >I see the reality being that there's no possible way you can stop people from >> >> >playing for second. It's so easy to justify anything. Doesn't appear that I'm >> >> >> >> You are welcome to try to justify certain actions to me. You had better >> >> not whine when I bust you on it and issue warnings and/or penalties. >> >> >> >> Yes, I am certain that I can identify what you are doing, and call you >> >> out on it. I really am THAT good, and I think most of you who say >> >> otherwise are a bunch of arrogant fools who think you can rules-lawyer >> >> your way out of trouble when you get caught; I know you're wrong, >> >> because I'm not afraid to say exactly what I see. I never have been and >> >> never will be, and that ALWAYS seems to be a surprise to people. >> > >> >We'll just ignore all the times you come down on someone who is >> >perfectly innocent shall we? >> >> So far that's been zero. I expect it to be zero in the future, as well. > >I admit I'm not the best player, judge or tournament organizer, maybe >not even a very good one, but I'm pretty sure if I let someone judge a >tournament with that attitude in my store I'd lose all my players >fast. I'm curious - exactly what kind of play environment would you be If you have any cheaters, that is. You might find that I am much more permissive as a judge than I sound -- I just realize that being that way ALL the time is not going to cut it, because someone just MIGHT try to make their crap stand up. Nor am I going to routinely kick players out of a tournament unless they are simply, flat out, REFUSING to play by the rules. That is, repeatedly ignoring the judge after being warned of illegal plays. >of people I need to retain. Kicking someone out of a tournament for >cheating is something serious. I question the fairness of any judge >who believes that disqualifying a player is a matter of "Balls" or >some other macho emotion, especially when they think it's an >at-a-glance-100%-no-doubt kind of judgement. Correct. Kicking someone out of a tournament is serious. Fortunately, I've never run across someone actively attempting to cheat. Instead, I've seen people pissed off and acting irrationally as a result, who just needed time to calm down and maybe a reminder that it's just a game. I'm just trying to point out that decrying the whole thing as unenforceable is a bunch of bullshit. It's only unenforceable if you choose not to enforce it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <40D03BF6...@freemail.nl>, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> mumbled something about: >Admittedly I know very little about either you or Derek, but by the >sounds of it I'd rather play in your tournaments then Derek's. You would be surprised. I don't think you'd care to play with Tim's problem player. >There's more to life then enforcing rules or playing to win. Making >things enjoyable for all is way more important. Key words "for all" are very important here. They include all your other players, as well as the single person. If the choice is removing one player so ALL the others can have fun, or letting that player continue to disrupt games with illegal play, then this is a sad, but easy choice to make. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40D03F4E...@freemail.nl... > Well, all you have shown is that you did not read it accurately. > Either that or you work in the Bush or Kerry campaign :) Take your anti-American comments and go elsewhere. By the way, 9-11 jokes still aren't funny, and smilies just make it worse. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7kivc0hmg83pc51rq...@4ax.com... > In message <703e9d27.04061...@posting.google.com>, > ti...@hotmail.com (Tim Wang) mumbled something about: > > >wum...@comcast.net (Alex Broadhead) wrote in message news:<cef10767.04061...@posting.google.com>... > 2) If the player with the 2-1 advantage wants to allow the opposing > player to withdraw, thus causing himself to win 3-2, this is legal from > his view (although again, silly). If the player with 2-1 wants to roll > over and give his opponent 3VP, I consider this to violate the > play-to-win rule. If the player on the WRONG end of the 2-1 score is > trying to get out with only 2VP, I'd want to feel confident that he was > either actually in, or had reason to believe he was in, a hopeless > position, as he is giving up his chance at a Game Win. Often this is > true, but it is situationally dependent. > I'd just interject with 2B) Same situation, but the players are up against a time limit. If the victor cannot be determined in the given time frame (i.e. they're going to time out with 2.5 and 1.5 VPs), then an agreed withdrawal of either player maximizes VPs for both. The 1 VP player gives up the game win, but this scenario pre-supposes that it was beyond their reach in the first place. DaveZ Atom Weaver

>There's more to life then enforcing rules or playing to win. Making >things enjoyable for all is way more important. Out of context, this doesn't sound so bad. In the context of the current discussion, this is ludicrous. Rules exist to enable players to have fun playing the game. The goal of the game exists to enable players to have fun playing the game. If people don't like the game, then they should find something else to play. You know, like tournaments [that would be a "clever" joke]. Which isn't necessarily that hard. It's entirely possible that the entire play group wants to play some variant of the CCG that has more role-playing elements or whatever. As long as everyone is on the same page, it doesn't matter what you are doing or what the rules are. But. When you get together people who aren't necessarily on the same page, you must try to play to the only set of rules you can. Otherwise, might as well not bother playing. I once had a tendency to screw around in multiplayer CCGs. For two-player, it mattered not at all since my opponent would just win easily, possibly why I don't recall ever doing it with two-players. Anyway, a couple games around the same time made me realize something(s). When someone isn't trying to win, winning is meaningless. Now, maybe in a tournament, you can take heart in all of the prizes you got that the random game elements didn't, though you are just as likely to get annoyed by how someone else scored the better prizes because the random game element decided to screw with you. In normal play, why was the game played? Led me to the concept of "good faith effort" (in CCGs). It's fine to not go everything possible to try to win, to not build the best deck conceivable, and whatever - you don't have to win. You must try to win. Now, this may sound odd given my view on tournaments, but I just adapt it to tournaments by saying that you must try to win the tournament rather than the game. I sort of skimmed over an essential part of the argument, so I should get back to it. Fun. Why don't we just have fun!?! Very simple problem with "fun". It's personal. The rules define fun because nothing else can. Yes, the *rules* define fun. I may know what someone finds fun, I may know what I find fun, I may be able to guess what others find fun, but I'll never know for sure what everyone I play with finds fun. That's what the rules are for. Again, if you play with certain people exclusively, collectively you may have decided that what you are doing is fun. You may also be playing a different game, if a very similar one. I should stop. But, there's something less philosophical I want to bring up. Far too many players of CCGs I've run across are selfish. They don't care whether anyone else has fun. They play to their own goals at the expense of others and think nothing of it. So why not just stop playing with them? That's what should be done, but it's hard when you have a small player base. The long term move of fixing your group comes at the expense that you may never get to the long term.

Howdy Tim, I've already read Derek's reply to this same post, and he's probably already said just about everything I would've said, only more forcefully (he's good about that), but I thought I should contribute my $.02 as well. > At my game store, one player in particular (who to my knowledge has > never gotten a single VP at a tournament or in a competitive environment) > likes to play a Brujah rush deck, killing his predator, or cross table > simply because he thinks someone doesn't respect him. I don't think I know you, Tim, and thus I don't think I know this player either, but his clone is _exactly_ the person I have had most in mind throughout this thread. He's much, much worse than the speculative deal-makers under discussion further down. > I suppose you > could say I should ban him from tournaments becuase he's being unsportsmanlike > or doesn't play to win, but I'm not likely to do so. For one thing, > he's a regular player, and the other players should metagame or expect > him to play the way he does. What!?! Because he's _regularly_ a disruptive asshole makes it OK?!? So if I regularly colluded that would be OK too? After all, other players could metagame or expect me to do it... Or to make it even more stark, what if he just regularly went after the exact same player every time they were at the same table? Or regularly took a run at the newest player(s) exclusively? Why does his 'randomness' make it better? > Secondly, seating order always introduces > a large element of random chance, and if his bullseye happens to fall > on you, that's the luck of the draw. This isn't chess, and if White Wolf > wants it to be more like chess, they should change the game rules rather > than making judges into lawyers. What kind of rules, other that the _ones they already have_ and which are presently under discussion, do you have in mind? And who would enforce those rules? Someone who sits down at a table, rolls a 4-sider and says, "Now you die!" is not OK!!! > So, he plays for his own motivations, > and it makes him feel good to rush cross table and end up with no VPs. Which makes him an asshole, not a Jyhad player. Would you sit down at table with a poker player whose goal is to make a 'random' other player lose? > It's the other players' jobs to explain to him that's a bad idea, not > mine, IMO. Then you are completely misunderstanding your job. This is the most clearcut example of not playing to win I would generally expect to see. It's not some hazy, marginal case requiring a lot of discretion. It's exactly what the V:EKN rules are about. If you won't act on this sort of thing, _what will you act on_? As to the other points you've made on the same subject but elsewhere in this thread: What is fun about playing with this player? There is a widespread assumption that people like me who are in favor of 'play to win' are somehow monomaniacally devoted to winning, and that we don't care about 'fun'. (Which couldn't be further from the truth in my case.) Where is the fun in having your game ruined by someone who is not even playing the same game you are? I don't really care if I win or lose, but I do want to have _a chance to win_. Otherwise why play? We could just sit around with a beer. I'm playing Jyhad because I like Jyhad. Players like this cause other players to stop playing Jyhad, to one degree (Diplomacy-like metagaming/psych warfare) or another (moving to another playgroup or quitting altogether). They suck. > > > In poker tournaments, where real money is on the line, generally, > > > any kind of deal you want to make with the other players is legal. > > > > Including collusive ones? Boy, that must make for pointless games. > > > > Collusion is a difficult problem, I think, but I'm not saying I wouldn't > expel someone for colluding. In poker, people often make deals because > they believe that there is a good chance that the game will be decided > by luck rather than skill, and they don't want to go through the motions. > I think there should be room for that in VTES as well. Suppose it comes > down to two players, 3-2, and the two players, acting in their own > best interest, decide to allow the 2VP player to withdraw? I cannot parse this example. Two players are left, but 5 points have already been scored? > That seems like > it would violate the Play To Win rule, but I saw it happen at GenCon last > year, with no complaints - it saved time and both of the players agreed > it was a tossup who would win. On the other hand, if it seems like two players > are colluding in order to take advantage of the tournament, by colluding > from the beginning and trying to split up the prize (tricky to do IMO), I > would probably disqualify them. How would you recognize their collusion? Perhaps by the fact that they were not playing to win? If not playing to win is legal, than what will your argument against it be? [ quoted text not captured ] No, I'm saying that they are far, far too large a factor, often to the point that what people have in their decks and their playing skill, beyond diplomacy/psych warfare/clique manipulation, is largely unimportant. I'm not sure how you could think I was saying the opposite? > Besides for which, in the example given, it may be obvious that a player > is going to get backstabbed, but new players get outmanuvered like that > all the time. The other players can (and do) try to persuade each other > that one deal is bad, and another one is good. I think this is part of the > fun of the game. So, it's illegal for a good player to try to make > a deal with a newbie player, trying to get into a heads up situation with > a player they know they can beat, after clearing the rest of the table? > If I were a player outside the deal, I'd kick myself for not making the > same deal, not trying to get someone expelled from the tournament. Calling judge != trying to get someone expelled from the tournament. Please stop polarizing every aspect of the argument. Manipulating the table with illegal deals in order to oust the newbie sounds tremendously unfun and likely to alienate new players. I'm fine with it being harder to do. > Now, going back to the example of the Newbie player who likes to rush > cross table and never gets a VP - There's a choice here. Is he a newbie? You didn't say that before. Mine isn't. > You can kick the > player out of the tournament. Or, you could let the experienced players > try to do some diplomacy and show that they really can make psychological > plays, by trying to manipulate the poor player. The poor player gets to > stay in the game, might even learn something, and the "good" players might > learn something too. Has he learned anything yet from this treatment? How about now? Now? Alex

In message <LM%zc.17$oo5...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:7kivc0hmg83pc51rq...@4ax.com... >> >> play-to-win rule. If the player on the WRONG end of the 2-1 score is >> trying to get out with only 2VP, I'd want to feel confident that he was >> either actually in, or had reason to believe he was in, a hopeless >> position, as he is giving up his chance at a Game Win. Often this is >> true, but it is situationally dependent. >> >I'd just interject with 2B) Same situation, but the players are up against a >time limit. If the victor cannot be determined in the given time frame >(i.e. they're going to time out with 2.5 and 1.5 VPs), then an agreed >withdrawal of either player maximizes VPs for both. The 1 VP player gives >up the game win, but this scenario pre-supposes that it was beyond their >reach in the first place. Right, same as above. If the player on the wrong end of the 2-1 score does not feel that he can win within the time limit, then he generally has reason to believe he is in a hopeless position. [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy Ian, > >There's more to life then enforcing rules or playing to win. Making > >things enjoyable for all is way more important. > > Out of context, this doesn't sound so bad. In the context of the current > discussion, this is ludicrous. > > Rules exist to enable players to have fun playing the game. <snip a bunch of really well written stuff> Please excuse the 'me too', but... Your message so clearly and concisely expresses a lot of what I've been argumentatively muddling through that I've just gotta add an, "Amen, Brother!" Thanks, Alex