Withdrawal Deals

Withdrawal Deals are defined as getting another player's help in return for letting that player withdraw from the game in the two player game when you are the only two players left. Under the new V:EKN rules Play to Win is Defined as 4.8. Play to Win .... Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. ***Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.*** Wouldn't Withdrawal Deals be prohibited as they can never be honored under the tournament rules, and encourage an attempt at illegal play? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Withdrawal Deals are defined as getting another player's help in > return for letting that player withdraw from the game in the two > player game when you are the only two players left. > > Under the new V:EKN rules Play to Win is Defined as > > 4.8. Play to Win > ..... > > Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no > longer acknowledge any deals. ***Prior deals are voided, even if they > were > play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both > Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard > to any deals.*** > > > Wouldn't Withdrawal Deals be prohibited as they can never be honored > under the tournament rules, and encourage an attempt at illegal play? The deal can be made and honored if it is PTW; honored, at least, until two players remain. When only two players remain, then the deal is gone. The deal doesn't exist when there are two players, so it cannot be honored nor broken. If the players at that point can both play to win while one of them withdraws, then that's PTW and the question of honoring some deal doesn't come up. If withdrawing or allowing a withdrawal is not play to win, then it isn't legal, and the question of honoring some non-existent deal doesn't change that.

[ quoted text not captured ] But withdrawal for .5 VPs in and of itself violates PTW as there is always the possibility that you could oust your prey for 1 VP which would be maximizing your VP's

XZealot wrote: > But withdrawal for .5 VPs in and of itself violates PTW as there is > always the possibility that you could oust your prey for 1 VP which > would be maximizing your VP's It is entirely possible that withdrawal is PTW, when faced with a likely prospect of being ousted otherwise. 0.5 VP > 0 VP

[ quoted text not captured ] But who is to say what is possible and impossible?

[ quoted text not captured ] Gee, a judgment call. Who could possibly make such a call?

[ quoted text not captured ] You could, but you aren't in all the casual games in which I play. We play by the VEKN rules, but we don't have a judge standing around. Can you show up to our casual games?

[ quoted text not captured ] You can't play with V:EKN rules and not have a judge standing around. [V:EKN 2.6] However you handle other judgment needs in your no-judge, non-V:EKN evironment, handle this judgment need the same way. Obviously.

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Also there is the situation where Player A has 2 VP and Player B has 1 VP in the 1-on-1 endgame, but the two of them had a winning deal for Player A before. Now time-limit is approaching, so Player A can withdraw and win the game with 2.5VP leaving B with 2VP, and B is well advised to let the withdraw happen because it improves his situation by 0.5 VP (over time out). -- Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] ....but Player A could make a terrible error and Player B could oust him. That would give Player B the GW. Had he been trying to withdraw then he could never have won.

In message <f69b4b4e-eff1-4fea...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroup [ quoted text not captured ] That could happen, and whoever is making the judgement call (a judge or, in casual play, the players at the table) could bear that in mind. Players aren't required to play for incredibly unlikely scenarios (unless all other scenarios lead to zero). Similarly, a player who has an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance of a Game Win may well be playing reasonably to aim for a very solid chance of 2VP instead. The thing here is: ignore withdrawal. If a player makes a VP split deal that you think is shady (for whatever reason), how do you adjudicate that? Do the players not in the deal adjudicate? Does the whole table adjudicate? Do you let a "senior" player adjudicate? However you resolve every other rules or deal dispute, do the same here. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> >....but Player A could make a terrible error and Player B could oust > >him. That would give Player B the GW. Had he been trying to withdraw > >then he could never have won. > > That could happen, and whoever is making the judgement call (a judge or, > in casual play, the players at the table) could bear that in mind. > > Players aren't required to play for incredibly unlikely scenarios > (unless all other scenarios lead to zero). Similarly, a player who has > an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance of a Game Win may well be playing > reasonably to aim for a very solid chance of 2VP instead. Every 3-player game has this sort of wheeling and dealing to see who gets to be odd man out. I see it all the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8c666c6c-5cff-4c51...@i29g2000prf.googlegroup s.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >> That could happen, and whoever is making the judgement call (a judge or, >> in casual play, the players at the table) could bear that in mind. >> >> Players aren't required to play for incredibly unlikely scenarios >> (unless all other scenarios lead to zero). Similarly, a player who has >> an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance of a Game Win may well be playing >> reasonably to aim for a very solid chance of 2VP instead. > >Every 3-player game has this sort of wheeling and dealing to see who >gets to be odd man out. I see it all the time. ...which has very little to do with what I said. No-one is saying it doesn't happen. Of course it can happen - particularly where time limits are concerned. How do you resolve every other deal dispute? Do the same here. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 19, 5:08 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <8c666c6c-5cff-4c51-bb1f-89eb91aea...@i29g2000prf.googlegroup > > s.com>, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> writes: > >> That could happen, and whoever is making the judgement call (a judge or, > >> in casual play, the players at the table) could bear that in mind. > > >> Players aren't required to play for incredibly unlikely scenarios > >> (unless all other scenarios lead to zero). Similarly, a player who has > >> an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance of a Game Win may well be playing > >> reasonably to aim for a very solid chance of 2VP instead. > > >Every 3-player game has this sort of wheeling and dealing to see who > >gets to be odd man out. I see it all the time. > > ...which has very little to do with what I said. No-one is saying it > doesn't happen. Of course it can happen - particularly where time > limits are concerned. > > How do you resolve every other deal dispute? Do the same here. See that's the rub, I don't think there should be deals that dispute the established rules. It's like saying that it's not really cheating unless you get caught. How can a deal be offered and accepted that isn't legal to be fulfilled?

[ quoted text not captured ] The discussion isn't about deals that dispute the rules. Deals don't dispute the rules. > How can a deal be offered and accepted that isn't legal to be > fulfilled? The deal relates to while-the-deal-is-in-effect period, naturally. It is useless to ponder what effect a deal has when there is no deal. A non-existent deal has no effect.

In message <d4ccba74-2ace-48ec...@e23g2000prf.googlegroup s.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >On Dec 19, 5:08 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> How do you resolve every other deal dispute? Do the same here. > >See that's the rub, I don't think there should be deals that dispute >the established rules. I'm talking about "dispute" as in "argument", where two people disagree over whether something is a good deal or not. One person says "I can't possibly get a game win on this table, it would take an asteroid dropping on your head to let me win" and another person disagrees. Who chooses which one is right? In a tournament, a judge. In a casual game? However you handle such things in casual games. >It's like saying that it's not really cheating >unless you get caught. It's a fairly simple fact of life that if no-one spots the cheating, it doesn't get corrected. V:TES is no different to any other game in this respect. >How can a deal be offered and accepted that isn't legal to be >fulfilled? Two players may not realise that it's a poor deal, or may overlook the fact that all deals are off at 2 players, or similar. Bottom line: people make mistakes. Because people make mistakes, and because you must undoubtedly deal with mistakes anyway, extend your mistake resolution system to cope. At the simplest level, deals which aren't legal are just non-sensical table- talk. Point out there's no deal, correct game state (if appropriate), and move on. In a tournament, if a deal sounds weird, call a judge over early on so that they can be aware of the situation when the deal was made (and can intervene whenever is appropriate). This isn't necessary, it can just make everyone's life simpler. Out of interest, is there a reason for your tendency to spot a random word in a follow-up, and then make wildly different points that are only slightly relevant to the points made in the previous post? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Quid Pro Quo This for That (or something for something) is the basis for all deals. How can you put a rule in the VEKN rules that is unenforceable in the most blatant of situation? 4.8. Play to Win .... Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. ***Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.*** How can it be legal for a deal to be made that will affect the balance of a table that will be voided and never fulfilled, but yet you know that you will have players, who "never break a deal, ever, ever, ever" that will attempt to subvert the above rule whilst attempting to uphold the deal. This put judges in the tenuous position of trying to judge whether the players behavior is in violation of the above rule or just bad play, when it is just easier for the judges to void a deal when it is offered rather than 3 turns later. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 19, 6:24 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <d4ccba74-2ace-48ec-9bea-1c139d663...@e23g2000prf.googlegroup > > s.com>, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> writes: > >On Dec 19, 5:08 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> How do you resolve every other deal dispute? Do the same here. > > >See that's the rub, I don't think there should be deals that dispute > >the established rules. > > I'm talking about "dispute" as in "argument", where two people disagree > over whether something is a good deal or not. One person says "I can't > possibly get a game win on this table, it would take an asteroid > dropping on your head to let me win" and another person disagrees. Who > chooses which one is right? In a tournament, a judge. In a casual > game? However you handle such things in casual games. > > >It's like saying that it's not really cheating > >unless you get caught. > > It's a fairly simple fact of life that if no-one spots the cheating, it > doesn't get corrected. V:TES is no different to any other game in this > respect. > > >How can a deal be offered and accepted that isn't legal to be > >fulfilled? > > Two players may not realise that it's a poor deal, or may overlook the > fact that all deals are off at 2 players, or similar. Bottom line: > people make mistakes. Better to correct the mistake when it is made. > Because people make mistakes, and because you must undoubtedly deal with > mistakes anyway, extend your mistake resolution system to cope. At the > simplest level, deals which aren't legal are just non-sensical table- > talk. Point out there's no deal, correct game state (if appropriate), > and move on. The problem with these overarching deals is that there is no proper remedy because by the time that the judge points out that is it void and you must PTW that someone has already been ousted as part of the bargain. There is no way to correct the game state after someone has been ousted by a withdrawal deal. > In a tournament, if a deal sounds weird, call a judge over early on so > that they can be aware of the situation when the deal was made (and can > intervene whenever is appropriate). This isn't necessary, it can just > make everyone's life simpler. > > Out of interest, is there a reason for your tendency to spot a random > word in a follow-up, and then make wildly different points that are only > slightly relevant to the points made in the previous post? It's because you have a great vocabulary. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You're mistaking "not illegal" for "uneforceable". The rule is enforceable. The deal in question is legal. The activity in question is legal (being play to win), both while the deal is in effect and after it no longer exists. Playing to win does not violate the play to win rule.