Why draw when you can Withdraw?

On 11-JUL-2003, Curevei (cur...@aol.commetal) wrote: >>>No. You cannot force a player to trust another player to honor a deal. >> >>LSJ has really hit the nail on the head with this part. >> >>There's really an important trust issue with attempts to withdrawals. For the >>judges who simply allow a table withdrawal since everyone "agrees" to a >>withdrawal, he might be foiling the plans of one of the players who plans to >>do >>a 180 at the last minute. >> >>Similarly, a player who has the advantage in permanents might very well want >>to >>see the combat monster or intercept wall deck run out of cards this way. > > I don't find the idea of someone breaking a mutual withdrawal plan realistic. > Since it takes so little time to accomplish, might as well wait til the last > few minutes. Since it takes a bunch of time to oust people you were thinking > of agreeing to withdraw with, you won't have time to oust once you enact your > withdrawal plan. If there's a big disparity in permanents, the plan is > unlikely to occur or likely to occur only so late as to make it impossible to > oust anyone. It's easy enough to see someone trying to back out of an > agreement, which leaves the game in basically the same situation if everyone > stops turbowithdrawing. If you can oust someone whether with the "perfect > hand" or not, there was never any basis for a withdrawal agreement in the first > place. > > I think more credit should be given to players. The agree to a draw rule > serves no purpose. There's no benefit to playing out a mutual withdrawal. FYI, it came up at the final North American qualifier at Gen*Con this year. The players agreed to withdraw and proceeded taking their "default" turns of "untap, discard, I'm done". Until one player took his real turn and ousted his prey. Then the players that remained reinstated the deal and finished out with the default turns until all but one had withdrawn. I'm glad I gave more credit to the players than to force them to honor the deal or not make it at all. (Although the player who was ousted was upset at my making them play it out.) -- 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/

>FYI, it came up at the final North American qualifier at Gen*Con this year. > >The players agreed to withdraw and proceeded taking their "default" turns >of "untap, discard, I'm done". Until one player took his real turn and ousted >his prey. Then the players that remained reinstated the deal and finished >out with the default turns until all but one had withdrawn. > >I'm glad I gave more credit to the players than to force them to honor the >deal or not make it at all. (Although the player who was ousted was upset >at my making them play it out.) Wouldn't that be giving them a lack of credit as a mutual withdrawal deal makes no sense when one player could oust a prey by taking one turn? I guess I've been giving people too much credit, figuring that they would pay close attention to any deal that would result in the game ending. To stop the "mutual withdrawal bluff" only requires players to come up with such measures as everyone setting their hands face down, discarding from one "side" and replacing to the other without ever looking at cards drawn or, even more tedious, such as another player chooses which card you discard - third from my left, one of the cards you didn't just draw, or whatever - and, if the player doesn't agree, then the deal is broken. At the great cost of making a fair number of games tedious by forcing people to play out a stalemated situation, you get a trivial benefit that a player(s) making a bad deal gets punished by throwing away a game that could have been stalled out instead.

Curevei wrote: >>FYI, it came up at the final North American qualifier at Gen*Con this year. >> >>The players agreed to withdraw and proceeded taking their "default" turns >>of "untap, discard, I'm done". Until one player took his real turn and ousted >>his prey. Then the players that remained reinstated the deal and finished >>out with the default turns until all but one had withdrawn. >> >>I'm glad I gave more credit to the players than to force them to honor the >>deal or not make it at all. (Although the player who was ousted was upset >>at my making them play it out.) > > > Wouldn't that be giving them a lack of credit as a mutual withdrawal deal makes > no sense when one player could oust a prey by taking one turn? No. I imaging the ousting player used the deal to draw into a key card. The ousted player may have figured that a 90% chance at a full VP was better than a 99.9% chance at a half VP finish (or whatever the probabilities were). > At the great cost of making a fair number of games tedious by forcing people to > play out a stalemated situation, you get a trivial benefit that a player(s) > making a bad deal gets punished by throwing away a game that could have been > stalled out instead. A minute or two is "great cost"? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> At the great cost of making a fair number of games tedious by forcing >people to >> play out a stalemated situation, you get a trivial benefit that a player(s) >> making a bad deal gets punished by throwing away a game that could have >been >> stalled out instead. > >A minute or two is "great cost"? Once you establish that an agreement to mutually withdraw resolves immediately, you can save quite a bit of time. Maybe around up to half an hour for games that are stalemated. More for games where people would rather take their VP rather than play a game out (note, before people say this goes against the idea that someone actually wants to play a game longer that such a deal only works when everyone agrees).

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) writes: > Once you establish that an agreement to mutually withdraw resolves > immediately, you can save quite a bit of time. And eliminate any change of bluffing, backstabbing, mind games, broken deals, Evil Deeds, paranoia,... One thing I love about VTES is that you can never be sure of anything. You don't know what your opponent has in his hand, you don't know how he will respond to your move, *you don't know if he will keep his deal or not.* I enjoy games that end with "he did WHAT???" much, much more than games that end with anticlimactic "and then everyone did as we together planned to do." I don't want to play a game where I *know* what is going to happen. I want to play a game where I always have to be careful, always on my toes. -- Nature *is* wasteful; but how well She can afford it! Nature *is* false; but I'm a bit of a liar myself. Nature *is* useless; but then how beautiful She is! Nature *is* cruel; but I too am a Sadist. - Aleister Crowley

In message <20030821153050...@mb-m04.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >>FYI, it came up at the final North American qualifier at Gen*Con this year. >> >>The players agreed to withdraw and proceeded taking their "default" turns >>of "untap, discard, I'm done". Until one player took his real turn and ousted >>his prey. Then the players that remained reinstated the deal and finished >>out with the default turns until all but one had withdrawn. >> >>I'm glad I gave more credit to the players than to force them to honor the >>deal or not make it at all. (Although the player who was ousted was upset >>at my making them play it out.) > >Wouldn't that be giving them a lack of credit as a mutual withdrawal deal makes >no sense when one player could oust a prey by taking one turn? I am guessing that he needed to sort his hand and draw into the cards in order to oust someone. That is surely what I would try to do in a withdrawal deal; arrange my hand perfectly and then strike. >To stop the "mutual withdrawal bluff" only requires players to come up with >such measures as everyone setting their hands face down, discarding from one >"side" and replacing to the other without ever looking at cards drawn or, even >more tedious, such as another player chooses which card you discard - third >from my left, one of the cards you didn't just draw, or whatever - and, if the >player doesn't agree, then the deal is broken. Forcing players to come up with such tedious measures is one more discouragement for the deal actually happening, and an ENcouragement for people to: GROW SOME BALLS, PLAY IT OUT, AND TRY TO WIN. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> Once you establish that an agreement to mutually withdraw resolves immediately, > you can save quite a bit of time. How would this go down in a tornament where players decide to withdraw with 30 seconds left and it just resolves instantly so they go into the finals and player x standing on the sideline suddenly has to pack there deck away and go home. In this situation its not just a matter of saving time its who is going into the finals.

"markvtes" <lo...@rsbs.anu.edu.au> wrote in message news:7e624de2.03082...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] if there is 30 seconds left, as a judge i would disallow the 'let's discard all our decks in a micro second and retire ' stuff because it's just physically impossible. You had to agree to it earlier, or just play the damn game and face the consequences =)

Curevei wrote: >>>At the great cost of making a fair number of games tedious by forcing >> >>people to >> >>>play out a stalemated situation, you get a trivial benefit that a player(s) >>>making a bad deal gets punished by throwing away a game that could have >> >>been >> >>>stalled out instead. >> >>A minute or two is "great cost"? > > > Once you establish that an agreement to mutually withdraw resolves immediately, > you can save quite a bit of time. Maybe around up to half an hour for games > that are stalemated. More for games where people would rather take their VP This contradicts [Curvei 11-JUL-2003] in which the position is that "Since it takes so little time to accomplish, you might as well wait til the last few minutes." > rather than play a game out (note, before people say this goes against the idea > that someone actually wants to play a game longer that such a deal only works > when everyone agrees). Hmm. You seem to have accidentally deleted the main point. Here it is again (with a typo corrected), ready for your response: >>I'm glad I gave more credit to the players than to force them to honor the >>deal or not make it at all. (Although the player who was ousted was upset >>at my making them play it out.) > > > Wouldn't that be giving them a lack of credit as a mutual withdrawal deal makes > no sense when one player could oust a prey by taking one turn? No. I imagine the ousting player used the deal to draw into a key card. The ousted player may have figured that a 90% chance at a full VP was better than a 99.9% chance at a half VP finish (or whatever the probabilities were). -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> The ousted player may have figured that a 90% chance at a full VP > was better than a 99.9% chance at a half VP finish (or whatever the > probabilities were). Whoa - LSJ used actual numbers! Yay! Ira

>>>A minute or two is "great cost"? >> >> >> Once you establish that an agreement to mutually withdraw resolves >immediately, >> you can save quite a bit of time. Maybe around up to half an hour for >games >> that are stalemated. More for games where people would rather take their >VP > >This contradicts [Curvei 11-JUL-2003] in which the position is that "Since it >takes >so little time to accomplish, you might as well wait til the last few >minutes." Waiting to the last minute was pointed out as a solution if you didn't trust people. If you don't have to trust people, then you can save a lot of time. Might be a case of losing the forest for the trees. The original post fit the title well - why draw for half a VP when withdrawing is a whole VP? Well, the only reason may be because agreeing to draw just happens (as I recall, I really don't care since it's nigh unto useless as a mechanic) but, important to later posts, withdrawing requires going through some rigmarole ... if you play it out. My take was that it isn't worth playing out because the basis for agreeing to withdraw is a stalemated situation with not a sufficient amount of time for people to think they will oust anyone. When this occurs can vary tremendously, of course. In the case of little time being left, the savings of not going through the motions is not going through the motions. Besides being less tedious, when you know you can withdraw with 30 seconds left or whatever, you can afford to play longer without such an agreement. Isn't this what people want people to do - play games out as much as possible? In the case that a game is horribly stalemated with a significant amount of time left, you can produce a faster tournament and, yet again, not have to put effort into doing something that shouldn't serve any purpose. >Hmm. You seem to have accidentally deleted the main point. Here it is again >(with >a typo corrected), ready for your response: > > >>I'm glad I gave more credit to the players than to force them to honor the > >>deal or not make it at all. (Although the player who was ousted was upset > >>at my making them play it out.) > > > > > > Wouldn't that be giving them a lack of credit as a mutual withdrawal deal >makes > > no sense when one player could oust a prey by taking one turn? > >No. I imagine the ousting player used the deal to draw into a key card. > >The ousted player may have figured that a 90% chance at a full VP >was better than a 99.9% chance at a half VP finish (or whatever the >probabilities were). The problem with this example isn't the ousted player agreeing to the deal. It's that the player able to oust someone in one turn would agree to such a deal. If someone can take a turn and get a VP, I'm not seeing any basis for a mutual withdrawal deal. I want to expand on something in the above paragraph that I don't see people getting. The ousted player should have been ousted anyway. So, he/she lost nothing by the agreement. A badly conceived mutual withdrawal deal only hurts people who could do better. People are trying to argue that there's a treachery basis, that you can mess someone up somehow by making them think you won't come after them. I've just been giving examples in a number of these posts of how players can counter that such that this should never come about in a real situation. The treachery counters, which can be tedious themselves, wouldn't be necessary if the agreement ended the game immediately.

Curevei wrote: >>>>A minute or two is "great cost"? >>> >>> >>>Once you establish that an agreement to mutually withdraw resolves >> >>immediately, >> >>>you can save quite a bit of time. Maybe around up to half an hour for >> >>games >> >>>that are stalemated. More for games where people would rather take their >> >>VP >> >>This contradicts [Curvei 11-JUL-2003] in which the position is that "Since it >>takes >>so little time to accomplish, you might as well wait til the last few >>minutes." > > > Waiting to the last minute was pointed out as a solution if you didn't trust > people. If you don't have to trust people, then you can save a lot of time. That's true of many deals. Fortunately, removing the possibility of deal breaking is outside the jurisdiction of the V:EKN. > Might be a case of losing the forest for the trees. The original post fit the > title well - why draw for half a VP when withdrawing is a whole VP? Well, the > only reason may be because agreeing to draw just happens (as I recall, I really > don't care since it's nigh unto useless as a mechanic) but, important to later > posts, withdrawing requires going through some rigmarole ... if you play it > out. My take was that it isn't worth playing out because the basis for > agreeing to withdraw is a stalemated situation with not a sufficient amount of > time for people to think they will oust anyone. An extra half a VP makes most players feel that it is worth playing out. > When this occurs can vary tremendously, of course. In the case of little time > being left, the savings of not going through the motions is not going through > the motions. Besides being less tedious, when you know you can withdraw with > 30 seconds left or whatever, you can afford to play longer without such an > agreement. Isn't this what people want people to do - play games out as much > as possible? I don't see the connection. In both the non-standard (illegal) method of withdrawing by fiat and the current method, people play out games as much as possible. > In the case that a game is horribly stalemated with a significant amount of > time left, you can produce a faster tournament and, yet again, not have to put > effort into doing something that shouldn't serve any purpose. How is replacing a one or two minute procedure with a 2 second procedure saving anything more than one or two minutes? >>No. I imagine the ousting player used the deal to draw into a key card. >> >>The ousted player may have figured that a 90% chance at a full VP >>was better than a 99.9% chance at a half VP finish (or whatever the >>probabilities were). > > The problem with this example isn't the ousted player agreeing to the deal. > It's that the player able to oust someone in one turn would agree to such a > deal. If someone can take a turn and get a VP, I'm not seeing any basis for a > mutual withdrawal deal. Maybe he can't unless the deal is made first. So he can cycle into his key card (see above). That he wouldn't have been able to before time was called without the deal. > I want to expand on something in the above paragraph that I don't see people > getting. The ousted player should have been ousted anyway. So, he/she lost > nothing by the agreement. A badly conceived mutual withdrawal deal only hurts > people who could do better. No. Without the agreement, the game would've timed out before he would have been ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3F46CEF9...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >Maybe he can't unless the deal is made first. So he can cycle into his >key card (see above). That he wouldn't have been able to before time >was >called without the deal. Quite plausibly, it's not looking for *just* a "key card" anyway. You need to get rid of the master jam (because of a Bleeding the Vine, or something) or the combat jam or something. Of course, sometimes it ends up that you need a key card, but many decks end up in situations where they can't go anywhere without a lot of cycling - which they just did a deal for. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D