Some judge thoughts during the EC

Floppy did most of the hard work of judging, but when I wasn't preparing something, you may have seen me helping him. As always, they were some interesting situations: 1/ "Hey, I thought Anarch Revolt had been errated" Yes, but many players thought they were no longer cumulative. If there is 2 AR in play and you have no anarch, you'll lose 2 pool during your untap. I could correct this in the last minutes of a game (because nobody had noticed it, not even the player who was ousting his prey with it), and I was told that on previous rounds, it had happened also. 2/ "Wait, I think that other player also played 2 Master OOT" The most nightmarish situation arised when I was called for the following misplay: Player A had attempted a rush that was DIed by his grand-prey, player C. His Enkil Cog was also DIed by his predator, E. The funny thing is that E, though controlling Cybele, but tapped, also played a Wash on his predator D, and played an Ashur Tablet when I was called. As they explained me the situation, it appeared that C (who had played a DI on the rush, remember) had also played a Wash on B, his predator, in that same turn. Needless to say, many important things had happened and it couldn't be rewind entirely, but players C and E were penalized and the other players able to retrieve the unduly canceled cards. 3/ "Can I play another ammo?" This one is quite frequent. A Dragon Breath's Round is DIed. The player asks me if he can play another. The answer is yes, since no ammo were "used". 4/ "Can I self-oust?" I was asked twice, and in both cases it was legal. The difficulty lies in knowing if it's dictated by collusion or not. Whether it is fair- play or not is another thing.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll try to complete this list with some (anonymous, since I can't recall who asked them) questions that I was asked during the EC. One of the most striking ones was that I was asked 3 or 4 times to read the updated cardtext of Antediluvian Awakening. I guess Mr. Chatterton's artwork didn't make the up-to-date version more popular :-)

On Nov 15, 5:32 pm, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One of the most striking ones was that I was asked 3 or 4 times to > read the updated cardtext of Antediluvian Awakening. I guess Mr. > Chatterton's artwork didn't make the up-to-date version more > popular :-) Well, the original artwork is, at least to me, more appropriate to atmosphere or feel the card. Thank you guys for running everything so smoothly! -Janne/Lönkka

On Nov 15, 7:18 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2/ "Wait, I think that other player also played 2 Master OOT" > The most nightmarish situation arised when I was called for the > following misplay: > > Player A had attempted a rush that was DIed by his grand-prey, player > C. His Enkil Cog was also DIed by his predator, E. The funny thing is > that E, though controlling Cybele, but tapped, also played a Wash on > his predator D, and played an Ashur Tablet when I was called. > As they explained me the situation, it appeared that C (who had played > a DI on the rush, remember) had also played a Wash on B, his predator, > in that same turn. > Needless to say, many important things had happened and it couldn't be > rewind entirely, but players C and E were penalized and the other > players able to retrieve the unduly canceled cards. How did you penalize players C and E? When the other players retrieved their unduly canceled cards, what happened to the cards they had drawn in the mean time? This is a good case study - please share more details! Thanks, Ira

I'd like to thank the judges for their hard work. All the questions that came up at our tables got quick answers, and things flowed very smoothly. Great job, guys! -Petri

Vincent wrote: > 2/ "Wait, I think that other player also played 2 Master OOT" > The most nightmarish situation arised when I was called for the > following misplay: > > Player A had attempted a rush that was DIed by his grand-prey, > player C. His Enkil Cog was also DIed by his predator, E. The funny > thing is that E, though controlling Cybele, but tapped, also played > a Wash on his predator D, and played an Ashur Tablet when I was > called. As they explained me the situation, it appeared that C (who > had played a DI on the rush, remember) had also played a Wash on B, > his predator, in that same turn. > Needless to say, many important things had happened and it couldn't > be rewind entirely, but players C and E were penalized and the other > players able to retrieve the unduly canceled cards. How were they "penalized"? > 4/ "Can I self-oust?" > I was asked twice, and in both cases it was legal. The difficulty > lies in knowing if it's dictated by collusion or not. Whether it is > fair-play or not is another thing. Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in a final. I'm curious as to what the situation was, but it's probably not worth the ensuing discussion. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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 Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

On Nov 16, 9:13 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in a final. I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. If you're on 2 pool, your grand predator has plenty vampires, your predator is about to die, and all your vampires but a weak one were burned, you're probably in a situation bad enough that you can start considering you're not going to get more than your current result, especially if the time limit is far away. Being in a final or not doesn't seem to be relevant to me, here. Of course, you might think this set-up is somehow extreme. But it actually did happen in a game at the EC in Paris, and, guess what - it was EC Day 2's final. (Erol's decision on turn 14: http://veknfrance.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16261&sid=9f950e73bf2110ab3f35e7e289d7c6fe )

[ quoted text not captured ] As far as I recall, DI and Wash for both players stayed in the ash heap though the cards they had canceled unduly came back in hand, master phase actions on the next turn were lost for them anyway. This penalized a bit more (but more correctly) player E because it was its turn and player C's turn couldn't be rollbacked completly. Player A and D just put back a random card on top of their library since the card they had replaced was long played or forgotten. It's not at all perfect, but I tried to correct as much as possible the mistakes that were done and their consequences.

floppyzedolfin wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in a final. > > I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything from it, since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. In fact, he even ruled it illegal in some situations before the 2008 rules change (where every non-final winner comes in 2nd place), if it was determined that it was Unsportsmanlike Conduct. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 16, 11:04 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in a final. > > > I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. > > LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything from it, > since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. > > In fact, he even ruled it illegal in some situations before the 2008 > rules change (where every non-final winner comes in 2nd place), > if it was determined that it was Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Wow. I'm not sure these were his words ("if you aren't gaining anything from it"). Do you have a quote from him somewhere? I mean, when you transfer out, you're removing yourself from the game, so you can't win anything anymore in the game. Whatever benefits you'd obtain from transferring out would be out of the game, and would thus be out-of-game consideration when pondering whether to transfer out or not. Caution, I'm not saying LSJ's wrong. I'm also trying to find where, in your sentence, transferring out in a final is more illegal than transferring out in a regular game, where it as been declared legal several times (I hope we agree on that one - I could google it if you need some links). Basically, in a final, you either finish first or second. There's no third option. So if you're going to finish second, transferring out is OK as soon as you know you can't get any other VPs. With the previous rules about the finalists not tying for 2nd place, your sentence does have sense. If you stay a bit longer in the game, you might not get more VPs, but since someone else might be ousted, you could improve your final rank. With regards to this rule, transferring out of a final could've been illegal in the ol' times.

floppyzedolfin wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> floppyzedolfin wrote: >>> "Kevin M." wrote: >>>> Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in >>>> a final. >>> >>> I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. >> >> LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything >> from it, since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. >> >> In fact, he even ruled it illegal in some situations before the >> 2008 rules change (where every non-final winner comes in 2nd >> place), if it was determined that it was Unsportsmanlike Conduct. > > Wow. I'm not sure these were his words ("if you aren't gaining > anything from it"). Do you have a quote from him somewhere? I'm probably paraphrasing his words, true. I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find the damn link. He did say it, I'm 100% sure of it, but I can't find it. :P (This indicates that last-second spite self-ousting is illegal, but that's not the link that I was thinking of. LSJ said it explicitly.) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d90a3ec9cc6755a4)TBH I can't think of a reason why the 2008 "every non-final winnercomes in 2nd place" rule would have been created, if not to addressself-ousting in the final. There was a HUGE discussion on the ng(which is easily located on a search) at the end of 2007 where I (andothers) suggested changing the finals to "every non-final winner comesin 2nd place" to at least remove non-PTW self-ousting from the finals,as well as to remove prize-splitting as a consideration from thefinals. Given the 2008 rules changes, LSJ seems to have agreed withthose premises.Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas"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 ChevalierPlease visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

[Renovation of UGLY post, sorry] floppyzedolfin wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> floppyzedolfin wrote: >>> "Kevin M." wrote: >>>> Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in >>>> a final. >>> >>> I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. >> >> LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything >> from it, since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. >> >> In fact, he even ruled it illegal in some situations before the >> 2008 rules change (where every non-final winner comes in 2nd >> place), if it was determined that it was Unsportsmanlike Conduct. > > Wow. I'm not sure these were his words ("if you aren't gaining > anything from it"). Do you have a quote from him somewhere? I'm probably paraphrasing his words, true. I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find the damn link. He did say it, I'm 100% sure of it, but I can't find it. :P http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d90a3ec9cc6755a4 (This indicates that last-second spite self-ousting is illegal, but that's not the link that I was thinking of. LSJ said it explicitly.) TBH I can't think of a reason why the 2008 "every non-final winner comes in 2nd place" rule would have been created, if not to address self-ousting in the final. There was a HUGE discussion on the ng (which is easily located on a search) at the end of 2007 where I (and others) suggested changing the finals to "every non-final winner comes in 2nd place" to at least remove non-PTW self-ousting from the finals, as well as to remove prize-splitting as a consideration from the finals. Given the 2008 rules changes, LSJ seems to have agreed with those premises. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 16, 12:15 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > [Renovation of UGLY post, sorry] > > > > > > > > > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> floppyzedolfin wrote: > >>> "Kevin M." wrote: > >>>> Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in > >>>> a final. > > >>> I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. > > >> LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything > >> from it, since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. > > >> In fact, he even ruled it illegal in some situations before the > >> 2008 rules change (where every non-final winner comes in 2nd > >> place), if it was determined that it was Unsportsmanlike Conduct. > > > Wow. I'm not sure these were his words ("if you aren't gaining > > anything from it"). Do you have a quote from him somewhere? > > I'm probably paraphrasing his words, true. > > I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find the damn link. > He did say it, I'm 100% sure of it, but I can't find it. :P > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d90a... > (This indicates that last-second spite self-ousting is illegal, but > that's not the link that I was thinking of. LSJ said it explicitly.) > > TBH I can't think of a reason why the 2008 "every non-final winner > comes in 2nd place" rule would have been created, if not to address > self-ousting in the final. There was a HUGE discussion on the ng > (which is easily located on a search) at the end of 2007 where I (and > others) suggested changing the finals to "every non-final winner comes > in 2nd place" to at least remove non-PTW self-ousting from the finals, > as well as to remove prize-splitting as a consideration from the > finals. Given the 2008 rules changes, LSJ seems to have agreed with > those premises. Iirc, the discussion followed UK Nats 2007 where Antonio, with reasonably no chance left to win, decided to lose-deal to finish 2nd, and thus thwarting other players' chances of getting the GW. In this game, Antonio was "king-maker" and he played the PTW rule with a lose- deal that had Anthony win. Now, I could be wrong about the source of the discussions, but this discussion might've been a milestone on the way to tying finalists - removing the 3rd, 4th, 5th ranks also removed the lose-deals to avoid finishing 3rd, 4th, 5th. Not sure how this is linked to transfer-outs.

On Nov 16, 12:15 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> floppyzedolfin wrote: > >>> "Kevin M." wrote: > >>>> Since you state it was legal, it must not have happened in > >>>> a final. > > >>> I wonder why transferring out in a final isn't legal. > > >> LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything > >> from it, since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. > > >> In fact, he even ruled it illegal in some situations before the > >> 2008 rules change (where every non-final winner comes in 2nd > >> place), if it was determined that it was Unsportsmanlike Conduct. > > > Wow. I'm not sure these were his words ("if you aren't gaining > > anything from it"). Do you have a quote from him somewhere? > > I'm probably paraphrasing his words, true. > > I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find the damn link. > He did say it, I'm 100% sure of it, but I can't find it. :P I guess we could ask him ;-)

[ quoted text not captured ] > was EC Day 2's final. (Erol's decision on turn 14:http://veknfrance.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16261&sid=9f950e73bf2110a... > ) I think Erol made a great decision there, though he could have used different words. Another thing, to stay related on the topic: There is this PTW rule that causes me a lot of headache. At this years NAC I've seen Ben Peal calling a Judge because he accused Eric Chiang of violating the PTW rule. They were only 3 players left at the table. I followed the table for some turns, here is my conclusion: 1. Eric did nothing forward 2. Eric seemed to give up on going forward entirely 3. But: it was clear that if Eric would go forward he wouldn't be able to defend and be most likely ousted by Ben or at least be seriously hurt. So what now? Are you allowed to give up on gaining a vp and therefore basically violating the PTW rule in order to make sure you won't get ousted yourself? I would say yes, since you are maximizing your VP's, since 0,5 vp is endlessly more than 0 vp. If I am right and you are allowed to play so defensively, than what sense does the PTW rule make? We all no that estimation of table dynamics, players strength, etc. in v:tes is not objective, but very much subjective. How on earth should be a judge be more competent on this than the given player?

> 3/ "Can I play another ammo?" > This one is quite frequent. A Dragon Breath's Round is DIed. The > player asks me if he can play another. The answer is yes, since no > ammo were "used". > Hm, I think that is wrong as on the card is stated that no more than one ammon card can be played on a gun each combat. This prohibits the player to play another DBR after it was DIed. Cardtext: Dragon's Breath Rounds [Combat] Combat Ammo. Only usable before resolution of a gun's strike. This gun inflicts +2 aggravated damage each strike for the remainder of this combat. Burn the gun after strike resolution. No more than one ammo card can be used on a gun each combat.

On 16 Nov., 15:17, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Hmpf. Should be "we all know that.." I am getting tired.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ammos use the word "used", not the word "played". The ruling was correct. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ca7a482ae3143943

On Nov 16, 6:11 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> LSJ has ruled it to be illegal if you aren't gaining anything > >> from it, since every non-final winner comes in 2nd place. > > Wow. I'm not sure these were his words ("if you aren't gaining > > anything from it"). Do you have a quote from him somewhere? > > I'm probably paraphrasing his words, true. > > I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find the damn link. > He did say it, I'm 100% sure of it, but I can't find it. :P http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a04bb3408916bec

[ quoted text not captured ] > correct.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ca7a... Oh, I see. Ah the endless well of clarifications. Thx Erol

[ quoted text not captured ] > was EC Day 2's final. (Erol's decision on turn 14:http://veknfrance.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16261&sid=9f950e73bf2110a... > ) I think it shouldn't have been allowed, it still is giving benefict to other and no benefict to you. An example of a final (A->B->C->D->E->A): - player C was ousted by B - player C 0vp - out of game - player B 1vp - player B is about to oust player D - player E has 2 pool and no minions, has nothing to gain from beeing in the game - player E transfers out, player D gets 1vp - player E 0vp - out of game - player D 1vp - player C 0vp - out of game - player B 1vp - player A 0vp - player B was ousted by A - player E 0vp - out of game - player D 1vp - player C 0vp - out of game - player B 1vp - out of game - player A 1vp As an example, if E didn't selfoust, player B could have oust D and probably E and would probably win the table. With this decision, A or D will win. So selfoust, in my opinion, should always be considered illegal no matter the reason. Cheers Ricardo Marta Prince of Lisboa

On Nov 16, 3:42 pm, Powerlord <powerlord...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it shouldn't have been allowed, it still is giving benefict to > other and no benefict to you. > > An example of a final (A->B->C->D->E->A): > [...] > As an example, if E didn't selfoust, player B could have oust D and > probably E and would probably win the table. With this decision, A or > D will win. > > So selfoust, in my opinion, should always be considered illegal no > matter the reason. That's almost what happened at the EC, but it was more: A has 0, B has 2, E has 0. If E transfers out, B wins. If E doesn't transfer out, A wins. Does E have any chance to win? No. Can E get more VPs? No. Could E transfer out in preliminary rounds? Yes. What forbids E from transfering out in the finals? Indeed, transferring out would be giving some player a benefit, and getting nothing in exchange. The benefit would be his VP. Considering the game was going to end before time limit (which it did), if E doesn't give his VP to a player right now, E would still lose it to some player (might be another player) later in the game, due to his bad position. Ok, now let's have this example: A has 2 VPs. A is top-seed. D is likely to oust E, and would win his duel against A. E doesn't have the ousting power to kill A. And even if that happened, E definitively doesn't have the cards to oust D. A cannot oust D. D is in a winning position, for sure. There's enough time for him to oust both players and get 3 VPs and the GW. So, what happens? A decides to self-oust. This gives E 1 VP, 6 pool. However, E's chances of ousting D aren't increased. D finally ousts E. Results: A 2VP, 1st. 2nd: D (2VPs), E (1VP), B,C (0VP) Without transferring out, A coulnd't win. That was his 0.001% win. Was A's self-osuting legal? It definitively gave him the GW, so I guess that was PTW. If you're asking where I'm getting this nitpicking example, it's a game that happened in Paris (a final, 1 year or so ago).

On Nov 16, 9:42 am, Powerlord <powerlord...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it shouldn't have been allowed, it still is giving benefict to > other and no benefict to you. The question is not one of "no gain" but rather one of "loss". When in a lost position, every action or inaction gives benefit to someone else and no benefit to you. > So selfoust, in my opinion, should always be considered illegal no > matter the reason. Playing at a loss (choosing one course of action or inaction that results, reasonably, in achieving a lower finish that some other action or inaction reasonably results in) is always considered illegal, no matter the reason. Self-ousting can be done if it is reasonably as good as all the other available options.

"floppyzedolfin" wrote: > Without transferring out, A coulnd't win. That was his 0.001% win. > Was A's self-osuting legal? It definitively gave him the GW, so I > guess that was PTW. Which is why I added "gaining anything from it" to what LSJ said. It's obvious, but probably needs to be said, for those few players. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5a04... Well, sorry if I'm narrow-minded, but the way I read this is that it forbids a player with reasonable chance to get more VPs than his current result from self-ousting. That's what the PTW rule says (but I understand it might've been a clarification of the about-to-be-applied new rule). What it doesn't say is that a player with 0% chance of getting more VPs can't self-oust during a final.

"LSJ" wrote: > Playing at a loss (choosing one course of action or inaction that > results, reasonably, in achieving a lower finish that some other > action or inaction reasonably results in) is always considered > illegal, no matter the reason. If I were judging, and I was called by the other players to consider the "bad" play of a player, and the player when taken aside explained to me that his plan was to play "badly" in order to obtain VPs, I'd allow him to continue. Why shouldn't I? Or is this going to be one of those "Then he wasn't playing badly" trickerations that you are going to pull on me? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 16, 4:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > If I were judging, and I was called by the other players to consider > the "bad" play of a player, and the player when taken aside explained > to me that his plan was to play "badly" in order to obtain VPs, I'd > allow him to continue. Why shouldn't I? That sort of one of the calls I got. A player summons me at their table, and here's what's happening: A player has declared that he is very likely to transfer out during his next influence phase. After having a quick look at what was happening at the table, I had to declare that self-ousting would be illegal with this table configuration at that time. The player later came to me and explained he was only trying to threaten the other players so that they would put some pressure one someone. The player didn't intent to transfer out, and he was aware that his chances of getting more VPs weren't 0. That the player had no intent of self-ousting was also my opinion, but regardless, his chances were significantly not zero.

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct, as far as it goes. But note that there is some space your post didn't address: the space between reasonable chance and zero chance.

On Nov 16, 10:43 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > "LSJ" wrote: > > Playing at a loss (choosing one course of action or inaction that > > results, reasonably, in achieving a lower finish that some other > > action or inaction reasonably results in) is always considered > > illegal, no matter the reason. > > If I were judging, and I was called by the other players to consider > the "bad" play of a player, and the player when taken aside explained > to me that his plan was to play "badly" in order to obtain VPs, I'd > allow him to continue. Why shouldn't I? Playing at a loss is, by definition, not playing to obtain VPs (or, in rare instances, playing for fewer VPs than one can reasonably get). If, after his explanation of how he's not playing at a loss after all, you judge that he's not playing at a loss, then of course you allow him to continue playing not-at-a-loss. Same as any other time a judge is called over: if the rules haven't actually been broken, then you allow play to continue as it was.

[ quoted text not captured ] Entirely agreed. Would this still be correct: "A player who has no reasonable chance of getting more VPs than what he has is considered in a lost position (and can thus decide how his gets his final result, including self-ousting)." ? Now, of course, the fuzziness of "reasonable" remains...

[ quoted text not captured ] That is exactly the point addressed in the cited article. The other point addressed in many articles is that finalists are assumed to be playing to win regardless, barring other illegal activity like bribery.

On Nov 16, 8:17 am, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another thing, to stay related on the topic: > > There is this PTW rule that causes me a lot of headache. At this years > NAC I've seen Ben Peal calling a Judge because he accused Eric Chiang > of violating the PTW rule. They were only 3 players left at the table. > I followed the table for some turns, here is my conclusion: > > 1. Eric did nothing forward > 2. Eric seemed to give up on going forward entirely > 3. But: it was clear that if Eric would go forward he wouldn't be able > to defend and be most likely ousted by Ben or at least be seriously > hurt. > > So what now? Are you allowed to give up on gaining a vp and therefore > basically violating the PTW rule in order to make sure you won't get > ousted yourself? I would say yes, since you are maximizing your VP's, > since 0,5 vp is endlessly more than 0 vp. > > If I am right and you are allowed to play so defensively, than what > sense does the PTW rule make? We all no that estimation of table > dynamics, players strength, etc. in v:tes is not objective, but very > much subjective. How on earth should be a judge be more competent on > this than the given player? Yeah, my options seemed to be: 1.) Go forward and then get ousted by my predator 2.) Play defensively (not going forward, but not getting ousted) until the table situation changed enough that I might begin to go forward again And for your information, after getting a lot of heckling from the other remaining 2 players, I did end up going forward, and got promptly ousted by my predator (Ben). Surprise, surprise. Another very relevant factor is that that game was a Limited game, meaning pool gain is in short supply, and you are unlikely to have many Wakes (i.e. you can't tap out and still expect to reasonably defend). In addition, with a smaller (and more restricted) library, your resources are far more limited (in terms of going forward or surviving).

[ quoted text not captured ] 3 players are left in a table in a Final. One of them is in a lost position. If he self ousts, his Predator wins. If he doesn't he is giving a chance for his Prey to win, because the Predator will have to use resources and time to both defend and oust the player in the lost position. Can a Judge stop the player in the lost position from self-ousting? I would like to be able to do it, for the health of the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, occasionally transferring out can get you the win (especially if you are of a higher seed): A --> B --> C --> D --> E A ousts B and C, so now it's: A --> D --> E A and E have no vampires left (and are unlikely to influence out more). D is simply pounding on E and will oust E soon. If A does nothing, D will get the rest of the table (3 VP's). If A transfers out, then E is still going to get ousted by D, but it will be a 2-2-1 split, so if A is top seed (or higher than D) than it could be good for him to self-oust. One potential hiccup is that if by self-ousting, A ensures that D cannot win, there is a chance that D could self-oust (or allow himself to be ousted) out of spite, allowing E (with no minions and almost no pool) to win the game with 3 VP's. This is a bit of an odd situation because even though D is in a strong position in the game, he has actually already lost the game (though he is still in it) because there is no reasonable way he can win. (Well, I suppose hypothetically E could "let" D still win the game if E has Gambit Accepted in his deck). In contrast, if E knows he's not going to win (no minions and minimal pool) and 1 VP is not going to be enough to win, the "everyone comes in 2nd" rule means it doesn't matter if he's 2nd with 1 VP or 2nd with 0 VP. So if he's sufficiently pissed at A (for ruining his game, or for being too manipulative), and would prefer that D win (instead of A), E could play Gambit Accepted and still allow D to win the game. In either scenario, D or E has already lost the game. (The only chance at winning is if the other player decides to self-oust and spite Player A, and that is certainly not a "reasonable chance" at winning. On a similar note, if your only chance at winning is for everyone else at the table to get disqualified or to drop dead, thereby forfeiting, I don't consider that a "reasonable chance" either.)

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Two reasons: He's in a lost position, so he has no better option. He's in a final (and no other illegal activity is going on), so he's assumed to be PTW.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think players who are in a lost position shouldn't have the power to decide who wins a tournament. That is the only problem I see in this. Maybe more problems would rise if you ban self oust in lost positions during Finals. I'm sure you thought about it already before the change in rules. Tiago

[ quoted text not captured ] If a player can choose who wins the tournament by self-ousting, this usually means that he's in very bad shape (less than 4), probably due to his or her predator activity (or bad play from another player). If xe self-oust, he aknowledges just the fact that his predator got him. If xe doesn't self oust and his predator doesn't manage to kill him, he aknowledges the fact that his predator wasn't strong enough to win his vp (and doesn't deserve to win). It doesn't change much for me.

On Nov 16, 2:29 pm, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think players who are in a lost position shouldn't have the power to > decide who wins a tournament. It is unavoidable -- the player in the lost position cannot be simply vanished; xey has to play out xeir game in accordance with the game mechanics given in the rules. > That is the only problem I see in this. Playing the game, even by taking transfers, is not exactly a problem. > Maybe more problems would rise if you ban self oust in lost positions > during Finals. I'm sure you thought about it already before the change > in rules. Such a rule cannot be properly brought into existence. Players are clever.

On Nov 16, 7:52 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 16, 4:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > If I were judging, and I was called by the other players to consider > > the "bad" play of a player, and the player when taken aside explained > > to me that his plan was to play "badly" in order to obtain VPs, I'd > > allow him to continue. Why shouldn't I? > > That sort of one of the calls I got. > > A player summons me at their table, and here's what's happening: > A player has declared that he is very likely to transfer out during > his next influence phase. > After having a quick look at what was happening at the table, I had to > declare that self-ousting would be illegal with this table > configuration at that time. My understanding is that you should not have declared this information to the table. Instead, you should have remained quiet and only prevented illegal action from occurring. Talking about self-ousting when in a non-lost position is completely legal. Actually self-ousting is the illegal thing that the judge should prevent. This is relevant in the situation above (probably no consequences) and this situation: 5 player game. Player A offers to Player B "help me oust my prey, and then I'll self-oust." Player's C, D, and E complain that Player A couldn't legally self-oust after that because he has reasonable chances at more than 1 VP now. Judge is called over. Should the judge announce to the table whether or not it would be a legal deal? No! If Player A attempts to actually *DO* non-PTW activities at any point and claims it's honoring a legally made deal, then the judge can put a stop to it if the deal wasn't legal. Talking about doing things is totally fine, and making unenforceable deals is also fine. If a judge can be called over at any time and announce publicly whether or not a deal is enforceable, that removes some backstabbing opportunities, which isn't the place of a judge. Instead, the judge should only act when necessary - ie. when an illegal action is actually about to happen. Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > On Nov 16, 7:52 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 16, 4:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> >> > If I were judging, and I was called by the other players to consider >> > the "bad" play of a player, and the player when taken aside explained >> > to me that his plan was to play "badly" in order to obtain VPs, I'd >> > allow him to continue. Why shouldn't I? >> >> That sort of one of the calls I got. >> >> A player summons me at their table, and here's what's happening: >> A player has declared that he is very likely to transfer out during >> his next influence phase. >> After having a quick look at what was happening at the table, I had to >> declare that self-ousting would be illegal with this table >> configuration at that time. > > My understanding is that you should not have declared this information > to the table. I disagree. Unless, perhaps, the call involved use of non-public information, such as the player's hands. If it could be determined that the play would be illegal purely from cards on the table, then the judge should be able, and in fact should be required, to announce that publically. > If a judge can be called over at any time and announce publicly > whether or not a deal is enforceable, that removes some backstabbing > opportunities, which isn't the place of a judge. Instead, the judge > should only act when necessary - ie. when an illegal action is > actually about to happen. I'd prefer deals not be made on the back of (threatened) self-ousting, even if the self ousting is illegal and won't actually happen. Isn't that the intent of the PTW rule, to reduce irritating self-oust deals? If they're still happening anyway, purely because some players at the table are unaware that the self-oust would actually be illegal, then you're giving some players an advantage over others based on a judge ruling. Which doesn't seem fair to me. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] No. > If they're > still happening anyway, purely because some players at the table are unaware > that the self-oust would actually be illegal, then you're giving some > players an advantage over others based on a judge ruling. Which doesn't seem > fair to me. If the basis of determining if the player is in a lost position involves hidden information (e.g., cards in that player's hand or deck), then yes, it should be secret. Disclosing that would mean divulging some of the hidden information, which would not be fair.

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Just a happy side effect then? :) >> If they're >> still happening anyway, purely because some players at the table are >> unaware that the self-oust would actually be illegal, then you're giving >> some players an advantage over others based on a judge ruling. Which >> doesn't seem fair to me. > > If the basis of determining if the player is in a lost position > involves hidden information (e.g., cards in that player's hand or > deck), then yes, it should be secret. Disclosing that would mean > divulging some of the hidden information, which would not be fair. I think I covered that above with "I disagree. Unless, perhaps, the call involved use of non-public information, such as the player's hands. " Which is fair enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 16, 5:31 pm, salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 16, 7:52 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 16, 4:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > >> > If I were judging, and I was called by the other players to consider > >> > the "bad" play of a player, and the player when taken aside explained > >> > to me that his plan was to play "badly" in order to obtain VPs, I'd > >> > allow him to continue. Why shouldn't I? > > >> That sort of one of the calls I got. > > >> A player summons me at their table, and here's what's happening: > >> A player has declared that he is very likely to transfer out during > >> his next influence phase. > >> After having a quick look at what was happening at the table, I had to > >> declare that self-ousting would be illegal with this table > >> configuration at that time. > > > My understanding is that you should not have declared this information > > to the table. > > I disagree. Unless, perhaps, the call involved use of non-public > information, such as the player's hands. If it could be determined that the > play would be illegal purely from cards on the table, then the judge should > be able, and in fact should be required, to announce that publically. I'm glad to have this discussion and this example. I posted specifically because when I learned this, I had the same reaction as you, Salem. Based on my understanding of what LSJ wrote on this topic, the precise reason why the judge shouldn't answer publicly is because of hidden information. Also, if the policy is that judge answers when there is "enough" public information, refusing to answer in some circumstances gives away information. Therefore, the correct policy is that the judge never answers publicly and instead only stops illegal plays, or clarifies to player privately whether or not a future action would be legal for that player only (not some other player.) I can know for certain from the judge if I can honor my deal, but other players can't know. For example: 5 player game. Player A says to Player B, "Help me oust my prey, and then I'll self-oust." Players C, D, and E object. Player A calls over the judge and asks if the deal will be legal. Judge answers in private. Player A announces, "The judge just confirmed with me this will be a legally made deal, and I will be able to keep it." Players C, D, and E say, "Player A is a backstabbing liar and you shouldn't believe him!" Player B has to decide who to believe. The example above is interesting and fun for many players. If instead the judge announced to the table that Player A's deal would be legal or illegal, the strategic backstabbing possibilities are reduced, and presumably fun (which should be a primary goal of game design and these rulings, IMO.) I hope that LSJ will correct me if I've misunderstood anything. Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That example freaks me out. I kind of hold judge rulings in the same basket as, you know, pool totals or number of cards in hand. If someone lies about those, they'd be penalised. But they're ok to lie about a judge ruling? it just seems scary. I can see how it might be fun, but I also see how it might be unfun at the point where, say, it was player B who called the judge over. Player B gets the ok (HE's allowed to make the deal, as let's imagine A is his prey, so it's all good for him). But say that for A it would be illegal to self oust. But A never asked the judge. Then at the time A goes to self oust, the judge steps in and says 'nope, no self oust for you. at the time you made the deal, you could reasonably get more vps than the 1 you made the deal for' (say his prey was so stuffed he didn't actually need B's help, and his grand prey was similarly stuffed). what then? [ quoted text not captured ]

Brum <tiago...@gmail.com> wrote: >I think players who are in a lost position shouldn't have the power to >decide who wins a tournament. By self-ousting, he grants the win to player X. By not self-ousting, he grants the win to player Y. He doesn't self-oust, but plays Malkavian Dementia on a copy of Zebulon who is in torpor with zero blood. He doesn't rescue him (he can't), but doing this grants the win to player Z. You are, arbitrarily, blocking one of these actions but not the others - yet the same player is deciding who wins a tournament. All of these things, and more, can be done by players in a lost position. They can all determine who wins the tournament. King-making of this kind is inevitably found in pretty much every complex multi- player game. If players on a table find it problematic that a lost position causes certain issues for their advancement, perhaps they should prevent a lost position from occuring - right up until they kill the relevant Methuselah. Rescuing that vampire cross-table may let someone hold on until they can pull Villein. Lending someone your votes so they can pass a Con Boon. Bouncing a bleed to your grand-predator, not your prey. Or whatever else might be appropriate. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Nov 17, 12:27 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 16, 7:52 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A player summons me at their table, and here's what's happening: > > A player has declared that he is very likely to transfer out during > > his next influence phase. > > After having a quick look at what was happening at the table, I had to > > declare that self-ousting would be illegal with this table > > configuration at that time. > > My understanding is that you should not have declared this information > to the table. The question was publicly asked by a person who was not the one who'd transfer out. The question was: "Could that player transfer out right now?" (we were during the influence phase of the player who threatened to self-oust on next turn) Using public information (since the question wasn't asked by the guy who was threatening to transfer out), the answer was "No. He could probably get more VPs than what his current result is, given that the remaining time is: ..." (remaining time was public information, and time announcements were made throughout the games). That question was - to me - just like if I had been called because of a player wanting to know if a Sabbat Vampire who had played a Forced Awakening could be tapped and(*) enter combat with the acting vampire via Yawp Court. ((*)cardtext of Yawp Court is "tap to..") It's not correcting an illegal state, it's answering a question that could lead to an illegal state. > Instead, you should have remained quiet and only prevented illegal > action from occurring. Talking about self-ousting when in a non-lost > position is completely legal. Actually self-ousting is the illegal > thing that the judge should prevent. Hm. I really don't like that one. Suppose the player calls you, asks you "Can I transfer out?", you give no answer. Then, the player decides that he can transfer out, so he messes the game up (Anarchist Uprising, steals the Rack, takes the PB: Montreal, diablerizes instead of rescuing, performs suicide actions, wastes cards "bleed with goven the unaligned, daring the dawn, conditioning, too bad if I'm deflected"), because his assumption is that you didn't say "Can't." Then, during the influence phase, you come over and start explaining that, given the current situation, the player can't transfer out. Now what? The whole game has changed. The player has spent cards he could've saved to get even more VPs. Also, important fact: A player can only transfer out when he has no reasonable chance of getting more VPs. "Reasonable" requires someone's judgment. Sometimes, players want to make sure that the judge is OK with their estimation of that "reasonable". > This is relevant in the situation above (probably no consequences) and > this situation: > 5 player game. Player A offers to Player B "help me oust my prey, and > then I'll self-oust." Player's C, D, and E complain that Player A > couldn't legally self-oust after that because he has reasonable > chances at more than 1 VP now. Judge is called over. Should the > judge announce to the table whether or not it would be a legal deal? > No! Well, is A respecting the PTW rule? If A isn't, the deal isn't legal and can't be made. Otherwise, it can. "The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the *best* interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. " > If Player A attempts to actually *DO* non-PTW activities at any point > and claims it's honoring a legally made deal, then the judge can put a > stop to it if the deal wasn't legal. If the player is respecting the deal, then I'm not sure a judge could stop these activities (same quote as above). If the deal wasn't legal, I wouldn't call it a deal :-) > Talking about doing things is > totally fine, and making unenforceable deals is also fine. > > If a judge can be called over at any time and announce publicly > whether or not a deal is enforceable, that removes some backstabbing > opportunities, which isn't the place of a judge. Instead, the judge > should only act when necessary - ie. when an illegal action is > actually about to happen. > > Ira Maybe that works if you're judging a 5-table tournament and you can keep an eye at what's happening on each of the 5 tables. That doesn't work with 37 tables. Please not that I'm not saying that I've been called on all deals. I have been called on deals 4-5 times during the whole week-end of the EC (approx 300 tables). Somehow, I'm pretty sure some deals (and some backstabbing) were done without consentment. The players who called me wanted to be sure that they were respecting the PTW rule with their deal (or that the guys dealing were respecting the PTW rule).

On Nov 17, 12:56 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 17, 12:27 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 7:52 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A player summons me at their table, and here's what's happening: > > > A player has declared that he is very likely to transfer out during > > > his next influence phase. > > > After having a quick look at what was happening at the table, I had to > > > declare that self-ousting would be illegal with this table > > > configuration at that time. > > > My understanding is that you should not have declared this information > > to the table. > > The question was publicly asked by a person who was not the one who'd > transfer out. > The question was: "Could that player transfer out right now?" (we were > during the influence phase of the player who threatened to self-oust > on next turn) If we're in the influence phase, I'm fine answering whether or not an immediate action right now would be illegal. That is a different example than the one I gave, which involved publicly revealing whether or not a deal was legal. > > Instead, you should have remained quiet and only prevented illegal > > action from occurring. Talking about self-ousting when in a non-lost > > position is completely legal. Actually self-ousting is the illegal > > thing that the judge should prevent. > > Hm. I really don't like that one. > Suppose the player calls you, asks you "Can I transfer out?", you give > no answer. You misunderstood me. If Player A wants to know if Player A can honor a deal, I will tell him privately. If Player B wants to know if Player A can honor a deal, I believe judges are not supposed to reveal that information publicly. > Then, the player decides that he can transfer out, so he > messes the game up (Anarchist Uprising, steals the Rack, takes the PB: > Montreal, diablerizes instead of rescuing, performs suicide actions, > wastes cards "bleed with goven the unaligned, daring the dawn, > conditioning, too bad if I'm deflected"), because his assumption is > that you didn't say "Can't." Is playing Anarchist Uprising PTW? If so, that's fine. If not, I will stop the illegal play immediately. That applies to every action. > Also, important fact: A player can only transfer out when he has no > reasonable chance of getting more VPs. "Reasonable" requires someone's > judgment. Sometimes, players want to make sure that the judge is OK > with their estimation of that "reasonable". Totally agreed, with the additional point that a player can also transfer out if they already have the GW. If Player A asks me if he can honor his deal, I will answer privately. If Player B asks me if Player A can honor his deal, I believe that no judge should answer. > > This is relevant in the situation above (probably no consequences) and > > this situation: > > 5 player game. Player A offers to Player B "help me oust my prey, and > > then I'll self-oust." Player's C, D, and E complain that Player A > > couldn't legally self-oust after that because he has reasonable > > chances at more than 1 VP now. Judge is called over. Should the > > judge announce to the table whether or not it would be a legal deal? > > No! > > Well, is A respecting the PTW rule? If A isn't, the deal isn't legal > and can't be made. > Otherwise, it can. An illegal deal can be made, it just can't be honored. That is a valid strategy. Maybe Player A thinks the best way to get his sweep is to make an illegal deal with B and then not honor it. > > If Player A attempts to actually *DO* non-PTW activities at any point > > and claims it's honoring a legally made deal, then the judge can put a > > stop to it if the deal wasn't legal. > > If the player is respecting the deal, then I'm not sure a judge could > stop these activities > (same quote as above). If the deal wasn't legal, I wouldn't call it a > deal :-) I guess it depends on your definition of a deal. If Player A says, "I will self-oust if you help me get 1 VP" and Player B agrees, I would personally call that a deal even if Player A can't legally honor the deal. Consider the absurd example of Player A saying, "If you help me get 1 VP, you can take 30 pool from the blood bank." Player A can say this, and Player B can agree to it. They can say whatever they want, and as a judge, I will not stop them from saying that or agreeing to the deal. Once A gets a VP and B tries to take 30 pool from the blood bank, then I will stop them because that is the illegal play. > Maybe that works if you're judging a 5-table tournament and you can > keep an eye at what's happening on each of the 5 tables. > That doesn't work with 37 tables. My understanding is that correct judging means that you do not publicly reveal the validity of the deal to all players. You can answer a question privately "Will I be able to honor this deal?" But you don't answer, "Will this other player be able to honor the deal?" That policy works however many tables are at the tournament - whenever you are asked, you simply answer in private to a player asking about his own ability to honor a deal, or not at all to a player asking about someone else's ability to honor a deal. I hope this makes my understanding of the judging rules clear. Perhaps my understanding is flawed, and I hope LSJ will jump in if I've said anything incorrect. Ira

On Nov 17, 11:35 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 17, 12:56 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The question was: "Could that player transfer out right now?" (we were > > during the influence phase of the player who threatened to self-oust > > on next turn) > > If we're in the influence phase, I'm fine answering whether or not an > immediate action right now would be illegal. So you're basically answering a question regarding an action that hasn't happened yet. The fact that you're answering with indicative rather than conditional ("You can't do that" / "Right now, it would be illegal..." ) doesn't seem to be a great difference. So, answering in advance to a question seems fair. If a player asks you "My minion phase is almost over, with this state of the game, could I self-oust during my influence phase?" are you going to remain silent? > That is a different > example than the one I gave, which involved publicly revealing whether > or not a deal was legal. I consider that anything that would have a player break the PTW rule should be made public (which means: if a deal is legal, it has to be announced to the table. If a deal is not legal, it cannot be made - and if the question was asked publicly, the answer should be given publicly) > > > Instead, you should have remained quiet and only prevented illegal > > > action from occurring. Talking about self-ousting when in a non-lost > > > position is completely legal. Actually self-ousting is the illegal > > > thing that the judge should prevent. > > > Hm. I really don't like that one. > > Suppose the player calls you, asks you "Can I transfer out?", you give > > no answer. > > You misunderstood me. If Player A wants to know if Player A can honor > a deal, I will tell him privately. If Player B wants to know if > Player A can honor a deal, I believe judges are not supposed to reveal > that information publicly. If there's a deal, both players can honor it. Otherwise, the deal wasn't legal in the beginning and shouldn't be called so. If something has happened that makes the deal invalid (someone else got a VP), then probably the offer should be reexamined by the players (who might end up with a new deal). > > Then, the player decides that he can transfer out, so he > > messes the game up (Anarchist Uprising, steals the Rack, takes the PB: > > Montreal, diablerizes instead of rescuing, performs suicide actions, > > wastes cards "bleed with goven the unaligned, daring the dawn, > > conditioning, too bad if I'm deflected"), because his assumption is > > that you didn't say "Can't." > > Is playing Anarchist Uprising PTW? If so, that's fine. If not, I > will stop the illegal play immediately. That applies to every action. I don't get why you wouldn't answer the question in the first place. You wouldn't have to check the actions of the player, because you know he's been given the confirmation this his situation is a lost- position / isn't a lost-position. > > Also, important fact: A player can only transfer out when he has no > > reasonable chance of getting more VPs. "Reasonable" requires someone's > > judgment. Sometimes, players want to make sure that the judge is OK > > with their estimation of that "reasonable". > > Totally agreed, with the additional point that a player can also > transfer out if they already have the GW. > > If Player A asks me if he can honor his deal, I will answer > privately. If Player B asks me if Player A can honor his deal, I > believe that no judge should answer. Again, if they can't honor the deal, then either the deal was illegal, or something happened that makes the deal invalid (someone else got a VP). > An illegal deal can be made, it just can't be honored. That is a > valid strategy. Maybe Player A thinks the best way to get his sweep > is to make an illegal deal with B and then not honor it. I disagree with this. See below for more. > > > If Player A attempts to actually *DO* non-PTW activities at any point > > > and claims it's honoring a legally made deal, then the judge can put a > > > stop to it if the deal wasn't legal. > > > If the player is respecting the deal, then I'm not sure a judge could > > stop these activities > > (same quote as above). If the deal wasn't legal, I wouldn't call it a > > deal :-) > > I guess it depends on your definition of a deal. If Player A says, "I > will self-oust if you help me get 1 VP" and Player B agrees, I would > personally call that a deal even if Player A can't legally honor the > deal. By "deal" I mean an agreement two or more players reach, regarding actions undertaken, cards played or not played, votes in favor / against, eventually table splits / VPs assignation, etc. in which the best interests of each player involved are reached. I will quote the Tournaments Rule's definition of deal: [quote] Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course). [/quote] Deals that don't reprensent the best interests of the players involved shouldn't be allowed (== "declared illegal"). Illegal deals can't be made (since they're illegal). Illegal deals can be offered, but players can't accept them. In order to know if a proposition is a legal deal or not, a judge could be called. If one of the terms of the deal can't be honored anymore (for instance, a table was split 3-2, and another player ousted her prey), I suggest players reconsider the deal. In your example, if player A can't legally honor the deal when it would be made, then the deal can't be made - and it ceases to be a deal. > > Consider the absurd example of Player A saying, "If you help me get 1 > VP, you can take 30 pool from the blood bank." Player A can say this, > and Player B can agree to it. They can say whatever they want, and as > a judge, I will not stop them from saying that or agreeing to the > deal. Once A gets a VP and B tries to take 30 pool from the blood > bank, then I will stop them because that is the illegal play. That's too absurd for me :) They can indeed say whatever they want. However, if I am called to declare this deal legal or illegal, I will remind that, unless a card, rule, or judge tells a player to take 30 pool from the blood bank, she can't take 30 pool from the blood bank. These terms are not legal play. > > Maybe that works if you're judging a 5-table tournament and you can > > keep an eye at what's happening on each of the 5 tables. > > That doesn't work with 37 tables. > > My understanding is that correct judging means that you do not > publicly reveal the validity of the deal to all players. I disagree. Some deals can end up with a player not respecting the PTW rule (for instance: a 3-2 deal). In such cases, here's an example: A and D agree on a 2-3 deal. The judge declares the deal legal to A and D. A ousts his prey, and then starts smashing down D's prey. D's prey is a bit worried and calls a judge. Judges says (privately?) that A and D have a deal, so that's OK for A to crush D's prey. Had the information been public from start, D's prey would've played differently - a counter-deal could've been done by the other players. Deals should be made publicly, and validation / invalidation of deals should be made publicly. Explanation on why a deal isn't legal can be done privately, I agree. > You can > answer a question privately "Will I be able to honor this deal?" But > you don't answer, "Will this other player be able to honor the deal?" Agreed. > That policy works however many tables are at the tournament - whenever > you are asked, you simply answer in private to a player asking about > his own ability to honor a deal, or not at all to a player asking > about someone else's ability to honor a deal. If the deal exists, then there's no question to ask about how to honor the deal (restrictions on "if the deal exists" were given above). If the deal doesn't exist yet, then this question is perfectly valid (and could end up with players making a deal). If asked privately, it should be answered privately. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] This is in the same boat as making deals. Table talk is not covered or regulated by the rules. The judge ruling is: the talk is not enforced by the game. Since no other activity is happening at the time, no ruling is needed at all. The judge may also remind players of the rule: if the talked-about activity (say, self-ousting) is PTW when the time comes to do it, then it can be done. If a deal is being made (with or without mentioning the possibility of future self-ousting), the judge can remind players that if the deal is PTW when it is made, it can be honored later, even if the honoring activity is not in itself PTW. Then, when it comes time for the player to actively or passively self- oust or to actively or passively honor the deal in a not-in-itself-PTW way (that is, the player has to play at a loss in order to honor the deal), the judge can be called over to confirm that it is legal (that is, that the self-ousting is PTW / that the deal was PTW when it was made). > it just seems scary. I can see how it might be fun, but I also see how it > might be unfun at the point where, say, it was player B who called the judge > over. Player B gets the ok (HE's allowed to make the deal, as let's imagine > A is his prey, so it's all good for him). But say that for A it would be > illegal to self oust. But A never asked the judge. Then at the time A goes > to self oust, the judge steps in and says 'nope, no self oust for you. at > the time you made the deal, you could reasonably get more vps than the 1 you > made the deal for' (say his prey was so stuffed he didn't actually need B's > help, and his grand prey was similarly stuffed). > > what then? If the deal was not PTW, then it won't enable self-ousting in violation of PTW. If the self-ousting is still PTW when the time comes to do it (the player is in a lost position), then it can still be done. If not, then it is prohibited, by the rules. Players are not allowed to waive the rules.

floppyzedolfin wrote: > I consider that anything that would have a player break the PTW rule > should be made public (which means: if a deal is legal, it has to be > announced to the table. If a deal is not legal, it cannot be made - > and if the question was asked publicly, the answer should be given > publicly) This is absolutely incorrect. You can make any deal you want, you can SAY anything you want -- on the basis that you are planning betrayal, obv. You just can't TAKE any action you want -- that's a PTW issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 17, 4:47 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > I consider that anything that would have a player break the PTW rule > > should be made public (which means: if a deal is legal, it has to be > > announced to the table. If a deal is not legal, it cannot be made - > > and if the question was asked publicly, the answer should be given > > publicly) > > This is absolutely incorrect. You can make any deal you want, you can > SAY anything you want -- on the basis that you are planning betrayal, > obv. You just can't TAKE any action you want -- that's a PTW issue. I agree completely about talking about anything (and even mentionning non PTW things such as the colour of the sky) But.. are you saying that making a deal in which I don't get my best interests is OK? Because, then, the rules allow me to honor that deal. For instance, in which part of your argumentation is this not OK: Turn 1 : "Hey, predator, here's a deal: I self oust." Maybe we don't concur on the definition of "deal".

El 17/11/2010 16:55, floppyzedolfin escribió: > On Nov 17, 4:47 pm, "Kevin M."<youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> floppyzedolfin wrote: >>> I consider that anything that would have a player break the PTW rule >>> should be made public (which means: if a deal is legal, it has to be >>> announced to the table. If a deal is not legal, it cannot be made - >>> and if the question was asked publicly, the answer should be given >>> publicly) >> >> This is absolutely incorrect. You can make any deal you want, you can >> SAY anything you want -- on the basis that you are planning betrayal, >> obv. You just can't TAKE any action you want -- that's a PTW issue. > > I agree completely about talking about anything (and even mentionning > non PTW things such as the colour of the sky) > But.. are you saying that making a deal in which I don't get my best > interests is OK? It is OK as long as you plan not to keep that deal. Making an illegal deal is legal. What is illegal is honoring an illegal deal. [...] -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

On Nov 17, 5:51 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > El 17/11/2010 16:55, floppyzedolfin escribió: > > But.. are you saying that making a deal in which I don't get my best > > interests is OK? > > It is OK as long as you plan not to keep that deal. Making an illegal > deal is legal. What is illegal is honoring an illegal deal. > Damnans Right. I see I have to change my definition of "deal" :-) A deal could be a legal deal (which has the definition I had for "deal" previously - an agreement in which each player involved gets the biggest part of the cake they could get) or illegal (which, basically, would be anything else). Now we have "legal" deals, that can enforce the PTW rule (in a way that, when made, they represent the best interests of the involved players), and illegal deals, which don't allow to enforce the PTW rule. What does an illegal deal allow me to do? Nothing more than the absence of that deal would allow. So, in the end, what's the point in making illegal deals, since you can get nothing of it?

[ quoted text not captured ] What is the point of telling a deliberate obvious falsehood? Maybe someone might get confused by it and change their plan to something that hurts them.

On Nov 17, 9:12 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > If players on a table find it problematic that a lost position causes > certain issues for their advancement, perhaps they should prevent a lost > position from occurring - right up until they kill the relevant > Methuselah. Rescuing that vampire cross-table may let someone hold on > until they can pull Villein. Lending someone your votes so they can > pass a Con Boon. Bouncing a bleed to your grand-predator, not your > prey. Or whatever else might be appropriate. This post is so good I'm replying to it so all those people confused about play to win and king making issues read it again. Once a player is in a losing or weak position it becomes a lot harder to predict what they're going to do. If they can do things which can screw your game, prevention being the best cure and all that, you'll need to try and prevent that happening before it gets to that stage rather than getting annoyed by it when happens. Simon

James Coupe wrote: > Brum <tiago...@gmail.com> wrote: >>I think players who are in a lost position shouldn't have the power to >>decide who wins a tournament. > > By self-ousting, he grants the win to player X. > > By not self-ousting, he grants the win to player Y. > > He doesn't self-oust, but plays Malkavian Dementia on a copy of Zebulon > who is in torpor with zero blood. He doesn't rescue him (he can't), but > doing this grants the win to player Z. > > You are, arbitrarily, blocking one of these actions but not the others - > yet the same player is deciding who wins a tournament. > > > All of these things, and more, can be done by players in a lost > position. They can all determine who wins the tournament. King-making > of this kind is inevitably found in pretty much every complex multi- > player game. I think this is what a lot of the anti self-ouster people fail to grasp. Not self ousting can help someone else just as much a self ousting. The player should be able to choose who to help and who to hinder. [ quoted text not captured ]

floppyzedolfin wrote: > What does an illegal deal allow me to do? Nothing more than the > absence of that deal would allow. So, in the end, what's the point > in making illegal deals, since you can get nothing of it? The obvious reason: To mess with the other player's heads. Twice, I've seen two different players agree to "illegal" deals, which I as a judge allowed, and then the table attitude shifted, alliances adjusted, and the players in-question got the GW. Some players' skills are more equal than others'. [ quoted text not captured ]

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > What is the point of telling a deliberate obvious falsehood? The obvious reason: To mess with the other player's heads. Twice, I've seen two different players agree to "illegal" deals, which I as a judge allowed, and then the table attitude shifted, alliances adjusted, and the players in-question got the GW. Some players' skills are more equal than others'. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 nov, 23:18, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > What does an illegal deal allow me to do? Nothing more than the > > absence of that deal would allow. So, in the end, what's the point > > in making illegal deals, since you can get nothing of it? > > The obvious reason: To mess with the other player's heads. > > Twice, I've seen two different players agree to "illegal" deals, > which I as a judge allowed, and then the table attitude shifted, > alliances adjusted, and the players in-question got the GW. I'm not sure I'd call 'illegal' a deal where one of the player gets the gamewin. Especially not if the dealmate gets VPs.

On Nov 17, 4:50 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 17, 11:35 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My understanding is that correct judging means that you do not > > publicly reveal the validity of the deal to all players. > > I disagree. LSJ, can you clarify this issue? Please share any information you think would be illuminating to us and help us be better judges. If that's too general a request, please answer these questions: 5 player game. Player A offers Player B, "Help me oust my prey, then I will oust myself." Player A wants to know if the deal is legal (and thus will be able to violate PTW later). Should the judge answer in public, private, or not at all? Player B wants to know that same information (i.e. can Player A keep the deal.) Should the judge answer in public, private, or not at all? Player C wants to know that information, should the judge answer in public, private, or not at all? > > You can > > answer a question privately "Will I be able to honor this deal?" But > > you don't answer, "Will this other player be able to honor the deal?" > > Agreed. Floppy, you are confusing me. Above, you disagree with me, but here you agree with me. In both cases, I was trying to say the same thing. Player A gets to know (in private) if Player A can honor a deal. Player B gets to know if Player B can honor a deal. But Player B doesn't get to know if Player A can honor a deal. At least, that's my current understanding of proper judging. Hopefully LSJ will answer the questions above and help us all be better judges. Thanks, Ira

On Nov 18, 5:39 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 17, 4:50 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 11:35 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My understanding is that correct judging means that you do not > > > publicly reveal the validity of the deal to all players. > > > I disagree. > > LSJ, can you clarify this issue? Please share any information you I did. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4585f3fd21d75bc > think would be illuminating to us and help us be better judges. If > that's too general a request, please answer these questions: > > 5 player game. Player A offers Player B, "Help me oust my prey, then I > will oust myself." > Player A wants to know if the deal is legal (and thus will be able to > violate PTW later). Should the judge answer in public, private, or not > at all? > Player B wants to know that same information (i.e. can Player A keep > the deal.) Should the judge answer in public, private, or not at all? > Player C wants to know that information, should the judge answer in > public, private, or not at all? The judge should not gives clues to other players about information those players do not have access to. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I think this is what a lot of the anti self-ouster people fail to grasp. > Not > self ousting can help someone else just as much a self ousting. The player > should be able to choose who to help and who to hinder. I think everybody can grasp that just fine. What the pro self-ouster people seem to fail to grasp is that when you are in a position where you can self-oust (ie, no reasonable chance for a VP), you probably weren't doing a lot in the first place. Because if you were, you wouldn't be allowed to self-oust. Given that, continuing that inaction will not unbalance the table due to your doing, but instead the game will just continue as it were for another turn. And another if need be. Therefore, a lot of people believe that self-ousting is *more* kingmaking than not self-ousting is. If you are in a position where you are currently allowed to self-oust, you shouldn't get some arbitrary power to give your predator a VP and six pool and in the process have a big say in who will win the table. You were ousted. Don't try and influence the table with your idiotic moves and just play the game. Deal for half a VP for all I care. Also, self-ousting is only really an issue in the case where your grandpredator is right about to oust your prey. If I'm doing everything I can to oust my prey before he can oust his prey, even cooperating with my grandprey to keep him alive longer (for example voting in favor for extra voter cap love) and in the turn I'm about to get my prey my grandprey decides he will self-oust for a a VP I will feel robbed and I will be pissed. I've had people pull this on me with giving complete crap as "because your sleeves are ugly" or "because you play auspex" as reason why my prey should get the VP instead of me getting the double VP. This kind of crap makes a given the game un-fun and discourages clever, strategic play and deckbuilding over "WAAAAAAAAA NEED TO NUKE PREY RAWRR!!!!"-play. Well, that and DI. I believe self-ousting by transfers should stop. I don't care about other means because in the real world all these fuzzy and fluffy self-oust actions that everyone always comes up with don't actually happen. Clearly as long as LSJ is in charge of the rules (which is, I may add, a GOOD thing) this won't happen. And with it a ton of annoying judging discussions come up. I can think up dozens of examples where after the first crypt cards enter the controlled region I knew I would get zero VP. Blindly looking at the rules, given I have absolutely no chance at getting a VP, I can do whatever I like, including making 8 turns of transfers and go grab a beer at the bar. It's pretty obvious a judge won't allow me to, but where do we draw the line? "Reasonable" is a vague term to begin with and especially in a multiplayer game where reaching the time-limit actually awards you with 0,5 VP you should always try to get at least a VP. On Day 2 of the EC a few weeks ago, I snatched up a VP from a completely lost position just by not self-ousting. In this case my predator wasn't sure he'd win the heads-up with my prey while was completely sure he would win the heads-up with me. You never know what happens. Just because you can't get a VP on your own, doesn't mean you'll end up getting nothing by just trying to hang on. If you're not self-ousting you are playing the game. If you are self-ousting you are kingmaking.

On Nov 18, 5:34 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 5:39 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 4:50 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 17, 11:35 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My understanding is that correct judging means that you do not > > > > publicly reveal the validity of the deal to all players. > > > > I disagree. > > > LSJ, can you clarify this issue? Please share any information you > > I did. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f458... > > > think would be illuminating to us and help us be better judges. If > > that's too general a request, please answer these questions: > > > 5 player game. Player A offers Player B, "Help me oust my prey, then I > > will oust myself." > > 1) Player A wants to know if the deal is legal (and thus will be able to > > violate PTW later). Should the judge answer in public, private, or not > > at all? > > 2) Player B wants to know that same information (i.e. can Player A keep > > the deal.) Should the judge answer in public, private, or not at all? > > 3) Player C wants to know that information, should the judge answer in > > public, private, or not at all? > > The judge should not gives clues to other players about information > those players do not have access to. OK. So I believe the answers are: 1) Privately 2) Not at all 3) Not at all. Floppy, do you agree after reading LSJ's post linked above? LSJ, to ensure everything is completely clear to everyone reading, could you confirm that my answers to 1-3 are correct? Thank you for your seemingly-endless patience with us as we try to learn how to be the best judges possible. Thanks, Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> "ira...@gmail.com" wrote: >>> floppyzedolfin wrote: >>> 5 player game. Player A offers Player B, "Help me oust my prey, >>> then I will oust myself." >>> 1) Player A wants to know if the deal is legal (and thus will be >>> able to violate PTW later). Should the judge answer in public, >>> private, or not at all? >>> 2) Player B wants to know that same information (i.e. can Player A >>> keep the deal.) Should the judge answer in public, private, or not >>> at all? >>> 3) Player C wants to know that information, should the judge >>> answer in public, private, or not at all? >> >> The judge should not gives clues to other players about information >> those players do not have access to. > > OK. So I believe the answers are: > 1) Privately > 2) Not at all > 3) Not at all. Why should the player who is asking indicate whether or not the judge should discuss the matter in private, and why should certain players not receive a judge's rulings regarding the current game-state and the rules? That makes no sense, that kind of obfuscation. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11/16/2010 1:07 AM, Vincent wrote: player E because it was its > turn Hey, you could have used "xer" there, and did not. Thanks for your restraint. chris

On 11/15/2010 7:18 AM, Vincent wrote: > Floppy did most of the hard work of judging, but when I wasn't > preparing something, you may have seen me helping him. As always, they > were some interesting situations: > > 1/ "Hey, I thought Anarch Revolt had been errated" > Yes, but many players thought they were no longer cumulative. If there > is 2 AR in play and you have no anarch, you'll lose 2 pool during your > untap. I could correct this in the last minutes of a game (because > nobody had noticed it, not even the player who was ousting his prey > with it), and I was told that on previous rounds, it had happened > also. > > 2/ "Wait, I think that other player also played 2 Master OOT" > The most nightmarish situation arised when I was called for the > following misplay: > > Player A had attempted a rush that was DIed by his grand-prey, player > C. His Enkil Cog was also DIed by his predator, E. The funny thing is > that E, though controlling Cybele, but tapped, also played a Wash on > his predator D, and played an Ashur Tablet when I was called. > As they explained me the situation, it appeared that C (who had played > a DI on the rush, remember) had also played a Wash on B, his predator, > in that same turn. > Needless to say, many important things had happened and it couldn't be > rewind entirely, but players C and E were penalized and the other > players able to retrieve the unduly canceled cards. > > 3/ "Can I play another ammo?" > This one is quite frequent. A Dragon Breath's Round is DIed. The > player asks me if he can play another. The answer is yes, since no > ammo were "used". > > 4/ "Can I self-oust?" > I was asked twice, and in both cases it was legal. The difficulty lies > in knowing if it's dictated by collusion or not. Whether it is fair- > play or not is another thing. > Thanks for these thoughts, they were interesting, as were Floppy's. PTW discussion - not so interesting. chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, that's probably me not understanding English, but I don't read these answers. What I read in LSJ's post is a description of the PTW rule. LSJ says the judge can remind players of the PTW rule. I didn't read it as "The judge can declare that a deal respects the PTW rule." Therefore, my reading of the link leads to 1) I can't extract the answer from the link. 2) I can't extract the answer from the link. 3) I can't extract the answer from the link. Maybe that's me nitpicking again (very very likely), but I see a difference between "If a deal is being made (with or without mentioning the possibility of future self-ousting), the judge can remind players that if the deal is PTW when it is made, it can be honored later, even if the honoring activity is not in itself PTW. " (where the judge would say "If this deal is PTW now, you will later be allowed to honor the deal, even if this doesn't honor the PTW rule.") and "If a deal is being made (with or without mentioning the possibility of future self-ousting) and if the deal is PTW when made, the judge can remind players that it can be honored later, even if the honoring activity is not in itself PTW. " (where the judge would say "This deal is PTW now, so later in the game, you will be allowed to honor the deal over the PTW rule.")

[ quoted text not captured ] The player is using future tense in this question. I was assuming the question was asked before the deal was made. Thus, the player is asking if the deal she's going to make will respect the PTW rule. That's an information I think should be given, and should be given privately in this case (since the player asked privately). If the player asks, once the deal is made, "Can I honor the deal [rather than the PTW rule]?" (adding the [...], because I'm sure we're not discussing about a player who couldn't see what cards in his hand she should play to respect the deal), the big difference is that the deal is made. This means either it was PTW when made, and then the answer lies in the past (and is yes, and should be public, imho), or the deal was not PTW when made (and the answer is obviously "no", publicly), or something happened that caused the deal to not be doable anymore, in which case I'd say "reconsider the deal". Player A gets to know (in private) if Player A could honor the deal if it were made now. Player A should know if Player A can honor a deal that was made previously (by asking the judge if, at that time, the deal was PTW). Player B should know if Player A can honor the deal if it were made previously (by asking the judge if, at that time, the deal was PTW). "Player A can honor a deal that was made previously" is a public information. Player B can ask (privately) if Player A could honor the deal if it were made now. I'm not sure I'd answer this question in any other manner than by estimating the public information of the table and giving B a private answer. Involving any hidden information (A's hand, B's hand, ...) could lead to different answers to different players, which is bad.

On Nov 18, 6:29 pm, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > What I read in LSJ's post is a description of the PTW rule. LSJ says > the judge can remind players of the PTW rule. I didn't read it as "The > judge can declare that a deal respects the PTW rule." > Therefore, my reading of the link leads to > 1) I can't extract the answer from the link. > 2) I can't extract the answer from the link. > 3) I can't extract the answer from the link. If the judge can tell by looking only at public information whether the deal is PTW or not, then xe can tell the table that. If the judge looks at any non-public information, then the judge should not divulge anything stemming from that information to anyone not originally privy to that information. (Until some actual illegal activity occurs, of course).

[ quoted text not captured ] With Scott's clarification ( http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0ec5c642103235a4 ), my answers are: 1) The same way the question was asked, especially if A doesn't involve non-public information in his question. This is: If A asks privately, the answer should be given privately. If A asks publicly and doesn't add "given the fact that I have ... in my hand", the answer could be given publicly with the public information. If A asks publicly, but gives the judge a hidden information, the answer should not be public, since it involves non-public information (whether that information matter or not isn't relevant). 2) If that information could be given from public information, then the judge should give it the same way it was asked. If that information requires some knowledge of hidden information that B doesn't have, then the judge shouldn't answer. B's hidden information shouldn't be relevant here, since A doesn't know of it. 3) Same answer as 2).

Izaak wrote: [snip a lot of stuff that I don't think I could plausibly convince you to change your mind about] > On Day 2 of the EC a few weeks ago, I snatched up a VP from a > completely lost position just by not self-ousting. I am not sure you understand what a 'completely lost' position is, then. If you meant 'position where it was reasonable that I wouldn't get another VP', and then you held out and some weird fluke of player thoughts and actions and card draws allowed you to grab another VP, then sure. Go you. But by definition, that was unlikely to happen, so you should have been able to just transfer out _if you wanted to_. If it was likely to happen, or could conceivably have been expected, then you weren't really in a position where it was unreasonable to get more VPs, and thus you shouldn't have been allowed to self-oust if you'd wanted to. Don't get me wrong, I myself struggle on to the very last 99.99% of the time, even when I don't expect it to help. That's how I play. But I don't hold it against people who want to bail if they're fucked. I do get a bit irritated if they bail because they just get demoralised without actually being pretty fucked. But I can't rule against people being bad players and not being able to see their opportunities. No one can. [ quoted text not captured ]