2 quick questions. Forfeit and theft of vitae.

First: I used to think blood stolen from theft of vitae couldn't immediatly be used to heal damage from the same strike phase... apparantly that the Final Nights rulebook states specifically that you can. So the question is: is the following legal? Close range. Vamp A with zero blood declares strike "Steal 2 blood" Vamp B with 2 blood declares strike "hands" After this round Vamp A has 1 blood left and is still ready, and Vamp B is empty but still ready. Correct? Question 2: This weekend we played a few games and I had a pretty nasty assamites deck going strong. In fact, in our 3 player game, I toporised and diablerised every single vampire on the table. (it was a QUI FOR Tariq, Tergerius deck) As I was slowly going through my Prey's 8 pool, each of my four minions bleeding for 1, my predator (or grand-prey) was fed up with me as I didn't give him a chance to do anything, So in spite he decided to resign and cede his victory point to my prey... just so I couldn't say that I swept the table. We mentioned that the rules made no provisions for this as he still had 90% of his library, so he influenced himself out. As this was friendly play, that was fine, but in a tournament how would this be handled? Jason

"Jason" asked: > Close range. > Vamp A with zero blood declares strike "Steal 2 blood" > Vamp B with 2 blood declares strike "hands" > After this round Vamp A has 1 blood left and is still ready, and Vamp > B is empty but still ready. > Correct? Yes. > Question 2: > As I was slowly going through my Prey's 8 pool, each of my four > minions bleeding for 1, my predator (or grand-prey) was fed up with me > as I didn't give him a chance to do anything, So in spite he decided > to resign and cede his victory point to my prey... just so I couldn't > say that I swept the table. We mentioned that the rules made no > provisions for this as he still had 90% of his library, so he > influenced himself out. > As this was friendly play, that was fine, but in a tournament how > would this be handled? By giving a victory point to his predator, exactly as it is in friendly play. Ending your game in a legal fashion (transfering out, bidding all of your pool for a Hostile Takeover, putting your last pool onto your Blood Doll) is not prohibited in any way. The tournament rules are here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html The tournament penalties are here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknPenalty.html Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bc33eb34f013b90267e...@mygate.mailgate.org... > "Jason" asked: > > > As this was friendly play, that was fine, but in a tournament how > > would this be handled? > > By giving a victory point to his predator, exactly as it is > in friendly play. Ending your game in a legal fashion (transfering out, > bidding all of your pool for a Hostile Takeover, putting your last pool > onto your Blood Doll) is not prohibited in any way. > Umm... I was under the impression that you were required to attempt to win the game, or at least maximize your victory points. Influencing yourself out is basically collusion, as you are giving a VP away to your predator.

"Chris Berger" said: > Umm... I was under the impression that you were required to > attempt to win the game, or at least maximize your victory > points. Influencing yourself out is basically collusion, > as you are giving a VP away to your predator. You need to look up the meaning of the word collusion then. From Merriam Webster's wonderful online dictionary: http://www.m-w.com "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose" There is no deceit in transferring out. There is no secret (agreement or cooperation) in transferring out. There is no illegal purpose in transferring out. You can choose how you play the game. That's the nature of games. You would have had a better argument if you had gone for unsportsmanlike play, than collusive play. In any case, ending your participation in the game thru the ways mentioned is not prohibited by the rules. Tournament Rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html Tournament Penalties: [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Close range. >> Vamp A with zero blood declares strike "Steal 2 blood" >> Vamp B with 2 blood declares strike "hands" > >> After this round Vamp A has 1 blood left and is still ready, and Vamp >> B is empty but still ready. > >> Correct? > >Yes. Yeah, and it's always been this way as far as I can remember (so it's been there for quite a while before FN). >> As I was slowly going through my Prey's 8 pool, each of my four >> minions bleeding for 1, my predator (or grand-prey) was fed up with me >> as I didn't give him a chance to do anything, So in spite he decided >> to resign and cede his victory point to my prey... just so I couldn't >> say that I swept the table. We mentioned that the rules made no >> provisions for this as he still had 90% of his library, so he >> influenced himself out. > >> As this was friendly play, that was fine, but in a tournament how >> would this be handled? > >By giving a victory point to his predator, exactly as it is >in friendly play. Ending your game in a legal fashion (transfering out, >bidding all of your pool for a Hostile Takeover, putting your last pool >onto your Blood Doll) is not prohibited in any way. <<Umm... I was under the impression that you were required to attempt to win the game, or at least maximize your victory points. Influencing yourself out is basically collusion, as you are giving a VP away to your predator. >> Well, from the way he explained it, it sounds like he was in a no-win situation (though we'd need the specifics to be sure). In that case, he'd be free to influence himself out. Anyway, that's just a general lesson. If you hamstring your predator *too* much so that he can't win, you're only helping your grandpredator. Either your predator will be an easy kill, or he'll oust himself out of spite. Happened to be a million times, done it a million times. =P Halcyan 2

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ba4086d88c63803ab0c...@mygate.mailgate.org... > "Chris Berger" said: > > > Umm... I was under the impression that you were required to > > attempt to win the game, or at least maximize your victory > > points. Influencing yourself out is basically collusion, > > as you are giving a VP away to your predator. > > There is no deceit in transferring out. > There is no secret (agreement or cooperation) in transferring out. > There is no illegal purpose in transferring out. > You don't know that. The judge doesn't know that. Since collusion is "secret", the only way to detect it is if you appear to be giving the game away to someone. I know that I remember LSJ saying something in the past few months about your obligation to try to win. If you do not try to win and you hand the game over to someone else, it little matters whether or not you agreed beforehand to do so, it's still cheating. If I agree beforehand to transfer out, then it's collusion, but if I don't agree beforehand, it's not illegal??? How does the judge know what I agreed to beforehand.

>You don't know that. The judge doesn't know that. Since collusion is >"secret", the only way to detect it is if you appear to be giving the game >away >to someone. I know that I remember LSJ saying something in the past few >months >about your obligation to try to win. If you do not try to win and you hand >the >game over to someone else, it little matters whether or not you agreed >beforehand to do so, it's still cheating. You are required to win in general, but it can get a bit hazy. The simple model is: 1.) Try to maximize table wins, 2.) Try to maximize VP's, and a distant 3.) Try to maximize tournament points. If you can, you should try to maximize table wins but if you can't get a table win, you should still try to maximize VP's. Now it *is* possible however to be in a no-win situation. If you are in a no-win situation, LSJ has explicitly said that you can be ousted in the manner of your choosing. A good example is if you have 3 pool left, you're bled for 6 by your predator and you have an Archon Investigation. You're ousted either way. Is playing the AI doing something out of spite? Is the better to "let" him win w/o losing a minion? Should you roll over or be a really nasty speed bump? (There is no right answer). Of course it can get hazy in some situations. Is it better to have 1 VP and be third in a 2-2-1 split? Or to be tied for second with 0 VP in a 5-0-0 split? Is "winning" dependent on TW's, VP's, TP's, or ordinal ranking? Another example that I asked to LSJ a while back (and he confirmed) is that: say your deck is really kick-@$$ and has already ousted three Methusalehs (in a 5-player game). You already have 3 VP's and the TW. There's nothing preventing you from letting the remaining Methusaleh withdraw out of pity, or even ousting yourself to give that individual 2 VP. Either way, you have the Table Win and have won. You have to play to win and you have done that. The distant third I mentioned is that technically, you should also try to maximize Tournament Points (assuming the tournament is actually using them. I've seen quite a few that don't). In this case, there really is a (very) slight advantage to being ousted last. I guess this is the technical justification for "being a difficult speedbump" and in most circumstances, I would rather be ousted last than first (if someone's sweeping). But honestly, very few people ever bother worrying about TP's. Focusing too much of it would make the game rather pathetic since you would technically have to *beg* people to keep you alive for "just one more turn" on the hope that someone else who is low on pool is ousted first. At times, I'd rather be ousted with dignity and done with it than to waste my time begging for pool and intercept to delay the inevitable. (Nothing wrong with asking for help but in this case the end is inevitable). As I said earlier, if you're in a no-win situation, you can choose how you go out. Which also means that (out of spite or strategy) you can even Dramatic Upheaval yourself to give your VP to someone more deserving. For example, one time in a friendly game, I was getting pounded on by a weenie potence deck. By grandpredator was gracious enough to help me several times (rescuing several vampires from torpor, etc.). But in the end, I knew I was going to get ousted no matter what (one pool, predator had plenty of pool and lots of minions compared to my one). I was in a no-win situation so I figured I might as well Dramatic Upheaval to give my grandpredator (who had helped me so much) a VP. Besides, I had promised him that I'd do something nice in return! =) Of course, in any of these situations, you must always be vigilant for collusion since it is indeed possible. But nothing in the rules prohibits you from doing any of these (as long as it's not pre-determined collusion). So the point is, in general, you have to play to win (which does not always mean maximizing VP's). If you are in a no-win situation, you can choose how you want to be ousted. Halcyan 2

"Chris Berger" mis-spoke again: > > > Umm... I was under the impression that you were required to > > > attempt to win the game, or at least maximize your victory > > > points. Influencing yourself out is basically collusion, > > > as you are giving a VP away to your predator. > > There is no deceit in transferring out. > > There is no secret (agreement or cooperation) in transferring out. > > There is no illegal purpose in transferring out. > You don't know that. The judge doesn't know that. And since no part of transferring out is prohibited by the rules, the judge has no reason or excuse for being involved. > Since collusion is "secret", the only way to detect it is > if you appear to be giving the game away to someone. > I know that I remember LSJ saying something in the past few months > about your obligation to try to win. > If you do not try to win and you hand the game over to someone > else, it little matters whether or not you agreed beforehand > to do so, it's still cheating. So, now every stupid play you make is cheating. Any action you take can hand the game to someone else. It is simply a matter of being able to isolate that one action. Was it bringing out the Hunting Ground that gave your prey the game, or was it cheating? Wow, do you really work this hard to not know the meanings of the words? Cheating (per www.m-w.com): "to violate rules dishonestly" There are no rules against transferring out. There are no rules against stupid play. Where there is no rules violation, there is no cheating. > If I agree beforehand to transfer out, then it's collusion, > but if I don't agree beforehand, it's not illegal??? It's not illegal to transfer out. There is no rule against it, that another word you might want to look up when you get a chance. Illegal (per www.m-w.com): "not sanctioned by official rules" Specifically allowed, in fact encouraged by the official rules, section 7 of the online rulebook reads: "During your influence phase, you may spend your transfers as follows: Spend one transfer to move one blood counter from your pool to a vampire in your uncontrolled region." There is never a time where this rule is over-ridden, either in the regular rules or in the tournament rules. Transferring out is sanctioned by the official rules. > How does the judge know what I agreed to beforehand. She doesn't know what you agreed to beforehand. There is no viable way to enforce a rule on collusion, because you cannot punish stupid play, nor can you prohibit the actions allowed to you by the game UNTIL you make a rule to do so. There is no such rule about transferring out. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Chris Berger" said this: "I know that I remember LSJ saying something in the past few months about your obligation to try to win. " Here's a very brief portion of what LSJ said in his months of collusion debate: "You're also free to maximize your VPs however you want." He also replied as the second portion of the following: "> (the judge ruled that) since he's losing anyhow, > he can do whatever he wants. > > Was that a correct ruling? Yes." both from this post: [LSJ 2001-11-27] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C03E7BC.33577E41%40white-wolf.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > > If I agree beforehand to transfer out, then it's collusion, but if I don't > agree beforehand, it's not illegal??? How does the judge know what I agreed to > beforehand. > I've been in the following situation some times: Building up (equipping etc). Prey starts bleeding backwards, voting backwards and torporing backwards. I state that I'll get opusted with no minions to defend my pool. Prey states that he/she wants me ousted in order to have a less dangerous predator and that it's part of his/her strategy to have an impotent buffertzone as predator. I then proceed to oust myself with the argument that if I'm finished then I can at least choose which kind of strategy I'll promote. Sten During

> "I know that I remember LSJ saying something in the past few months > about your obligation to try to win. " > > > Here's a very brief portion of what LSJ said in his months of collusion > debate: > > "You're also free to maximize your VPs however you want." > > He also replied as the second portion of the following: > > "> (the judge ruled that) since he's losing anyhow, > > he can do whatever he wants. By saying he can do whatever he wants you can get some seriously nasty deal making cross table rush and stuff like that. > > Was that a correct ruling? > > Yes." > > > both from this post: [LSJ 2001-11-27] > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C03E7BC.33577E41%40white-wolf.com > > > > > Carpe noctem. > > Lasombra > > http://www.TheLasombra.com My question in this would be what constitutes as "not trying to win" The problem with this is your interpretation of it see what most people would consider a roll over and die situation could (for the roling over player) be a tactic. example: say I let my predator bleed me to up to a few pool and my prey has say 3 pool left I have a Parity shift in my hand, what if by some miscalculation I happen to be ousted because my predator played a conditioning I didn't expect/ For me then the strategy would be obvious but other players might think I was giving up. Emile

>The problem with this is your interpretation of it see what most >people would consider a roll over and die situation could (for the >roling over player) be a tactic. >example: say I let my predator bleed me to up to a few pool and my >prey has say 3 pool left I have a Parity shift in my hand, what if by >some miscalculation I happen to be ousted because my predator played a >conditioning I didn't expect/ > >For me then the strategy would be obvious but other players might >think I was giving up. In icky situations like this, it's probably best to call a judge over (just show him your Parity Shift and he'll understand). Halcyan 2

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:58dbaeafc0c88ba7ae4...@mygate.mailgate.org... > "Chris Berger" mis-spoke again: > > Wow, do you really work this hard to not know the meanings > of the words? > > Cheating (per www.m-w.com): > > "to violate rules dishonestly" > > There are no rules against transferring out. There are no rules > against stupid play. Where there is no rules violation, there is > no cheating. > There is a (tournament) rule stating that you must try to win. Transferring out is obviously a violation of that rule. How hard is that?

[ quoted text not captured ] It is not obviously a violation of that rule, as has been explained. If you will lose (not gain any more VPs) whether you transfer yourself out or not, then you are free to "not win and not gain any more VPs" by transferring yourself out, just as you are free to "not win and not gain any more VPs" by not tranferring yourself out. There is no criterion that makes one losing course of action preferable over another losing course of action. If there is a non-losing course of action, however, that is a different story. In the case in question, however, the player attempting to transfer is identified as not able to win any VPs anyway. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CC56CA0...@white-wolf.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > There is a (tournament) rule stating that you must try to win. Transferring > > out is obviously a violation of that rule. How hard is that? > > It is not obviously a violation of that rule, as has been explained. > > If you will lose (not gain any more VPs) whether you transfer yourself > out or not, then you are free to "not win and not gain any more VPs" by > transferring yourself out, just as you are free to "not win and not gain > any more VPs" by not tranferring yourself out. There is no criterion > that makes one losing course of action preferable over another losing > course of action. If there is a non-losing course of action, however, > that is a different story. In the case in question, however, the > player attempting to transfer is identified as not able to win any > VPs anyway. > I don't see how it can ever be clear that you will not gain any more VP's. If you stay in the game, you have that tiny little chance that you will gain a VP. Anarch Revolts, cross-table votes, anything like that could do it. But if you oust yourself, you have 0 chance of that happening. Are you saying that a 1% chance doesn't count, or does a 1% chance always require that you stay in the game?

Chris Berger wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CC56CA0...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > There is a (tournament) rule stating that you must try to win. > Transferring > > > out is obviously a violation of that rule. How hard is that? > > > > It is not obviously a violation of that rule, as has been explained. > > > > If you will lose (not gain any more VPs) whether you transfer yourself > > out or not, then you are free to "not win and not gain any more VPs" by > > transferring yourself out, just as you are free to "not win and not gain > > any more VPs" by not tranferring yourself out. There is no criterion > > that makes one losing course of action preferable over another losing > > course of action. If there is a non-losing course of action, however, > > that is a different story. In the case in question, however, the > > player attempting to transfer is identified as not able to win any > > VPs anyway. > > > I don't see how it can ever be clear that you will not gain any more VP's. If > you stay in the game, you have that tiny little chance that you will gain a VP. Fine. Naturally, if you change the assumptions for a given situation, the "answers" to the problem may change as well. I've often said that it is very difficult to be in a truly lost position (i.e., one in which it would be legal to transfer yourself out). That, however, doesn't change the fact that when a player is in a truly lost position, she is free to transfer out (just as she is free to lose in whatever other fashion is avilable). > Anarch Revolts, cross-table votes, anything like that could do it. But if you > oust yourself, you have 0 chance of that happening. Are you saying that a 1% > chance doesn't count, or does a 1% chance always require that you stay in the > game? I wasn't saying either. Neither statement is all that interesting, however, since it is impossible to evaluate your chances like that. The rules allow for judges to judge such things. So they do. If the judge feels that the player cannot (reasonably) do any better than her intended course of action, then she is free to pursue her intended course of action. So if the judge feels that the player is in a truly lost position, then the player is allowed to transfer out. If the judge feels that the player could reasonably gain a VP (or a win) by not transferring out, then the player is not allowed to transfer out. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3CC5768D...@white-wolf.com... > > I've often said that it is very difficult to be in a truly lost > position (i.e., one in which it would be legal to transfer > yourself out). > Good. That's all I was getting at. If you transfer out when you have a chance to gain a VP, it's illegal. True that it's up to the judge to determine when it is legal and when it isn't, but I think most judges would tend to lean toward keeping you in the game, unless it's painfully obvious. It's just not fair to the rest of the table. Round here, it's considered the height of poor sportsmanship to do something like that, as you give your predator an easier time of things and destabilize the table. But I guess you can't legislate sportsmanship in a tournament. I was almost bitchslapped once when I miscalculated an Ancilla Empowerment and was just going to vote it through anyway (killing myself and my predator but no one else).

[ quoted text not captured ] What if you try to concede, but no one allows it, but neither tries to oust you? Say, you have all vamps zeroed out in torpor, no pool gain in your library, no blood dolls what so ever, and so low on pool that you'dd better give up, since the game will has to last for another hour? You predator is not trying to oust you, so the only thing you can do is wait and wait and wait? What fun is that? Better to oust yourself then and go to the bar for a beer,, and play another friendly game? That's not cheating, that just makes sense... It's not that ylou intended on giving away a VP. It's all in the spirit of fun and will have to be judged accordingly. Well, just my 2 cts..:)

>What if you try to concede, but no one allows it, but neither tries to >oust you? Say, you have all vamps zeroed out in torpor, no pool gain >in your library, no blood dolls what so ever, and so low on pool that >you'dd better give up, since the game will has to last for another >hour? You predator is not trying to oust you, so the only thing you >can do is wait and wait and wait? What fun is that? Better to oust >yourself then and go to the bar for a beer,, and play another friendly >game? >That's not cheating, that just makes sense... It's not that ylou >intended on giving away a VP. It's all in the spirit of fun and will >have to be judged accordingly. In a nontournament situation, it's up to your play group what's acceptable. In a tournament, there are time limits and (minor) benefits to surviving to them.

>What if you try to concede, but no one allows it, but neither tries to >oust you? Say, you have all vamps zeroed out in torpor, no pool gain >in your library, no blood dolls what so ever, and so low on pool that >you'dd better give up, since the game will has to last for another >hour? You predator is not trying to oust you, so the only thing you >can do is wait and wait and wait? What fun is that? Better to oust >yourself then and go to the bar for a beer,, and play another friendly >game? >That's not cheating, that just makes sense... It's not that ylou >intended on giving away a VP. It's all in the spirit of fun and will >have to be judged accordingly. > >Well, just my 2 cts..:) So say that you're in that situation with 5 pool left but you can't do anything and want to leave. When you can do is pick up all of your cards and leave, but have the other players put 5 pool there that your predator has to bleed through. Just you'd be nothing anyway, treat the empty chair like a passive Methusaleh. Halcyan 2

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:xyex8.38445$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3CC56CA0...@white-wolf.com... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > There is a (tournament) rule stating that you must try to win. > Transferring > > > out is obviously a violation of that rule. How hard is that? > > > > It is not obviously a violation of that rule, as has been explained. > > > > If you will lose (not gain any more VPs) whether you transfer yourself > > out or not, then you are free to "not win and not gain any more VPs" by > > transferring yourself out, just as you are free to "not win and not gain > > any more VPs" by not tranferring yourself out. There is no criterion > > that makes one losing course of action preferable over another losing > > course of action. If there is a non-losing course of action, however, > > that is a different story. In the case in question, however, the > > player attempting to transfer is identified as not able to win any > > VPs anyway. > > > I don't see how it can ever be clear that you will not gain any more VP's. I don't see how it CANNOT be clear to you that there are some seating situations that cause the game to be over (for you) in the first few turns. Examples: "The Sabbat 2s" preying on someone that successfully gets an Atonement. I have NEVER ousted the Atoned player when this has happened. A bleed deck that has a dedicated-intercept deck as its prey. I have NEVER been ousted playing the dedicated-intercept deck when in this position, without someone else ganging up on me to help the bleed deck. Etc. > If > you stay in the game, you have that tiny little chance that you will gain a VP. > Anarch Revolts, cross-table votes, anything like that could do it. But if you > oust yourself, you have 0 chance of that happening. Are you saying that a 1% > chance doesn't count, or does a 1% chance always require that you stay in the > game? Are you saying that ANYTHING is possible, that the letters on the screen that you are reading right now have a "tiny little 1% chance" of turning into a big fat hairy monster and jumping out of the screen at you? Come on, man! :) Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message news:ucegm0o...@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > I don't see how it can ever be clear that you will not gain any more VP's. > > I don't see how it CANNOT be clear to you that there are some seating > situations that cause the game to be over (for you) in the first few turns. > > Examples: > "The Sabbat 2s" preying on someone that successfully gets an Atonement. I have > NEVER ousted the Atoned player when this has happened. > > A bleed deck that has a dedicated-intercept deck as its prey. I have NEVER > been ousted playing the dedicated-intercept deck when in this position, without > someone else ganging up on me to help the bleed deck. > So, you should just muck your hand at the beginning of the game??? Although, personally, I've had plenty of success playing an S&B versus dedicated intercept prey. > > If > > you stay in the game, you have that tiny little chance that you will gain a > VP. > > Anarch Revolts, cross-table votes, anything like that could do it. But if > you > > oust yourself, you have 0 chance of that happening. Are you saying that a 1% > > chance doesn't count, or does a 1% chance always require that you stay in the > > game? > > Are you saying that ANYTHING is possible, that the letters on the screen that > you are reading right now have a "tiny little 1% chance" of turning into a big > fat hairy monster and jumping out of the screen at you? > The chance of that happening is much smaller than 1%. Perhaps you need to review statistics. In Jyhad, someone across the table has every chance to keep you in the game until your predator ousts you. Influencing out, or otherwise causing your own death takes this chance away from them and is not fair to the table as a whole. But it's clear that conceding does not accomplish the tournament goals, namely a) maximizing table wins and b) maximizing victory points. It will, in fact, minimize VP's. I have been in plenty of situations where I was convinced of being ousted by my predator in one turn. A couple of times, my predator has been ousted by a deck that I have a chance against. Once, my predator played Dramatic Upheaval to switch positions with me because he thought I had more Wakes than I did. And a couple of times, someone played a cross-table Consanguineous Boon or other pool-gainer. With 5 people in the game, the situation is much less predictable than you make it out to be. BTW, weren't you supposed to be ignoring my posts from now on, or something similarly childish?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:eFUx8.51494$CH....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > > "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message > news:ucegm0o...@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > I don't see how it can ever be clear that you will not gain any more VP's. > > > > I don't see how it CANNOT be clear to you that there are some seating > > situations that cause the game to be over (for you) in the first few turns. > > > > Examples: > > "The Sabbat 2s" preying on someone that successfully gets an Atonement. I > have > > NEVER ousted the Atoned player when this has happened. > > > > A bleed deck that has a dedicated-intercept deck as its prey. I have NEVER > > been ousted playing the dedicated-intercept deck when in this position, > without > > someone else ganging up on me to help the bleed deck. > > > So, you should just muck your hand at the beginning of the game??? Although, > personally, I've had plenty of success playing an S&B versus dedicated > intercept prey. Mind posting the deck, or emailing it to me? > > > If > > > you stay in the game, you have that tiny little chance that you will gain a > > VP. > > > Anarch Revolts, cross-table votes, anything like that could do it. But if > > you > > > oust yourself, you have 0 chance of that happening. Are you saying that a > 1% > > > chance doesn't count, or does a 1% chance always require that you stay in > the > > > game? > > > > Are you saying that ANYTHING is possible, that the letters on the screen that > > you are reading right now have a "tiny little 1% chance" of turning into a > big > > fat hairy monster and jumping out of the screen at you? > > > The chance of that happening is much smaller than 1%. Perhaps you need to > review statistics. > > In Jyhad, someone across the table has every chance to keep you in the game > until your predator ousts you. You're assuming that the people across the table care to do this, have a way to do this, or even exist, but your point is, of course, true, albeit obvious. > Influencing out, or otherwise causing your own > death takes this chance away from them and is not fair to the table as a whole. Wait wait wait. There *are* conditions under which players who have no chance (in Kevin's-and-not-Chris'-opinion, I guess) are better off losing in one manner over another. This happens about once a week in my playgroup, and while none of us like being on the losing end of this kind of situation, we understand that it happens, why it happens, and accept it as a very minor part of the game. > But it's clear that conceding does not accomplish the tournament goals, namely > a) maximizing table wins and b) maximizing victory points. Your statement is only correct if the player doing the conceding believs that they have a REASONABLE chance of being able to obtain a VP. If they don't, your statemtn doesn't apply, and that player is free to choose the manner of their ousting. > It will, in fact, minimize VP's. In that game, maybe, but as I said before, there *are* conditions under which players who have no chance are better off losing in one manner over another. > I have been in plenty of situations where I was convinced of > being ousted by my predator in one turn. A couple of times, my predator has > been ousted by a deck that I have a chance against. Once, my predator played > Dramatic Upheaval to switch positions with me because he thought I had more > Wakes than I did. And a couple of times, someone played a cross-table > Consanguineous Boon or other pool-gainer. With 5 people in the game, the > situation is much less predictable than you make it out to be. Sometimes. And most of the time, it really IS that predictable, if you know how your deck works, what its foils are, and if you have a goodly amount of experience and ability to judge players, and you and I seem to have. > BTW, weren't you supposed to be ignoring my posts from now on, or something > similarly childish? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would again begin to discuss and answer issues within your posts. You did, and I'm glad I gave you that benefit. <kiss kiss hug hug> ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message news:ucha99h...@corp.supernews.com... > > > So, you should just muck your hand at the beginning of the game??? Although, > > personally, I've had plenty of success playing an S&B versus dedicated > > intercept prey. > > Mind posting the deck, or emailing it to me? > It was the deck with which I won storyline Chicago. You should be able to find it by searching Google, or if yoritomo jiriki still has his storyline page up. But it was a pretty standard Lasombra S&B. Even dedicated intercept decks have a hard time packing enough to stop a true S&B. Because all I need is a bleed modifier and a bunch of stealth. He needs a bunch of intercept *and* a bunch of combat. Since most decks don't have a bunch of stealth, it's generally advantageous to minimize the intercept needed, just so you don't jam. In an environment that is not *predominantly* stealthy, an intercept deck which can survive usually is not able to survive against particularly stealthy decks. I think this is because intercept is not, on average, more effective than stealth. Enhanced Senses is about on a par with Lost in Crowd, and so on down the line for OBF versus AUS. You don't gain an advantage for being reactive versus proactive, and thus do not offset the inherent disadvantage that being reactive brings. (That is, if I can state it more clearly, being reactive is generally "worse" than being proactive, but reactive cards are not generally stronger than proactive cards, thus the proactive deck will generally win on a level playing field.) > > > > In Jyhad, someone across the table has every chance to keep you in the game > > until your predator ousts you. > > You're assuming that the people across the table care to do this, have a way to > do this, or even exist, but your point is, of course, true, albeit obvious. > Of course they care to do this. Every victory point they don't get is one VP closer to losing the table. And around here even non-vote decks occasionally pass votes that they think can be passed with politics (mostly only *my* decks, but still...). But with the average of 2 vote decks per table, chances are that someone *can* keep you in the game if they draw correctly and have the support of the table. > > Influencing out, or otherwise causing your own > > death takes this chance away from them and is not fair to the table as a > whole. > > Wait wait wait. There *are* conditions under which players who have no chance > (in Kevin's-and-not-Chris'-opinion, I guess) are better off losing in one > manner over another. This happens about once a week in my playgroup, and while > none of us like being on the losing end of this kind of situation, we > understand that it happens, why it happens, and accept it as a very minor part > of the game. > But there are just so few conditions where a person has *no* chance, why even worry about it? Besides, influencing yourself out in spite is not really a reasonable criteria for deciding the fate of a tournament, now is it? > > But it's clear that conceding does not accomplish the tournament goals, > namely > > a) maximizing table wins and b) maximizing victory points. > > Your statement is only correct if the player doing the conceding believs that > they have a REASONABLE chance of being able to obtain a VP. If they don't, > your statemtn doesn't apply, and that player is free to choose the manner of > their ousting. > No, no, no. That's not true. If there is even an infinitesimal chance of getting a VP, then self-ousting will minimize your VP's. It will ensure that you cannot gain another VP no matter what happens. As long as the chance is not 0, you must try to maximize your victory points. You're going to say that it's silly to require the chance of winning to be exactly 0, for reasons similar to, "the chance of the world still existing from moment to moment is not even 0." And I'll agree. Which is why it's simpler to just say that you can't self-oust. By self-ousting, you are giving up on trying to win, you are minimizing your VP's and you are breaking the rules of a tournament, plain and simple. On top of that, you are being unsportsmanlike and are unfairly upsetting the balance of the table. Granted, you can't legislate being a good sport, but it's just convenient that being a poor loser in this situation is also against the rules.