Case Study: Takebacks and Final Table Deals

Hello All, We had a great SWRQ in the Bay Area this past weekend; thanks to everyone who attended. I'll post a full report tonight, and I thought I'd share some of the interesting judging decisions I experienced. I'm including LSJ's reply to my e-mail below, reposted with his permission. Ira ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:37:53 -0400 From: LSJ To: Ira Fay Subject: Re: Thank you, and rules question > Assume all Tables are A -> B -> C -> D -> E > > Case 1: > Mid-game, Player A's first action is to tap his priscus > and call KRC. No block attempts. Terms are set 3 on > prey, 1 on pred, and Player A says, "4 in favor." > His predator who has the edge says, "Actually, only 1 in > favor, because I have a priscus too, and I vote against." > No other votes on the table. Player A then complains, > "I didn't know you had a Priscus! When you influence out a > vampire, you should announce things like that! I wasn't > aware of the game state, so I'd like to rewind." > > Player E didn't intentionally obscure his card, and it was > in clear view, but he also didn't make any announcements. > > Since everyone at the table seemed willing to allow the > rewind, I let Player A take the vote back into his hand, > put the 1 redrawn card into his library and shuffle it. > Player A instead bled for the edge first, then called the > vote which passed. > > In thinking about it now, maybe I was too lax, and > shouldn't have let Player A's loud whining (and everyone > else's easy going attitude) sway me. Any thoughts? Sounds fine. Good practice to get people to announce their crypt cards. > Case 2: > Late-game, Different Player A plays The Call, ends his > minion phase, discards a card, redraws, then transfers > two off. His pred complains that he's taking phases out > of order, and if he discards, he shouldn't get to > transfer. Since his discard didn't seem to affect his > transfers at all, I rule that he cannot choose to skip his > influence phase, and rewind to that point (so he transfers > 2 off, and we don't change the discard.) Since Player A > had only 2 pool, it was certain that he intended to > transfer 2 off. Any thoughts? Was I too lax? Sounds fine. With a warning. > Case 3: > This is the trickiest one. Finals of the SWRQ, with a > full Booster Box of SoC as the prize for the winner. Down > to 3 players, Players A and C each have 1 VP. Player C > is in a bit of risky position and could be ousted, but > still has reasonable chances for a GW. Player C says to > Player A, "I'll oust Player E and then concede to you if > you give me 14 boosters." > > It's my understanding that this is a legal offer. > It feels yucky to me, but I believe it is allowed. Yeah. > Fortunately, Player A says, "I'd rather leave the boosters > out of it and just play the game." But let's say the > deal was accepted and Player E gets ousted. Now it's heads-up > with Player C at 2 VPs, and Player A at 1 VP. Player C > definitely still has a reasonable chance at a GW, but he > wants to concede. Since this is the finals, should a good > judge step in to prevent the self-oust? I would not have > prevented it, since my understanding is that in the > finals, players are assumed to be PTW. Even though Right. > self-ousting in that situation definitely would NOT be PTW > in a non-final game, and the deal holds no weight in a > 2-player game. > > What actually happened was that no deal was made, Player C > ousted Player E, and then Player C conceded to Player A > anyway (and Player A got the whole box.) I'm entirely > certain that Player C still had a reasonable chance to > win, but since he gained nothing from conceding, and > clearly there wasn't collusion (the players had never met > before), I didn't stop it. It was also 2am, which may > have had an impact on Player C's choice. > > I realize this was a long letter, and I welcome any > thoughts and feedback you'd be willing to share. In the finals, barring collusion and other illegal activity, I just let the players play. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes

On Apr 30, 2:05 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > We had a great SWRQ in the Bay Area this past weekend; thanks to > everyone who attended. I just wanted to say publicly that Mike Courtois and I from Los Angeles (and I'm sure the Vegas group concurs) had a great time. You've got a great group of local players who I enjoyed meeting, hanging out with and playing V:TES with. Ira's boundless generosity and well-run events were also appreciated. Thanks also for keeping a relatively straight face while I was shoveling b.s. during the third round. :) Say "hello" and "thanks" to Alex C. and Alex H., Jeff, Robert, Russ, Taylor (IIRC) and all the rest for us. I hope you run another one next year and I hope I can attend again. -Robert

> > Assume all Tables are A -> B -> C -> D -> E > > > Case 1: > > Mid-game, Player A's first action is to tap his priscus > > and call KRC. No block attempts. Terms are set 3 on > > prey, 1 on pred, and Player A says, "4 in favor." > > His predator who has the edge says, "Actually, only 1 in > > favor, because I have a priscus too, and I vote against." > > No other votes on the table. Player A then complains, > > "I didn't know you had a Priscus! When you influence out a > > vampire, you should announce things like that! I wasn't > > aware of the game state, so I'd like to rewind." > > > Player E didn't intentionally obscure his card, and it was > > in clear view, but he also didn't make any announcements. > > > Since everyone at the table seemed willing to allow the > > rewind, I let Player A take the vote back into his hand, > > put the 1 redrawn card into his library and shuffle it. > > Player A instead bled for the edge first, then called the > > vote which passed. > > > In thinking about it now, maybe I was too lax, and > > shouldn't have let Player A's loud whining (and everyone > > else's easy going attitude) sway me. Any thoughts? Actually Ira, the card WAS obscured, but not intentionally. His counters were on the vampire art preventing me from seeing the Priscus text from where I was sitting. I had used a Creation Rites and been calling votes during the game so the other players KNEW I had a Priscus. When another person brings out a card that would impact what I had been doing, he should mention the prevalent information. Vegas gNat

On Apr 30, 2:58 pm, Robert Goudie <RobertT.Gou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks also for keeping a relatively straight face while I was shoveling > b.s. during the third round. :) For those that are wondering about this comment, Robert played a Malk 94 brutal stealth bleed deck for the qualifer (absolutely no defense), with 1 Haven Uncovered it in, just to confuse things. He had 2 GW going into the third round and I'd seen his deck bleed for ~15 in a turn (Govern, Command of the Beast, Mask, Command of the Beast, Conditioning, with 2-3 minions.) Since it was a big enough tournament, the people at his third table didn't know what he was playing, but I knew quite well. Since his first vamp was Laurent de Valois and he played a Haven Uncovered on Arika, his BS is fairly believable. He claims that his crypt draw is horrible, and sits there doing nothing for the first ~8 turns of the game, and eventually brings up 2 more vamps before ever taking an action. He's telling his predator, "Yeah, go ahead, bleed all you want, just leave me with 5 pool, so I'll have 1 left after I conceal out my flamethrower." And then glances at me to see if I'm cracking up. He would say things like, "If things go right, I should be able to burn Arika next turn. In fact, I may be able to burn them all." I didn't bother correcting him that when a player is ousted, the vamps are removed from the game, not burned. :) It was a fun time, and certainly better with out of town guests! Ira

On Apr 30, 3:25 pm, tigernat1 <tigern...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually Ira, the card WAS obscured, but not intentionally. His > counters were on the vampire art preventing me from seeing the Priscus > text from where I was sitting. In my opinion, the relevant card text was not obscured. Many players put blood counters on the card art, and if you had sat up and looked at the card, you would have been able to read the text. In fact, that card was closest to you out of all your predator's cards, since it had been newly-influenced and placed in a row above his other controlled vamps. > I had used a Creation Rites and been calling votes during the game so > the other players KNEW I had a Priscus. When another person brings > out a card that would impact what I had been doing, he should mention > the prevalent information. I believe that the responsibility is shared between all players to make the game state clear. It's also quite reasonable to say that before you call a vote, you should check any new vampires that have been influenced out since last vote. I posted this case study specifically because takebacks are such a tricky situation, and it's worthwhile to discuss what should be done. Even though I did not believe the card text was obscured, the fundamental point is that you were honestly not aware of the game state, and that is sufficient reason to rewind. If your prey had played a reaction and you had played stealth, maybe I would have felt differently about a rewind; I'm not sure. In that particular case, it was very clean to rewind, so we did. Ira

> I had used a Creation Rites and been calling votes during the game so > the other players KNEW I had a Priscus. When another person brings > out a card that would impact what I had been doing, he should mention > the prevalent information. No, he really shouldn't. If the player announces the name of the vampire he's influenced out, that's certainly enough. If your knowledge of VTES isn't encyclopedic, you always have the opportunity of asking to see the vampire and reading it's text. It's not another player's responsibility to point out how what they're doing can potentially hose your strategy. It's YOUR responsibility to be aware of the game state around you, to know enough about what the cards do to realise how it can effect you, or at least take time to read unfamiliar cards and learn.

On Apr 30, 5:13 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > I had used a Creation Rites and been calling votes during the game so > > the other players KNEW I had a Priscus. When another person brings > > out a card that would impact what I had been doing, he should mention > > the prevalent information. > > No, he really shouldn't. If the player announces the name of the > vampire he's influenced out, that's certainly enough. I believe LSJ's reply of, "Good practice to get people to announce their crypt cards," implies that it's best to announce as much as possible about the crypt card being influenced out. It's not so much a should/shouldn't debate, as a polite way to play. > If your knowledge of VTES isn't encyclopedic, you always have the opportunity > of asking to see the vampire and reading it's text. Agreed. It's always a good idea to glance at new vamps that your prey/ pred bring out, at very least. > It's not another player's responsibility to point out how what they're > doing can potentially hose your strategy. It's YOUR responsibility to > be aware of the game state around you, to know enough about what the > cards do to realise how it can effect you, or at least take time to > read unfamiliar cards and learn. It's a shared responsibility to make the game state known to all players. That said, in my opinion, the majority of the responsibility rests on the acting player. Especially if you're playing a vote deck, you should check to see what votes are around. In thinking about it more, I think I might have been too lax. If the predator's vamp had innate +1 intercept and he attempted to block, should that be allowed to be taken back after the card was played? Takebacks like that are a very slippery slope! Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] I would not have allowed a take-back at all. Unless the predator had left the vampire face down, and in the middle of the action said "oops, this guy was supposed to come out!" and then moved him from uncontrolled to controlled. Or maybe if the predator had been a bit quiet about his influence phase and didn't even announce the vampire coming out (or make obvious in another manner, like turning it face up as the political player was staring at it, or something). but then, I'm a bit of a hard-arse when it comes to judging. I don't like grey areas, and I don't like slippery slopes. Did the voting player know all the disciplines of the most recent vampire the guy cross-table had brought out? if not, why not rewind back to _then_, instead? He might have played Kindred Coercion or something! Where should you be drawing this line? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] In that case, you should issue warnings every time a player brings out a vampire (or Imbued) without fully declaring all aspects of the card. The rules specify that all cards are fully announced when played. In practice (the slippery slope), it is common to announce only what needs to be announced (as determined by the table -- that is, to announce whatever needs to be announced so that everyone at the table is fully aware of all the pertinent aspects of the card). > Did the voting player know all the disciplines of the most recent > vampire the guy cross-table had brought out? if not, why not rewind back > to _then_, instead? He might have played Kindred Coercion or something! > Where should you be drawing this line? Where ever it matters. Judgment.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:HHEZh.3281$HX7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > Salem wrote: >> Did the voting player know all the disciplines of the most recent >> vampire the guy cross-table had brought out? if not, why not rewind >> back to _then_, instead? He might have played Kindred Coercion or >> something! Where should you be drawing this line? > > Where ever it matters. Judgment. "Judgement" here reads to me a bit like a Zen koan... Maybe you should write the Gateless Gate for VTES, Scott. ;-) DZ AW

On May 1, 12:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The rules specify > that all cards are fully announced when played. That is the rule. So you say: "I bring out Bianca, she has basic potence and presence, superior Celerity and plus one strength." Or you say: "My bleed now has one stealth and you stay tapped, if your block fails." (not: "I play Faceless Night.") I hate it, that people, who have time and a memory to learn 1500 cards, think, that erveryone has to do the same.

On Apr 30, 5:05 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:37:53 -0400 > From: LSJ > > Case 3: > > This is the trickiest one. Finals of the SWRQ, with a > > full Booster Box of SoC as the prize for the winner. Down > > to 3 players, Players A and C each have 1 VP. Player C > > is in a bit of risky position and could be ousted, but > > still has reasonable chances for a GW. Player C says to > > Player A, "I'll oust Player E and then concede to you if > > you give me 14 boosters." > > > It's my understanding that this is a legal offer. > > It feels yucky to me, but I believe it is allowed. > > Yeah. The 2007 VEKN rules state: [section 4.8] "Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals." If the game comes down to players C and A, then their deal is void and both must play to win. I would say that's not a legal deal. As an odd aside: Prize-splitting deals are still tournament legal. However, barring timeouts and odd multi-oust situations, the game will eventually come down to two players before prizes are handed out. Rules section 4.8 says that a two-player game voids all deals. Would someone be enough of a dick to deny a prize-split share based on the "voided deal" tournament rule? -Matt H. /Prize-split deals are yucky either way.

On May 1, 11:19 am, "Mongrel (MDH)" <mong...@hotpop.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 5:05 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:37:53 -0400 > > From: LSJ > > > Case 3: > > > This is the trickiest one. Finals of the SWRQ, with a > > > full Booster Box of SoC as the prize for the winner. Down > > > to 3 players, Players A and C each have 1 VP. Player C > > > is in a bit of risky position and could be ousted, but > > > still has reasonable chances for a GW. Player C says to > > > Player A, "I'll oust Player E and then concede to you if > > > you give me 14 boosters." > > > > It's my understanding that this is a legal offer. > > > It feels yucky to me, but I believe it is allowed. > > > Yeah. > > The 2007 VEKN rules state: > [section 4.8] > "Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no > longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they > were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both > Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard > to any deals." > > If the game comes down to players C and A, then their deal is void and > both must play to win. I would say that's not a legal deal. The deal IS void, and Player A would not need to pay out the boosters (but of course he would have in this situation.) Player C wouldn't be allowed to self-oust in a non-final game, but *because it was the finals* he is assumed to be PTW, and therefore could self-oust. It has nothing to do with the deal (because there is no deal.) Nonetheless, I would have allowed it because it was the finals, and players can do what they want in the finals (barring cheating and collusion, etc.) Ira

Mongrel (MDH) wrote: > If the game comes down to players C and A, then their deal is void and > both must play to win. I would say that's not a legal deal. Except that it is the finals, so the players are assumed to be playing to win (in the absence of some other illegality, like bribery or threats).