Tranferring myself out of the game

Hi all, The group in Portland is currently playing a sealed-deck league which is much fun. One of the fun things about it is the limited amount of cards you get and the other is the fact that Unique Items, Locations, Allies, Retainers, Vampires and other unique cards are permanently burned if they are burned during a game (diablerized, Protect Thine Own, Vulnerability, excess agg damage / Rampage, Arson, Unnatural Disaster / Illegal Search and Seizure, Shattering Blow, Canine Hordes etc.) Anyhow, last night, my Theo Bell was put in torpor during my turn. I told everyone that since I was dead anyhow (I had 3 pool, 1 ready minion and a stealth bleed deck behind me), that I was going to transfer myself out in order to save Theo Bell from the indignities and permanency of diablerie. I was told that it was against the rules to transfer myself out. I saw no way to gain any more VPs than I currently had and was going to get ousted on my next turn (I had stealth bleed behind me and zero intercept), so was I obligated to stay in the game? Back in June of 2001 there was this exchange - is it still valid? Xian wrote: > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > news:6E02ABFC0AF2D74B.896E35F7...@lp.airnews.net.. > > I can't see the Ravnos player's actions being open to question but > > what about the Set player? Is transferring yourself out of the game > > allowed by the new rule? He's clearly not trying to win but there's > > little point in giving someone a loss for this as that's what he's > > trying to achieve anyway. > > My personal interpretation (IANALSJ, of course...I can't remember if > I've heard his opinion on this one.) is that transferring out could > conceivably be disallowed/looked upon unfavorably by the new rule. > Again, this is something that I'm not sure on myself. I'd probably > issue a caution, and tell them to make sure it didn't happen again, as > it's unsportsmanlike. If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an alternative as anything else. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ---------------------------------- Thanks Mari Portland VTES http://vtes.tinkrbel.com

Mari wrote: > > Hi all, > > The group in Portland is currently playing a sealed-deck league which > is much fun. One of the fun things about it is the limited amount of > cards you get and the other is the fact that Unique Items, Locations, > Allies, Retainers, Vampires and other unique cards are permanently > burned if they are burned during a game (diablerized, Protect Thine > Own, Vulnerability, excess agg damage / Rampage, Arson, Unnatural > Disaster / Illegal Search and Seizure, Shattering Blow, Canine Hordes > etc.) Even by Horrid Reality, Illusions of the Kindred, or The Slaughterhouse, or if yielded during a contest? Even Mummies? What about cards that are only playable once per game (a stronger version of "unique")? > Anyhow, last night, my Theo Bell was put in torpor during my turn. I > told everyone that since I was dead anyhow (I had 3 pool, 1 ready > minion and a stealth bleed deck behind me), that I was going to > transfer myself out in order to save Theo Bell from the indignities > and permanency of diablerie. This wouldn't help. If you're ousted, all the cards you control are burned, so Theo will be burned (unless someone graverobs him and then winds up being the last Methuselah standing). This is also true if you withdraw. > I was told that it was against the rules > to transfer myself out. I saw no way to gain any more VPs than I > currently had and was going to get ousted on my next turn (I had > stealth bleed behind me and zero intercept), so was I obligated to > stay in the game? No. If you can gain no more than X more VPs (X >= 0), then you are free to gain X more VPs in whatever legal manner you like. If X is zero, then you are free to gain your zero more VPs in whatever manner like, including transferring your last pool to an uncontrolled vampire. > > Back in June of 2001 there was this exchange - is it still valid? > > [snip] > > If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an > alternative as anything else. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > > ---------------------------------- Yes. -- 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:<3D8890DE...@white-wolf.com>... <SNIP> > > the fact that Unique Items, Locations, > > Allies, Retainers, Vampires and other unique cards are permanently > > burned if they are burned during a game (diablerized, Protect Thine > > Own, Vulnerability, excess agg damage / Rampage, Arson, Unnatural > > Disaster / Illegal Search and Seizure, Shattering Blow, Canine Hordes > > etc.) > > Even by Horrid Reality, Illusions of the Kindred, or The Slaughterhouse, > or if yielded during a contest? Even Mummies? We went with a more RPG definition of what gets burned... Horrid Reality and Illusions of the Kindred are both illusory effects, therefore the "real" items/minions wouldn't have been burned, so the item/minions is not burned from the league. Also, retainers, equipment, locations or other unique cards (Tasha Morgan, JS Simmons, Sengir Dagger, The Rack etc.)that are on minions who get burned have to be specifically targeted to be considered burned from the league (i.e. a minion with Tasha getting diablerized does not mean Tasha is burned. If the minion with Tasha is in combat and someone decides to move to long and target Tasha with a gun, then Tasha is burned from the league) Since we are playing with only Cam Edition, Mummies don't really enter into it, but if they were around, i'm sure we'd figure something out. > What about cards that are only playable once per game (a stronger version > of "unique")? That's fine. It is entirely possible that there are several vials of Giants Blood running around - but Muaziz is definitely unique and you would not likely find an exact duplicate of her (Even Raven and Camille have different hair colors *grin*) > > Anyhow, last night, my Theo Bell was put in torpor during my turn. I > > told everyone that since I was dead anyhow (I had 3 pool, 1 ready > > minion and a stealth bleed deck behind me), that I was going to > > transfer myself out in order to save Theo Bell from the indignities > > and permanency of diablerie. > > This wouldn't help. If you're ousted, all the cards you control are burned, > so Theo will be burned (unless someone graverobs him and then winds up > being the last Methuselah standing). This is also true if you withdraw. In the league, being ousted does not burn your minions... It's more like, after your influence (pool) is gone, your minions all ran away from you cause you are a loser. Other people could hire them if they wanted - once again, this is more an RPG type of point. Thanks for the answers! [ quoted text not captured ]

Mari wrote: > I was told that it was against the rules > to transfer myself out. It is not. You can transfer yourself out whenever you want to. In tournament play, you are required to play such that you maximize your victory, but if you are at 3 pool and have only vampires in torpor, maximizing your victory is getting out of the game as soon as possible. That you are using funky house rules (i.e. if Theo is deablerized, he is permanently out of the league) only makes it even more in your best interest to oust yourself. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "I need a doctor, kinda, sorta. What's wrong with me? He said there's a skid mark on my aorta and there's no remedy." -The Donnas

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9AE62B4.8156%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > Mari wrote: > > > I was told that it was against the rules > > to transfer myself out. > > It is not. You can transfer yourself out whenever you want to. In tournament > play, you are required to play such that you maximize your victory, but if > you are at 3 pool and have only vampires in torpor, maximizing your victory > is getting out of the game as soon as possible. > In spite of knowing the official rules, many people consider this unsportsmanlike (meaning, they don't like it when someone does this). The reason is very simple: people are expected to work hard to win. If someone's prey simply decides to call it quits, the others feel he's being favored. Strangely, this doesn't always hold true for the predator role. People aren't as bothered that someone's predator isn't putting pressure on him, probably because this happens more often. This is the way most people *feel*, anyway (there's no such thing in the rules). If there's a valid reason to oust oneself, however, this might change. Were you referring to the case where your minions were graverobbed? Even so, this won't benefit you directly. I really don't see a *reason* to oust yourself other than the need to get a smoke or something. I only see no reasons not to, save the fact that since "having no hopes of gaining more than X VPs" is somewhat subjective, this might raise suspicions of collusion. IMHO, it should be avoided. Thanks, David Pontes

In message <cac629d3.02091...@posting.google.com>, David Pontes <dp...@mega.ist.utl.pt> writes: > I really don't see a *reason* to oust yourself other than the >need to get a smoke or something. In the league, as noted, it could be *very* useful. If <x> is going to get burned and you want to use them next time, get yourself out of there. > I only see no reasons not to, save >the fact that since "having no hopes of gaining more than X VPs" is >somewhat subjective, this might raise suspicions of collusion. Call a judge across and ask. If the judge rules that you have a very strong case for only getting 0 VPs, you are free to gain zero VPs in any fashion you choose. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D Don't just clap. What's the use of that? EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 You there, gorgeous creature. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D Stop...that...bus!

James Coupe wrote: > In message <cac629d3.02091...@posting.google.com>, David > Pontes <dp...@mega.ist.utl.pt> writes: >> I really don't see a *reason* to oust yourself other than the >>need to get a smoke or something. > > In the league, as noted, it could be *very* useful. If <x> is going to > get burned and you want to use them next time, get yourself out of > there. > > >> I only see no reasons not to, save >>the fact that since "having no hopes of gaining more than X VPs" is >>somewhat subjective, this might raise suspicions of collusion. > > Call a judge across and ask. > > If the judge rules that you have a very strong case for only getting 0 > VPs, you are free to gain zero VPs in any fashion you choose. > if you have to choose to leave live a slave or die with honor i go for honor. I find it very annoying to play when every hopes are losts, really prefere to tranfert out and go for another game than staying in the game doing "discard, next". -- TzimisceLord http://myvtes.free.fr http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr

David Pontes wrote: > > Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9AE62B4.8156%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > > Mari wrote: > > > > > I was told that it was against the rules > > > to transfer myself out. > > > > It is not. You can transfer yourself out whenever you want to. In tournament > > play, you are required to play such that you maximize your victory, but if > > you are at 3 pool and have only vampires in torpor, maximizing your victory > > is getting out of the game as soon as possible. > > > > In spite of knowing the official rules, many people consider this > unsportsmanlike (meaning, they don't like it when someone does this). > The reason is very simple: people are expected to work hard to win. If The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. If you throw away the basis (and use a different basis, one in which the player in question has an option available that leads to the accumulation of more VPs), then the answer is very different. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

dp...@mega.ist.utl.pt (David Pontes) wrote in message news:<cac629d3.02091...@posting.google.com>... <SNIP> > If there's a valid reason to oust oneself, however, this might > change. Were you referring to the case where your minions were > graverobbed? Even so, this won't benefit you directly. > > I really don't see a *reason* to oust yourself other than the > need to get a smoke or something. I only see no reasons not to, save > the fact that since "having no hopes of gaining more than X VPs" is > somewhat subjective, this might raise suspicions of collusion. IMHO, > it should be avoided. The reason that I wanted to oust myself was, primarily, so that Theo Bell, who was in torpor, would not get eaten. The reason being that if he is eaten he is removed from the league for the duration. Which means that I can never use him again. Which means that a really good minion with all the in-clans that I need and a built in rush would be gone forever. And since it is sealed deck, my choices for replacement were very poor. Everyone at the table knew why i wanted out and they agreed that it was a valid reason. We just thought it was against the rules. Mari Theo Bell-less in Portland http://vtes.tinkrbel.com

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9AE62B4.8156%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > It is not. You can transfer yourself out whenever you want to. In tournament > play, you are required to play such that you maximize your victory, but if > you are at 3 pool and have only vampires in torpor, maximizing your victory > is getting out of the game as soon as possible. Unless, of course, there's 5 to 10 minutes left, and you might survive to the end of the round. :) Xian

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, LSJ wrote: > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. But the answer to the question, as it is commonly given, implies some certain knowledge of future events that does not exist. The best you can do is assess those odds, as things stand at that moment. Cross-table rescues and votes called by other players that generate pool are two common examples of play that can nullify whatever filegreed pile of if-thens you've got in your head. I've transferred myself out in the past, but I don't think I was technically playing to win at that point. I certainly *felt* like my game was over, but I didn't *know* it was. And if we accept that feeling as being sufficient, then it isn't really any standard at all. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, LSJ wrote: > > > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results > > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is > > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available > > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. > > But the answer to the question, as it is commonly given, implies some > certain knowledge of future events that does not exist. No. The question expressly states that knowledge as a given fact. The answer doesn't change that. If the knowledge that you cannot gain more VPs doesn't exist, then it follows that there is some way for you to gain more VPs. > The best you can > do is assess those odds, as things stand at that moment. Cross-table > rescues and votes called by other players that generate pool are two > common examples of play that can nullify whatever filegreed pile of > if-thens you've got in your head. I've transferred myself out in the > past, but I don't think I was technically playing to win at that point. I > certainly *felt* like my game was over, but I didn't *know* it was. And > if we accept that feeling as being sufficient, then it isn't really any > standard at all. I wasn't suggesting that one accept the feeling. I was, as I have done in the past, answering the question as given. The question as given stated that there was no way to gain more VPs. It didn't state how that knowledge came to be obtained - it simply stated the condition as a fact. As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting). But, if you wish to introduce "feelings", then, if the judge likes, he can use "reasonable" in there - if the player wishes to do X and cannot reasonably (in the judge's determination) gain more VPs by doing something else, then she is free to do X. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3D89B8D1...@white-wolf.com... > David Pontes wrote: > > > > Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9AE62B4.8156%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > > > Mari wrote: > > > > > > > I was told that it was against the rules > > > > to transfer myself out. > > > > > > It is not. You can transfer yourself out whenever you want to. In tournament > > > play, you are required to play such that you maximize your victory, but if > > > you are at 3 pool and have only vampires in torpor, maximizing your victory > > > is getting out of the game as soon as possible. > > > > > > > In spite of knowing the official rules, many people consider this > > unsportsmanlike (meaning, they don't like it when someone does this). > > The reason is very simple: people are expected to work hard to win. If > > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. > > If you throw away the basis (and use a different basis, one in which the > player in question has an option available that leads to the accumulation > of more VPs), then the answer is very different. What's stopping you from ruling that ther's no situation where it's impossible to get more VP? I mean, even if you're on 1 pool, have no minions, a anarch revolt in play and your predator has 5-6 vampires out, there's stil a theoreticalö chance for you to get VP's... Eagles sight, unexpected ousting of predator, time-out, life boon, major boon, dramatic upheaval, parity shift, succubus club... The list could go on longer of course... /Henrik Isaksson

Henrik Isaksson wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i > > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results > > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is > > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available > > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. > > > > If you throw away the basis (and use a different basis, one in which the > > player in question has an option available that leads to the accumulation > > of more VPs), then the answer is very different. > > What's stopping you from ruling that ther's no situation where it's impossible to get more VP? I > mean, even if you're on 1 pool, have no minions, a anarch revolt in play and your predator has 5-6 > vampires out, there's stil a theoreticalö chance for you to get VP's... Eagles sight, unexpected > ousting of predator, time-out, life boon, major boon, dramatic upheaval, parity shift, succubus > club... The list could go on longer of course... Exactly why, I pressume, the question used that as a fact. As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting). The judge can add "within reason", if he likes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 19 Sep 2002, Xian wrote: > Unless, of course, there's 5 to 10 minutes left, and you might survive > to the end of the round. :) You need to just shut THE HELL up, right now! Just kidding, but that last round at GenCon still smarts. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:45:47 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Henrik Isaksson wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i >> > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results >> > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is >> > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available >> > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. >> > >> > If you throw away the basis (and use a different basis, one in which the >> > player in question has an option available that leads to the accumulation >> > of more VPs), then the answer is very different. >> >> What's stopping you from ruling that ther's no situation where it's impossible to get more VP? I >> mean, even if you're on 1 pool, have no minions, a anarch revolt in play and your predator has 5-6 >> vampires out, there's stil a theoreticalö chance for you to get VP's... Eagles sight, unexpected >> ousting of predator, time-out, life boon, major boon, dramatic upheaval, parity shift, succubus >> club... The list could go on longer of course... > >Exactly why, I pressume, the question used that as a fact. > >As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" >position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting). > >The judge can add "within reason", if he likes. I tend to see it as if you have no way to insure you get an additional VP then just go the way you like. As long as you have an option (all be it stalling, back transfering to just stay long enough untill your prey is ousted or what ever) then you should. But without vampires out and not enough pool to transfer a new one out, you have no hand in gainig a VP. So that would in my idea allow suicide by influencing.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, LSJ wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, LSJ wrote: > > > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results > > > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is > > > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available > > > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. > > > > But the answer to the question, as it is commonly given, implies some > > certain knowledge of future events that does not exist. > > No. The question expressly states that knowledge as a given fact. The > answer doesn't change that. Then you are merely propagating epistemological errors along the question to the answer. I think the answer is intractable if you fully analyze the question, so this is one way of providing some answer. > If the knowledge that you cannot gain more VPs doesn't exist, then > it follows that there is some way for you to gain more VPs. You may be restating yourself here, but this is the first time I can recall hearing you say this. If we accept the limits of knowledge, then this puts a very narrow constraint on who can actually self-oust. This appears contrary to the latitude you've implied in other posts. > I wasn't suggesting that one accept the feeling. I was, as I have done > in the past, answering the question as given. The question as given > stated that there was no way to gain more VPs. It didn't state how > that knowledge came to be obtained - it simply stated the condition > as a fact. Right, but I think we should move through the intermediate reality of "the question as given" and go on to the facts as they exist. > As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" > position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting). I do remember hearing you say this, but I think what you said up above states it more strongly (at least for me). > But, if you wish to introduce "feelings", then, if the judge likes, > he can use "reasonable" in there - if the player wishes to do X and > cannot reasonably (in the judge's determination) gain more VPs by > doing something else, then she is free to do X. This is how I actually implement it. I guess I'd just like to see people use the word "know" a little less loosly. Thanks, [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, LSJ wrote: > > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, LSJ wrote: > > > > > The basis of the question is that any action the person takes results > > > > in a loss. It follows then that any "work" that the player does is > > > > "working" toward a loss. You cannot "play to win" if every available > > > > option for play open to you doesn't lead to a win. > > > > > > But the answer to the question, as it is commonly given, implies some > > > certain knowledge of future events that does not exist. > > > > No. The question expressly states that knowledge as a given fact. The > > answer doesn't change that. > > Then you are merely propagating epistemological errors along the question > to the answer. I think the answer is intractable if you fully analyze the > question, so this is one way of providing some answer. If you say so. In reality, I'm just answering the question as given. > > If the knowledge that you cannot gain more VPs doesn't exist, then > > it follows that there is some way for you to gain more VPs. > > You may be restating yourself here, but this is the first time I can > recall hearing you say this. If we accept the limits of knowledge, then > this puts a very narrow constraint on who can actually self-oust. This > appears contrary to the latitude you've implied in other posts. I diagree, but OK. I have often said, and restate now, that it is virtually impossible to be in a truly lost position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting, usually). > > I wasn't suggesting that one accept the feeling. I was, as I have done > > in the past, answering the question as given. The question as given > > stated that there was no way to gain more VPs. It didn't state how > > that knowledge came to be obtained - it simply stated the condition > > as a fact. > > Right, but I think we should move through the intermediate reality of "the > question as given" and go on to the facts as they exist. In that case the answer is: it's up to the judge's decision. The judge, when given the facts of the case, makes a judgment. > > As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" > > position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting). > > I do remember hearing you say this, but I think what you said up above > states it more strongly (at least for me). > > > But, if you wish to introduce "feelings", then, if the judge likes, > > he can use "reasonable" in there - if the player wishes to do X and > > cannot reasonably (in the judge's determination) gain more VPs by > > doing something else, then she is free to do X. > > This is how I actually implement it. I guess I'd just like to see people > use the word "know" a little less loosly. For myself, I do not use it loosely and do not read it loosely when it is used. For myself, I'd like to see people use it less loosely as well, but I'd also like to see people read it as written when it is used. I answer questions involving what is "known" as if what is known is known. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3d89b09b$0$25733$afc3...@news.easynet.fr>, The Tzimisce Lord <Tzimis...@NOSPAM.seclogd.org> writes: >> If the judge rules that you have a very strong case for only getting 0 >> VPs, you are free to gain zero VPs in any fashion you choose. > >if you have to choose to leave live a slave or die with honor i go >for honor. You are free to do what you want. Please don't inflict your moral codes on others, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.020919...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... > On 19 Sep 2002, Xian wrote: > > > Unless, of course, there's 5 to 10 minutes left, and you might survive > > to the end of the round. :) > > You need to just shut THE HELL up, right now! Can I GET ON UP instead? :) > Just kidding, but that last round at GenCon still smarts. Though this may come across as contradicting an earlier position of mine, you should have won that last round, and given a few more minutes, you probably would have. Which would have been pretty cool. You had my number pretty much all game, I think that there was just a whole lot of talking going on through the mid-game, and too much focus on table-control, rather than any of us going after our own prey all-out. Hope to see ya sooner or later, though the end of October is out...been playing GoT much? I've played a little, but not enough. Then again, I've barely been playing anything since GenCon. Argh. Xian gettin' on up

On 20 Sep 2002, Xian wrote: > Can I GET ON UP instead? :) As long as you do it like James Brown. > Though this may come across as contradicting an earlier position of > mine, you should have won that last round, and given a few more > minutes, you probably would have. Which would have been pretty cool. > You had my number pretty much all game, I think that there was just a > whole lot of talking going on through the mid-game, and too much focus > on table-control, rather than any of us going after our own prey > all-out. I felt like my position on the table was pretty strong. If the Week hadn't been suddened, I think I could have steamrollered through for the win. Without it, and with Alex on 'D', it just took too long. Such is life... it doesn't actually bug me, but it's fun to rib you about it. ;) > Hope to see ya sooner or later, though the end of October is > out...been playing GoT much? I've played a little, but not enough. > Then again, I've barely been playing anything since GenCon. Argh. That uber-sucks about the (fingerquote) October thing. What if we all pitched in on a "We dig Xian" pot? > Xian > gettin' on up Dude, you told us you were moving in with your girlfriend, and you could've left it at that. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I was told that it was against the rules to transfer myself out. >> I saw no way to gain any more VPs than I currently had and was >> going to get ousted on my next turn (I had stealth bleed behind >> me and zero intercept), so was I obligated to stay in the game? >> > > No. If you can gain no more than X more VPs (X >= 0), then you are free > to gain X more VPs in whatever legal manner you like. If X is > zero, then you are free to gain your zero more VPs in whatever manner > like, including transferring your last pool to an uncontrolled vampire. > Is it ever possible to know that you don't have any chance to gain an additional VP. If you have 1 pool left and no vampires it may look hopeless but it is possible that some will play a MAlk prank or game and give you 4 or 5 blood and a baby vampire with which you can do stuff. Maybe a couple of games will be played. Or a 1st tradtion is played and your predator can't take any turns for the next three rounds because they are low on blood. Or you could be life booned. Since cross table, 0 action blood gain does exist I see how this can ever be seen as a maximizing action. Even if it is just you and you predator left he may do something stupid. action odds of additional VP additional VP's Value Don't transfer= .01 1-5 .1-.5 Transfer= 0 1-5 0 MAximizing effort=Don't transfer Paul

In message <3D8F09AE...@nospam.forme.msu.edu>, Paul Steiner <stei...@nospam.forme.msu.edu> writes: > Is it ever possible to know that you don't have any chance to gain an >additional VP. To within an acceptable level of confidence, you can ask a judge, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Paul Steiner writes: > Is it ever possible to know that > you don't have any chance to gain an >additional VP. One stunt you could do to prevent your grandprey from transferring out would be to offer to let him withdraw once he's your prey if some unlikely event happens. You could bring 5 regular dice, roll them once he becomes your prey, and if they all come up sixes, you'll let him leave. He then has a 1 in 7776 chance of getting a 1/2 VP; incredibly slim, but a verifiable chance, so he shouldn't legally be allowed to withdraw. You can make the deal if there's any benefit to you to him trying to stay, as your expected loss is so slim. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

CurtAdams wrote: > > Paul Steiner writes: > > Is it ever possible to know that > > you don't have any chance to gain an > >additional VP. > > One stunt you could do to prevent your > grandprey from transferring out would be > to offer to let him withdraw once he's your > prey if some unlikely event happens. You > could bring 5 regular dice, roll them once he > becomes your prey, and > if they all come up sixes, you'll let him leave. > He then has a 1 in 7776 chance of getting > a 1/2 VP; incredibly slim, but a verifiable chance, > so he shouldn't legally be allowed to withdraw. > You can make the deal if there's any benefit > to you to him trying to stay, as your expected > loss is so slim. Attempting to use hard numbers for probabilities is not advisable in these situations, since the hard numbers are impossible to come by. For example, the above fails to account for the probability that the player would be Life Booned if she went ahead and transferred out. Even if it did, that probability would then have to be adjusted by the expected VPs the player would get in that event. Even if you got that far, you would not then compare that number with the 1/7776 figure above - the latter fails to take into account the probability that either you or she (or both) are ousted before you become her predator and she exhausts her library /and/ fails to consider the odds of someone else thwarting her withdrawal if you get that far. If the judge is omniscient enough to evaulate such odds numerically for the given situation, then he should feel free to make rulings based on the hard numbers. (i.e., You can expect a GW 6503 out of 13772024831 times with that play, which is better than with any other play, so you must make that play). If not, then he should make rulings based on reasonable expectations. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Much simpler than that. How about the chance that you're a liar and intend to double-cross your grandprey in the event that you oust your prey? Of course, if Curt's proposal is merely intended to prove that his grandprey had _some_ chance - no matter how small, then neither the _possible_ doublecross nor any of these other things mentioned above would negate that. They're only possible, not inevitable, wrenches thorn into the mix. (Except for the life boon thing, which I don't understand the significance of.) Some chance of 1/7776 is still a chance. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Of course, if Curt's proposal is merely intended to prove > that his grandprey had _some_ chance - no matter how small, > then neither the _possible_ doublecross nor any of these other > things mentioned above would negate that. They're only possible, > not inevitable, wrenches thorn into the mix. (Except for the life > boon thing, which I don't understand the significance of.) Some > chance of 1/7776 is still a chance. The Life Boon thing addresses that point: The prey has a small chance if she doesn't transfer out (as you say) *and* has a small chance if she *does* transfer out (since she could then be Life Booned and go on to accumulate more VPs). If the judge rules that the chances are negligible in either event, the prey is free to choose either method as she wishes. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com writes: >For example, the above fails to account for the >probability that the player would be Life Booned if >she went ahead and transferred out. Durn, forgot about Life Boons! Guess I'll have to save that stunt for 3-player endgames until I can get some statistics on how often voluntary oustees get VPs as a result of being LB'd. >Even if you got that far, you would not then >compare that number with the 1/7776 figure above - >the latter fails to take into account the probability >that either you or she (or both) are ousted before >you become her predator and she exhausts her >library As long as there's a plausible way for me to end up his predator, he clearly has a chance to earn a VP my way so he can't transfer out unless trensferring out gives him a meaningful chance at a VP. Just for the sake of possible future judge rulings, has anybody ever seen somebody get a VP as a result of attempting to transfer themselves out? I sure haven't. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > As long as there's a plausible way for me to end up his > predator, he clearly has a chance to earn a VP my > way so he can't transfer out unless trensferring > out gives him a meaningful chance at a VP. I wouldn't agree if I were judging. Both options offer no reasonable chance for more VPs. Depending on Life Boon isn't reasonable. Neither is depending on quintuple sixes. [ quoted text not captured ]