First of all, I find the current system fine. But for people who think
self-ousting is unacceptable, and that there should always be hope for
0.5 vp, here's an alternate rule:
Any player (under some conditions described below) may decide to
"leave" the game:
1/ All his/her cards and counters stay in play.
2/ He/she still take his/her turn but...
3/ He/she cannot perform any action, play any card, or block or cast
vote or make choices ("may" or "can"). In fact, the player is out of
the game and cannot do anything.
4/ He/she gain 1 pool at the beginning of the turn, or 2 pool if he/
she has the Edge (this is an exception to rule 3/ concerning choices,
see remarks).
5/ Any player, except his predator, may "oust" him or her as an action
directed to all the players (so any player may block).
6/ If there is only one player left, judge should decide if the
remaining player can oust the remaining prey(s), ignoring the time
limit.
7/ If there is no player in play (may happen on a vote that ousts all
the "ready" Methuselahs), players who has left the game each gain 0.5
vp. No point is awarded for the last man standing.
At the end of the game, if he or she hasn't been ousted, he or she
gains 0.5 vp
Remarks and details for each point:
1/ This allows players that were planning on stealing resources /
sending a fame vampire to torpor etc. not to have their plan spoiled
2/ Same reason: if the predator was counting on Anarch Revolt, etc. to
oust the player, or getting the Coven, the plan shouldn't be spoiled
3/ The player has decided to leave the game. Therefore he can't
interact with the other players. Mandatory effects (such as hunting
with an empty vampire, choosing a strike or taking 1 damage when in
combat with a minion with a Wolf companion) should be applied.
Optional effects should use the default (such as: my strike is a hand
strike, I may draw a card => I don't draw a card, I have chooses
either to burn 1 pool or to lose all transfers during my next
influence phase => I lose all transfers). Judge should be called in
case of disagreement. Gaining 1 from the Edge is an exception to this
rule, it becomes mandatory for that player.
4/ With no pool gain, hope to survive are very slim. 1 pool seems
reasonable, 2 pool seem too much. Gaining 2 with the Edge forces at
least the predator to move and bleed. Maybe did the leaving player
assure some kind of position with the edge. It may also be a technique
for other players (such as playing Regaining the Upper Hand ;)) to
keep that player alive.
5/ This avoids the situation where the predator could "use" his prey
to prevent his grand-prey of intercepting his damaging votes. To make
it clear: A > B > C > D > E. C has decided to "leave" the game. B
calls votes to oust D and D cannot block because he's not B's prey. D
doesn't want to spend his resources on ousting C the normal way (he
may not be able too anyway), but he may try to with a very little cost
(a cardless action that anyone can block).
6/ A "ready" player with no mean to oust his prey should not be
awarded his vp. Calling the judge avoids loosing time. The player
should be able to prove that he can oust his prey however. Being able
to bleed for 1 with 2 minions each turn should suffice.
7/ Nuf' to say
** When can a player "leave" ? **
That's a big point. I don't have an answer because it must be thought
carefully to avoid abuses. But maybe:
- if reduced to 5 pool or less
- or after half game (in time)
And the decision should be taken by a player at the end of his or her
turn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I am in the group of people who thinks that self ousting should
somehow be prevented. If its via development changes, fine.
I think this suggestion is extremely messy though, and waaaayyy too
complex. I cant even start to imagine the amount of loopholes and
corner cases arising from this.
Personally I prefer just removing "reasonable chance" and "Life Boon"
from the usual discussions about this whenever they come up.
If you leave out the "Ahh yes, but someone could play Life Boon", then
transferring your last pool out, or killing yourself with a KRC or
paying a master card that kills you, can all be classified as not
playing to win. Transferring out leaves you 0 % chance of getting more
VPs (again, excluding Life Boon or playing for instance an anarchist
uprising that also ousts your prey). Staying in the game, in whatever
way or manor you can, should yield you a higher chance of getting a
VP.
As an example, I have once gotten a VP with no controlled minions, no
cards in my hand and only an Anarch revolt in play.
I have never gotten a VP while being at 0 pool, unless it happened by
the same effect that cost me my last pool.
I am fine with people being able to tap out completely and
transferring down to 1 pool, just to hand a VP to their predator out
of spite. At least it gives me one round where I have a chance of
doing something. Either giving them pool, rushing the predators
minions, ousting him myself, or whatever.
My real beef is with the ability to remove the last of your own pool,
in a way that doesn't give you an additional vp.
So, yeah, ban Life Boon!
On May 12, 9:16 am, n...@watagame.com wrote:
> Personally I prefer just removing "reasonable chance" and "Life Boon"
> from the usual discussions about this whenever they come up.
> If you leave out the "Ahh yes, but someone could play Life Boon", then
> transferring your last pool out, or killing yourself with a KRC or
> paying a master card that kills you, can all be classified as not
> playing to win. Transferring out leaves you 0 % chance of getting more
> VPs (again, excluding Life Boon or playing for instance an anarchist
> uprising that also ousts your prey). Staying in the game, in whatever
> way or manor you can, should yield you a higher chance of getting a
> VP.
>
> As an example, I have once gotten a VP with no controlled minions, no
> cards in my hand and only an Anarch revolt in play.
> I have never gotten a VP while being at 0 pool, unless it happened by
> the same effect that cost me my last pool.
So you weren't playing to win when you got that VP by going to 0 pool?
(At least, not by your definition above).
> I am fine with people being able to tap out completely and
> transferring down to 1 pool, just to hand a VP to their predator out
> of spite. At least it gives me one round where I have a chance of
> doing something. Either giving them pool, rushing the predators
> minions, ousting him myself, or whatever.
How about transferring down to 1 then playing a Dragonbound?
Transferring down to 1 when Dragonbound is already in play?
Playing Reversal of Fortunes then transferring down to 1?
Being at 1 and handling Army of Rats before the Edge?
(Continue to adjust parameters as necessary depending on the answer to
expose the gray continuum that exists instead of the sharp line).
On 12 mai, 15:16, n...@watagame.com wrote:
>
> I am in the group of people who thinks that self ousting should
> somehow be prevented. If its via development changes, fine.
> I think this suggestion is extremely messy though, and waaaayyy too
> complex. I cant even start to imagine the amount of loopholes and
> corner cases arising from this.
Ok. With simple words : the player that leaves is a bag of pool
gaining 1 per turn. If he survives, he gains 0.5 vp.
Sounds clearer, no? :)
> Personally I prefer just removing "reasonable chance" and "Life Boon"
> from the usual discussions about this whenever they come up.
> If you leave out the "Ahh yes, but someone could play Life Boon", then
> transferring your last pool out, or killing yourself with a KRC or
> paying a master card that kills you, can all be classified as not
> playing to win. Transferring out leaves you 0 % chance of getting more
> VPs (again, excluding Life Boon or playing for instance an anarchist
> uprising that also ousts your prey). Staying in the game, in whatever
> way or manor you can, should yield you a higher chance of getting a
> VP.
You can't stop people to do things that are allowed by the game
because you think it's "not fairplay" or "not in your best interest".
But you can encourage them to take another course of actions. This is
why I suggested a rule that would allow you to gain 0.5 vp when
everything seems lost, instead of just leaving the game and
"unbalancing" the table by self-ousting.
People want to have fun. People want to score. If they can't have any
of this, don't expect them to care about who will get the vp.
On May 12, 6:25 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> How about transferring down to 1 then playing a Dragonbound?
> Transferring down to 1 when Dragonbound is already in play?
> Playing Reversal of Fortunes then transferring down to 1?
> Being at 1 and handling Army of Rats before the Edge?
>
The first two require you to play specific cards from your hand.
Reversal of Fortune is a referendum, which can be blocked, voted down,
or delayed. What's more, you have to have a torpored minion in order
for Dragonbound to kill you when you have only one pool. The third
example requires your predator to have played a card (Army of Rats), a
card which all minions at the table can attempt to remove before your
untap phase.
Transferring out for the self-oust requires no cards played and cannot
be blocked or prevented by other Methusalehs, short of a specifically
timed Life Boon.
The examples you've given illustrate the point of people who are
against self-ousting: if someone can't self-oust with transfers, they
would have to play cards or rely on played cards + game state combos
in order to self-oust. These cards and game states are all things
that other players have a chance of preventing. Other players can't
prevent self-ousts through transfers.
Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
On May 12, 12:30 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 6:25 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > How about transferring down to 1 then playing a Dragonbound?
> > Transferring down to 1 when Dragonbound is already in play?
> > Playing Reversal of Fortunes then transferring down to 1?
> > Being at 1 and handling Army of Rats before the Edge?
>
> The first two require you to play specific cards from your hand.
True. But that is beside the point. This is a TCG.
> What's more, you have to have a torpored minion in order
> for Dragonbound to kill you when you have only one pool.
What's more, you have to have a minion in your uncontrolled region to
transfer out.
> Transferring out for the self-oust requires no cards played and cannot
> be blocked or prevented by other Methusalehs, short of a specifically
> timed Life Boon.
Yes. It's a matter of degree. That's the point.
> The examples you've given illustrate the point of people who are
> against self-ousting: if someone can't self-oust with transfers, they
> would have to play cards or rely on played cards + game state combos
> in order to self-oust. These cards and game states are all things
> that other players have a chance of preventing. Other players can't
> prevent self-ousts through transfers.
? Life Boon, as you already noted.
Degree.
> Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
> win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
True. Transferring out is just one of the many examples of another
player's decision that can actually cost you a game win, but there is
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 12 Maj, 15:25, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 9:16 am, n...@watagame.com wrote:
>
> > Personally I prefer just removing "reasonable chance" and "Life Boon"
> > from the usual discussions about this whenever they come up.
> > If you leave out the "Ahh yes, but someone could play Life Boon", then
> > transferring your last pool out, or killing yourself with a KRC or
> > paying a master card that kills you, can all be classified as not
> > playing to win. Transferring out leaves you 0 % chance of getting more
> > VPs (again, excluding Life Boon or playing for instance an anarchist
> > uprising that also ousts your prey). Staying in the game, in whatever
> > way or manor you can, should yield you a higher chance of getting a
> > VP.
>
> > As an example, I have once gotten a VP with no controlled minions, no
> > cards in my hand and only an Anarch revolt in play.
> > I have never gotten a VP while being at 0 pool, unless it happened by
> > the same effect that cost me my last pool.
>
> So you weren't playing to win when you got that VP by going to 0 pool?
> (At least, not by your definition above).
Yes, I were. I had 0 VPs and was not in a situation to get more except
for the one chance of ousting both my prey and myself, thereby gaining
1 VP as opposed to 0.
>
> > I am fine with people being able to tap out completely and
> > transferring down to 1 pool, just to hand a VP to their predator out
> > of spite. At least it gives me one round where I have a chance of
> > doing something. Either giving them pool, rushing the predators
> > minions, ousting him myself, or whatever.
>
> How about transferring down to 1 then playing a Dragonbound?
> Transferring down to 1 when Dragonbound is already in play?
> Playing Reversal of Fortunes then transferring down to 1?
> Being at 1 and handling Army of Rats before the Edge?
>
> (Continue to adjust parameters as necessary depending on the answer to
> expose the gray continuum that exists instead of the sharp line).
As I said, I am fine with that. All of the above involve variables
that can be affected many times over in the course of a turn.
Watching your predator influence his last pool out in spite is
something you cannot affect (again, barring the Life Boon from the
equation, which was what I was aiming for).
Is it safe to assume that if we are not including Life Boon or
Extremis boon (might be others, but I cant think of any) as viable
arguments, then transferring your last pool cannot lead to more VPs?
I guess the same goes for spending your last pool unless in the
process of spending or losing it, you get a VP for ousting your prey.
If we agree on those, and then say that no matter how horrible your
situation is, the chance of getting a VP while remaining in the game
always is above 0, then in order to maximize VPs you cannot spend/
transfer your last pool.
That will improve the PTW rule in my opinion.
On May 12, 2:20 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Maj, 15:25, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:16 am, n...@watagame.com wrote:
--- FIRST SECTION ---
> > > If you leave out the "Ahh yes, but someone could play Life Boon", then
> > > transferring your last pool out, or killing yourself with a KRC or
> > > paying a master card that kills you, can all be classified as not
> > > playing to win.
--- END FIRST SECTION ---
> > > As an example, I have once gotten a VP with no controlled minions, no
> > > cards in my hand and only an Anarch revolt in play.
> > > I have never gotten a VP while being at 0 pool, unless it happened by
> > > the same effect that cost me my last pool.
>
> > So you weren't playing to win when you got that VP by going to 0 pool?
> > (At least, not by your definition above).
>
> Yes, I were. I had 0 VPs and was not in a situation to get more except
> for the one chance of ousting both my prey and myself, thereby gaining
> 1 VP as opposed to 0.
Oh, I agree that you were playing to win, of course.
I was just pointing out that you explicitly classified that activity
as not playing to win (first section above).
The contrast simply helps illustrate the difficulty involved in such
classifications.
On 12 Maj, 18:55, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 12:30 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 6:25 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > How about transferring down to 1 then playing a Dragonbound?
> > > Transferring down to 1 when Dragonbound is already in play?
> > > Playing Reversal of Fortunes then transferring down to 1?
> > > Being at 1 and handling Army of Rats before the Edge?
>
> > The first two require you to play specific cards from your hand.
>
> True. But that is beside the point. This is a TCG.
It is exactly the point (for me at least, and apparently Aaron and
others as well). One requires cards and effects in game, that can be
countered, prevented or helped. The other uses a fundamental game
mechanic that is realistically impossible to counter.
Many players (there are no statistics I know, but the number of times
this discussion pops up seems to indicate that it is a reasonable
amount) are unhappy with this aspect of the game. It seems that the
only way to completely make sure people will not selfoust out of
spite, requires your deck to be able to burn 1 vampire in another
players uncontrolled area per turn, while at the same time giving him
1 pool per turn.
I think that is bad for the game in general.
>
> > What's more, you have to have a torpored minion in order
> > for Dragonbound to kill you when you have only one pool.
>
> What's more, you have to have a minion in your uncontrolled region to
> transfer out.
Easily accomplished and unless you want the scenario from above, its
not realistic that decks will be able to prevent that.
>
> > Transferring out for the self-oust requires no cards played and cannot
> > be blocked or prevented by other Methusalehs, short of a specifically
> > timed Life Boon.
>
> Yes. It's a matter of degree. That's the point.
>
> > The examples you've given illustrate the point of people who are
> > against self-ousting: if someone can't self-oust with transfers, they
> > would have to play cards or rely on played cards + game state combos
> > in order to self-oust. These cards and game states are all things
> > that other players have a chance of preventing. Other players can't
> > prevent self-ousts through transfers.
>
> ? Life Boon, as you already noted.
>
> Degree.
Would the situation be different if we didnt have Life Boon or
Extremis Boon?
>
> > Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
> > win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
>
> True. Transferring out is just one of the many examples of another
> player's decision that can actually cost you a game win, but there is
> essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
As mentioned above all the examples you gave leave me multiple options
of preventing the self oust.
Transfering/spending your last pool, leaves me only one. And one that
is so corner case, that no one reliably uses it.
The game is immensely fun and entertaining. There is a lot of user
feedback in these threads, indicating that this one aspect is causing
problems in playgroups and at tournaments all over the world. I think
it is worth it to consider other options.
On May 12, 2:37 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Maj, 18:55, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 12:30 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
> > > win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
>
> > True. Transferring out is just one of the many examples of another
> > player's decision that can actually cost you a game win, but there is
> > essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
>
> As mentioned above all the examples you gave leave me multiple options
> of preventing the self oust.
?
Restating what I wrote above, switching a term for clarity:
Self-ousting is not the only thing "that can actually cost you a game
win with there being essentially nothing you can do to stop it". It is
just one of the many examples.
> The game is immensely fun and entertaining. There is a lot of user
> feedback in these threads, indicating that this one aspect is causing
> problems in playgroups and at tournaments all over the world. I think
> it is worth it to consider other options.
There was alot a lot of user feedback in these threads in the 90's
indicating that the lack of a card limit was causing problems in
playgroups and tournaments all over the world.
Naturally options are considered.
But sometimes, the best solution is correcting a problem in
perception.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Exactly, so that is why I dont think it should be allowed "by the
game" to put yourself at 0 pool unless you increase your number of VPs
at the same time.
I am not concerned about fairplay or my own interests. I am concerned
with an aspect that I think is damaging to the game, and it seems I
share that opinion with many players.
>
> People want to have fun. People want to score. If they can't have any
> of this, don't expect them to care about who will get the vp.
Many people dont think that selfousting is fun. So when someone
selfousts, it reduces the fun for 4 other people. If there are viable
alternatives to the rules that can prevent that, then I think its
perfectly legit to consider them. Like you did.
Your solution is the carrot. Mine is the stick.
Normally I prefer carrots, but I dont think your carrot is good
enough, and I think it will be hard to find the perfect balance that
leaves a carrot good enough, while not making it unbalanced. :)
On May 12, 8:15 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]> leaves a carrot good enough, while not making it unbalanced. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a 4/5 player game and in its best from is interactive between
all players.
In the games I have been where someone has self ousted (e.g.
Ludwigshafen 2 weeks ago!) it's often either because they've played
their own game and ignored table interactions and their game has died
or because someone else on the table (prey/predator but not always)
has trumped them/thumped them/cross table shifted for 5 etc and in
someway broken the nice happy 5-player interaction model.
In the case of the player who self ousted in Ludwigshafen they'd
managed to get me down to ~4 pool but had at the same time managed to
lose every minion to hits via poor decisions to bleed (I have untapped
minion they have no stealth for instance) so once that was done they
chose to self oust.
Now i'd rather have had a turn to recoup do some safe actions that
weren't going to be blocked etc but I totally understand why the self
ousted (prey and predator had combined to remove all minions and
therefore their fun from the game) - I don't think forcing them to
stay in the game on 1 pool no minions would have been great for them
and in many ways the table should take culpability for the self oust
(me for not pointing out that if they wait for one of those shiny obf
cards I might die and her cross table buddies for not interacting with
her at all).
Basically my laboured point is that if you interact with players more
than just treating them as conquest/conquerer you'll probably get less
self ousting.
Also adding over complicated rules for something that is fairly
marginal is absurd & more importantly can be circumvented via a number
of cards that could be in play (I can only remember the evil Darby
self ousting on me in addition to the above young lady in my decade of
tournament play & again if i'd listened to him it would never have
happened - although I'm pretty sure i've killed myself on a number of
occasions including a sort of deliberate Dragonbound)
Using the quote only as a launching point for my own post, and
directed toward everyone complaining about self-ousting, rather than
Aaron in particular:
On May 12, 12:30 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
> win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
More generally, there are plenty of cases where "another player's
decision to *take any one particular course of action* can actually
cost you a game win, [and[ there is essentially nothing you can do to
stop it."
It's a multiplayer game. The other players are allowed to affect the
outcome. Learn to love it, or take up a two player game.
-Steve Wampler
P.S.: If you make a deck that can only survive by blowing up its
predator, and then you lose with it, it isn't because there's a flaw
in the game and it isn't because another player "stole" your VP or
your GW. It is because your deck sucks.
[ quoted text not captured ]> occasIions including a sort of deliberate Dragonbound)- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
I am actually with you on most of these things. If I utterly and
completely destroy my predator, I dont get particularly surprised if
he transfers out. It is bad for me, which is why he does it. And yes,
I could have constructed my deck better or played differently. But it
doesnt happen to me like that.
The problem is that letting this option stay in the game means that it
leaves room for extremely lame and destructive plays. Destructive not
just for that particular game, but for the game in general.
As mentioned in another thread by other people, I have experienced
players using selfousts to constantly try and threaten their way to
VPs even when it wasnt necessary, people selfousting due to bad card
draws and feeling annoyed with that particular game, and many more
lame things. Yes, you can call the judge, but in most cases its hard
to judge the situation correctly, and clearly determine whether the
player has a chance to get a vp or not.
We have a couple of casual players in Copenhagen who are no longer
attending tournaments, mostly due to experiences from previous
tournaments involving international players. Its a multiplayer game
and people play it differently all around the globe. Selvousting is
just so far from their perception of how the game should be played,
that it turns them away from the tournament scene. I think thats a
shame, which is why I am bringing it up.
I dont think that "Play to get as many victory points as you possible
can" and "Ban Life Boon and Extremis Boon" (yes, I know the idea
sounds lame!) is very complicated.
To me it would be better than the current situation, since in most
cases someone else (the predator) would have to actually do something
to get the oust, leaving some dynamic in the game.
On 12 Maj, 22:19, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Using the quote only as a launching point for my own post, and
> directed toward everyone complaining about self-ousting, rather than
> Aaron in particular:
>
> On May 12, 12:30 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another player's decision to self-oust can actually cost you a game
> > win, but there is essentially nothing you can do to stop it.
>
> More generally, there are plenty of cases where "another player's
> decision to *take any one particular course of action* can actually
> cost you a game win, [and[ there is essentially nothing you can do to
> stop it."
> It's a multiplayer game. The other players are allowed to affect the
> outcome. Learn to love it, or take up a two player game.
Cool quote :)
My, and I think other players who share this feeling, argument is that
allowing people to spend/transfer their last pool technically means
that there IS nothing you can do to stop it. But that disallowing
that, in many cases will mean that you CAN do something to stop it. At
the very least, you get a turn to try,
Thats all I am asking for.
>
> -Steve Wampler
>
> P.S.: If you make a deck that can only survive by blowing up its
> predator, and then you lose with it, it isn't because there's a flaw
> in the game and it isn't because another player "stole" your VP or
> your GW. It is because your deck sucks.
As you say yourself, this is a multiplayer game, not a two player
game. So the chances of you accidentally ending up at a table with
someone who is just a prick or in a bad mood is bigger than if you
play a two player game.
I just want it to be harder for that person to ruin the balance of the
game just because he feels like it.
On May 12, 9:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> What's more, you have to have a minion in your uncontrolled region to
> transfer out.
>
No, that's not true: you can use four transfers and pay your last pool
to bring a vampire from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. If
you have no more crypt, then, yes, you cannot transfer out.
It is exactly because VTES is a TCG that the fact that an (almost)
cardless action can cost you a game win may cause concern. As you
noted, transferring out is not "cardless" because you need cards in
your uncontrolled region or crypt in order to do it. The reality is
that a small minority of decks will ever run out of crypt cards.
From Steve Wampler:
>More generally, there are plenty of cases where "another player's>decision to *take any one particular course of action* can actually
>cost you a game win, [and[ there is essentially nothing you can do to
>stop it.">It's a multiplayer game. The other players are allowed to affect the
>outcome. Learn to love it, or take up a two player game.
I disagree - almost every move that another player makes can be
intercepted or mitigated by another playing who has the necessary
cards. That's not to say that you will necessarily have those cards,
but they should have the option.
As you say, it's a multiplayer game. This means that other players in
the game should be able to use resources to interfere in the actions
of other players. I think it's especially true when the action the
player takes will unequivocally give a victory point to someone at the
table.
"Like or leave it" is not a very good argument, IMO. It doesn't prove
the superiority of your position, only that the rules are currently
the way you like them.
Honestly, I'm not horribly opposed to self-ousting, although I would
definitely vote to change the rules to disallow it. I just think that
there is an inherent problem with the game when there is no guide for
sportsmanlike play at the point where a player can no longer earn more
VPs. Self-ousting seems to be done too often as a means of
retribution or kingmaking in this case.
On May 12, 5:21 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com>
> I just want it to be harder for that person to ruin the balance of the
> game just because he feels like it.
It is already against the rules of the game to ruin the balance of the
game just because he feels like it. You can't act randomly and
capriciously in tournament VTES, due to the PTW rules.
In the small number of situations where someone is in a truly "lost"
position, they were put there somehow. If they were put their by their
predator, them ousting themselves isn't ruining the balance of the
game--their predator is just doing a good job. If they were put in
that position by their prey, them ousting themselves to spite their
prey (who effectively back ousted them) provides grand scheme
disincentive to not back oust your predator. Neither of these are a
problem.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter,
That's more than a touch obtuse and seems to be all about deflecting
the conversation back to defining the effectively non-existant case of
"lost position" or "the position where you cannot gain VPs while still
having pool". As a multiplayer game, with many people undertaking
many strategies for/against each other... while you have pool you
chance of getting 0.5VP is greater than your chance of getting no more
VPs by transferring out (or taking some other action that will reduce
you to 0 pool without gaining you a VP).
I have no problem with a kamikaze plunge where you spend your last
pool to kill your prey and gain 1VP.
I have no problem with a player sitting there and doing precisely
nothing and hoping that the game will time out and they'll gain 0.5VP
from surviving.
I, like many others, see that taking ANY course of action that reduces
your pool to 0 AND that same action has no chance of ousting your prey
should be illegal under PTW.
If I can't make a VP-deal that counts to the last two players (under
PTW) then suicide should also be illegal under PTW.
On May 12, 6:18 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's more than a touch obtuse and seems to be all about deflecting
> the conversation back to defining the effectively non-existant case of
> "lost position" or "the position where you cannot gain VPs while still
> having pool".
Which is an important thing to define, if even obtusely. The situation
we are talking about here (where someone is in a truly lost position,
and they can oust themselves legally) is very rare. If it is happening
more than rarely, the issue is not in making new rules that make it
illegal to self oust. The issue is enforcing the rules that already
exist to prevent that.
> I, like many others, see that taking ANY course of action that reduces
> your pool to 0 AND that same action has no chance of ousting your prey
> should be illegal under PTW.
It is. If you can play to win, you can't self oust. If that is no
longer a possibility (which is rare), you no linger need to play to
win. As by definition, you can't win.
> If I can't make a VP-deal that counts to the last two players (under
> PTW) then suicide should also be illegal under PTW.
Which comes back to "how do you make such a rule that actually
prevents someone from ousting themselves", other than the rules that
already exist?
Any rule you come up with will have significant loopholes. The current
rule does a good job of keeping people from ousting themselves most of
the time.
-Peter
> I have no problem with a player sitting there and doing precisely
> nothing and hoping that the game will time out and they'll gain 0.5VP
> from surviving.
I personally hate players that pool sack. Their inaction delays the
game more than the poor sod who has no chance of gaining a VP
transferring out.
I'm currently in a game where I should have transferred out long ago.
However, I didn't. Not because I'm against self ousting, but to prove
a point to the players in the game. The other players were the only
reason I was able to survive my initial predator. Yet, I still have
absolutely no chance of gaining a VP as it's impossible for me to oust
my prey. All I'm doing by staying in the game is pissing off whomever
my predator is, by staying around to block them. I can't go forward
and because it's JOL there is no such thing as Timing out.
Self Ousting is in my mind a necessary mechanic to the game. And from
what I've noticed the only people that really complain about it are
those who always try to Sweep a game.They get whinny because Player X
self ousted to prevent me from Sweeping. If that's why you're against
it. My suggest would be to realize you still won the game and deal.
Now for those instances where it isn't someone sweeping the game that
complains. Odds are it was still their actions that caused the Self-
Oust. Putting someone in a no win situation is just asking them to
self oust. Now, if that someone is your prey. All good. But if it's
cross table or your Predator even that you cause to self oust. You
have no one to blame but yourself for your actions. As you have
clearly made it so they are incapable of doing anything. So why should
they stay in a game they are essentially just watching?
If you truly wish to prevent people from Self-Ousting, you should play
and plan in a manner that wouldn't give anyone reason to Self-Oust.
This will keep everyone involved and everyone still gets to enjoy the
fun of playing the game. Rather than being in a situation where they
are simply watching everyone else play while they sit their twiddling
their thumbs between turns of doing nothing on their respective turn.
On 13 touko, 01:49, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> Which comes back to "how do you make such a rule that actually
> prevents someone from ousting themselves", other than the rules that
> already exist?
>
> Any rule you come up with will have significant loopholes. The current
> rule does a good job of keeping people from ousting themselves most of
> the time.
>
> -Peter
Loopholes would only matter if they rendered the rule nearly or
completely ineffective. For example, if you weren't allowed to spend
your last pool to influence or play cards people could get around it
by suicide rushing with Hasina Kesi. However, even if such a rule
would be introduced, I doubt we'd actually see a sudden surge of
Hasinas or other self destruction buttons being included in decks just
to get around the no-self-ousting rule. The end result would still be
visibly less instances of self ousting, which is better than nothing,
right?
On May 12, 5:25 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, I find the current system fine. But for people who think
> self-ousting is unacceptable, and that there should always be hope for
> 0.5 vp, here's an alternate rule:
Titanium Rules.
On May 12, 7:34 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The end result would still be
> visibly less instances of self ousting, which is better than nothing,
> right?
How many instances are their currently? I can remember very, very few
games of competitive VTES where someone self ousted. Very, very few.
If any. I can think of instances where people got pissed off for
whatever reason and just scooped up their stuff and left the game--
these have happened and will happen, and no extra rules in the game
will prevent it, and are outside the scope of rules about playing to
win and self ousting. But in terms of people staying within the scope
of the rules of the game and ousting themselves such that it affected
the outcome of the game? Very few times. People self oust in casual
play all the time, usually just in the name of speeding things up
(i.e. they are gonna die real soon, and if they oust themselves now,
the whole game speeds up and thay can start a new one sooner). But in
competitive play? I'm unconvinced that this is a vast epidemic that
requires something to stop it.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
It's common enough for someone to be annoyed by it, suggest a new rule
and then debate about it. :)
Anyway, that's a completely different argument then the one I was
responding to. I'm not really interested in participating further than
pointing out that a rule doesn't necessarily have to be fool proof to
be effective.
On May 12, 8:40 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 touko, 02:52, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > I'm unconvinced that this is a vast epidemic that
> > requires something to stop it.
>> It's common enough for someone to be annoyed by it, suggest a new rule
> and then debate about it. :)
That's the "it happened once" bar. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Totally personal statistics incoming:
At every EC I have attended (3 or 4, cant remember) there have been
several (anything from 2 to 5) cases of it over the course of the
tournaments. I think 3 times in total at the tables I have been at,
while not necessarily being my prey or pred. The other instances are
from listening to reports from players I was there with who
encountered it in their games.
I am not very active on the tournament scenes anymore, but some years
back I experienced it twice in a swedish tournament I attended, and in
France I dont think I have played a tournament where it hasnt either
been threatened with or actually carried out.
I went to the NAC last year and played for a full week. I didnt
encounter it or hear about it even once.
Are the people who are complaining about this mostly european like me?
It could be largely a matter of playstyles (which are very, very
different across the world).
[ quoted text not captured ]
You are only looking at it from the angle of the annoying prey who
blocks everything and torporizes all his predators vampires. Sure, he
should play differently. But what if I am not him?
What if I am the grandpredator to the one who selfousts, and I just
happened to not be able to help him out. By selfousting in frustration
he is giving a VP to my prey and strengthening him.
You are also assuming that all players are fairly normal and behave in
a rational manner. That is not the case, there are many extreme people
out there.
My experience is not that the ones who get frustrated about this, are
the types who want to sweep or nothing. My experience is that those
are actually the ones who are selfousting. they are not happy about
the small chance of gaining 1 vp. If things dont go their way, they
start acting like kids and selfoust.
Those are the ones that annoy me.
One example I experienced was a guy who got his parity shift voted
down and didnt get to oust his prey that turn. He felt that everyone
were against him, so he wanted to transfer out his last 6 pool (info
highway) in spite of having two princes in play and a relatively
harmless predator. In that particular case a judge ruled that he
couldnt, but the problem with that rule is that it is so subjective,
so it only catches the extreme cases, like this one.
In most cases, the player is allowed to transfer out, because its too
hard to determine whetehr or not he can get more vps.
On May 13, 7:46 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Totally personal statistics incoming:
> At every EC I have attended (3 or 4, cant remember) there have been
> several (anything from 2 to 5) cases of it over the course of the
> tournaments. I think 3 times in total at the tables I have been at,
> while not necessarily being my prey or pred. The other instances are
> from listening to reports from players I was there with who
> encountered it in their games.
I wasn't there, I don't know, but I'm going to hazzard a guess that at
least a few of these instances should likely have been deemed illegal
by virtue of PTW. Again, I don't think this is actually an issue of
"we need a new rule", but is an issue of "we need to actually enforce
the rule we already have".
> Are the people who are complaining about this mostly european like me?
> It could be largely a matter of playstyles (which are very, very
> different across the world).
Not to paint with too broad a brush, but probably. My experience
(based on mostly this here newsgroup) is that European play is far
more focused on wheeling/dealing and social engineering (where self
ousting as a threat or promise becomes a worthwhile bargaining chip)
than US play. And I in no way mean this is a slag. It just seems to be
my understanding of the world.
-Peter
On May 12, 5:21 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My, and I think other players who share this feeling, argument is that
> allowing people to spend/transfer their last pool technically means
> that there IS nothing you can do to stop it. But that disallowing
> that, in many cases will mean that you CAN do something to stop it. At
> the very least, you get a turn to try,
And my argument is that the whole "transferring out" issue is a
mislead. There are plenty of other ways for a player in a lost
position to hasten his or her own demise. Trying to legislate against
all of them is a fool's errand.
It isn't like there is a special rule that allows self-ousting. If
there were, I might agree that it was silly. The ability to do so is
the simple result of the "your life is the currency" system that is
fundamental to VtES.
> As you say yourself, this is a multiplayer game, not a two player
> game. So the chances of you accidentally ending up at a table with
> someone who is just a prick or in a bad mood is bigger than if you
> play a two player game.
>
> I just want it to be harder for that person to ruin the balance of the
> game just because he feels like it.
And I'm telling you that this is unequivocally a waste of time.
Players will play how they play. This isn't a VtES thing, its a
multiplayer game thing.
-Steve Wampler
-Steve Wampler
On May 12, 5:23 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree - almost every move that another player makes can be
> intercepted or mitigated by another playing who has the necessary
> cards. That's not to say that you will necessarily have those cards,
> but they should have the option.
So use those cards to prevent the self-ousters position from being
lost in the first place.
Or just stop daydreaming about random stuff you could do with eagle's
sight. For the most part, in VtES you ability to interact with
players who aren't your predator or prey is extremely limited. That
means that often, people will be doing things you can't stop.
Sometimes those things will be bad for you. Self-ousting from a lost
position is a tiny subset. Trying to ban it:
1) Randomly singles it out from a host of similar actions
2) Is the first step down a slippery slope of trying to legislate how
people play
3) Won't prevent people from speeding up their own exit form the game
when they want to
4) Is trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem
> As you say, it's a multiplayer game. This means that other players in
> the game should be able to use resources to interfere in the actions
> of other players. I think it's especially true when the action the
> player takes will unequivocally give a victory point to someone at the
> table.
>
> "Like or leave it" is not a very good argument, IMO. It doesn't prove
> the superiority of your position, only that the rules are currently
> the way you like them.
I'm not talking about fiddly bits of the rules. I am talking about
the fundamental nature of *all games that have more than two players
(or teams)*. You can't change them. Therefor, you can either "Like
or leave it".
> Honestly, I'm not horribly opposed to self-ousting, although I would
> definitely vote to change the rules to disallow it. I just think that
> there is an inherent problem with the game when there is no guide for
> sportsmanlike play at the point where a player can no longer earn more
> VPs. Self-ousting seems to be done too often as a means of
> retribution or kingmaking in this case.
I don't think I've ever seen a self-oust result in a kingmaking
situation.
And allowing self-ousting as a means of retribution is actually good
for the game; it discourages killing people who aren't your prey.
-Steve Wampler
On May 12, 7:34 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Loopholes would only matter if they rendered the rule nearly or
> completely ineffective.
Which they would.
Absolutely.
In a situation where you might want to transfer yourself out, you
could always transfer down to 1 and make sure you have no defenses.
In 99% of situations that's basically just as good. So now you try to
ban that, and you're in this crazy world of legislating people's
play. It's illegal to tap out and bluff that I have a wake? What if
my predator can't oust me even if he calls my bluff? Where's the line
about when it becomes OK? How many guys do I need to leave untapped?
Am I allowed to gamble that she doesn't have a seduction and only
leave one blocker? Do I have to have two? Am I required to leave an
AUS guy untapped, just in case she has stealth? Will inferior aus do?
Legislating play is useless and intrusive and basically horrible.
There are already rules against playing just to throw the game to your
best friend, and those are hard enough to enforce.
=Steve Wampler
On May 13, 7:56 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are only looking at it from the angle of the annoying prey who
> blocks everything and torporizes all his predators vampires. Sure, he
> should play differently. But what if I am not him?
This is exactly the point that I have been making.
Other players will play. Sometimes those plays will make a third
party win. Trying to prevent this with rules is impossible.
What if your grandprey is playing a crappy deck, and just rolls over
and dies, thus strengthening your prey, making your job harder.
That's bad for you, right? Do you want to ban bad decks? Bad play?
Trying something risky and it not paying off?
> What if I am the grandpredator to the one who selfousts, and I just
> happened to not be able to help him out. By selfousting in frustration
> he is giving a VP to my prey and strengthening him.
He's not "giving" that VP to your prey. Your prey earned it by
killing *his* prey. Or, perhaps, a third (fourth?) party killed your
grandprey, in which case *that* player is the one giving out unearned
VPs.
We're not talking about someone self-ousting because of some random
frustration. The hypothetical person under discussion has, by
definition, no chance of getting any more VPs. His or her actual
elimination from the game is a simple formality.
> You are also assuming that all players are fairly normal and behave in
> a rational manner. That is not the case, there are many extreme people
> out there.
> My experience is not that the ones who get frustrated about this, are
> the types who want to sweep or nothing. My experience is that those
> are actually the ones who are selfousting. they are not happy about
> the small chance of gaining 1 vp. If things dont go their way, they
> start acting like kids and selfoust.
> Those are the ones that annoy me.
Yeah, that's different. That already violates the existing Play to
Win rule. So no new rule needed.
> One example I experienced was a guy who got his parity shift voted
> down and didnt get to oust his prey that turn. He felt that everyone
> were against him, so he wanted to transfer out his last 6 pool (info
> highway) in spite of having two princes in play and a relatively
> harmless predator. In that particular case a judge ruled that he
> couldnt, but the problem with that rule is that it is so subjective,
> so it only catches the extreme cases, like this one.
> In most cases, the player is allowed to transfer out, because its too
> hard to determine whetehr or not he can get more vps.
So you want to add another subjective rule that would only catch
extreme cases?
-Steve Wampler
I am currently playing a game on JOL
At the start of my turn, I had Tariq with atonement, rowan ring and
CEL in play. T:D in play, I top decked a Public enemy from my discard.
11 pool.
Cristos Mantigo goes back, makes a red list out of anarch Kyrylo.
Tariq rushes, burns Kyrylo. The pro san deck above me has bled me for
ass loads, but i have managed to survive due to judicious use of
deflections. My prey gets a Carlton past me at 3 stealth, and then
retroactively burns my tariq at the end of his turn.
I am tapped out, AR in play, I have no anarch.
My untap i am down to 3. play vessel. My prey will sweep if my pred
does not get 6 pool, as my prey has already ousted one.
My thinking is very simple.
Why should I allow my prey to sweep because of a spectacularly sneaky
move?
That completely crippled any ability I had to mount any kind of
defence?
On 13 touko, 16:05, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 12, 7:34 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Loopholes would only matter if they rendered the rule nearly or
> > completely ineffective.
>
> Which they would.
> Absolutely.
>
> In a situation where you might want to transfer yourself out, you
> could always transfer down to 1 and make sure you have no defenses.
> In 99% of situations that's basically just as good.
Are you sure? The deck types that typically get punished by someone
self ousting are some sort of rush decks. Having 1 pool doesn't matter
if there are no ready minions that can bleed you out.
> So now you try to
> ban that, and you're in this crazy world of legislating people's
> play.
Nobody's trying to ban everything.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On May 13, 4:05 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 touko, 16:05, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote:> > In a situation where you might want to transfer yourself out, you
> > could always transfer down to 1 and make sure you have no defenses.
> > In 99% of situations that's basically just as good.
>
> Are you sure? The deck types that typically get punished by someone
> self ousting are some sort of rush decks.
That's because other decks focus on their *prey* enough that folks
aren't self-ousting on them. (So do rush decks, played well, but
that's a different issue.) And, really, the rush deck isn't
"punished" by someone self-ousting.
Short form:
If you don't get a particular VP, you didn't earn that VP by being
that player's predator when they were ousted, by their own hand or
someone else's, so stop insinuating that someone "stole" it from you.
(That issue is why seat-switchers were banned, though. Switching who
is whose predator/prey can certainly be seen as stealing a VP.)
- D.J.
On May 13, 4:37 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This isn't relevant to whether making a rule against spending your
> last pool would be effective or ineffective.
Effective at what?
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Limiting the available methods for self ousting and consequently
reducing the instances of self ousting. You can read more about it in
some of the previous posts.
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's what I figured. Now, what's the goal in limiting self-ousting,
again?
Because it seemed to me that it was to prevent people from using that
to "punish" someone other than their predator, and to "steal" VP's.
Which is why it seemed to me that your claim that my statement was
irrelevant was, um, bogus. It was a direct response to your
discussion with Steve, and followed from that.
(I'd have gone through the whole sophistic chain of argument step by
step with you had there been more time. Unfortunately, I have
somewhere I need to be.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
My exchange with Steve concerned the effectiveness of such a rule.
Whether the limiting of self ousting is a worthwhile goal is a
different matter. If something is still unclear you can save time for
both of us and say what it is without beating around the bush.
On May 13, 4:05 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody's trying to ban everything.
The point is that a rule that says "you can't spend your last pool"
isn't going to stop people from effectively ousting themselves if they
want to effectively oust themselves. So if you really want a concrete
rule that prevents people from ousting themselves, it is going to take
an awful lot of work, and can easily move into making absurd rules
about how people play.
If I can't spend my last pool, can I spend down to 1 pool and tap out
my only minion? Can I play an Anarch Revolt that will kill me? Can I
not save the Famous minion in torpor that will kill me? Can I call a
Domain Challenge that will kill me? Can I choose to not play the wake
in my hand that will block the bleed that is killing me? Can I choose
to vote for the vote that will oust me?
There already is a perfectly effective rule that keeps people from
willy-nilly ousting themselves--the Play to Win rule. If you can win
the game, you must play to win the game. If you can't win the game,
you must play to maximize your VPs. If you can't reasonably expect to
win or get any more VPs, you can die in whatever manner you choose.
The vast majority of the time? You can reasonably expect to either win
or get more VPs until you are dead. So the vast majority of the time,
people can't oust themselves anyway.
In the incredibly small number of situations where you can legally
self oust, if you want to do so, you'll find a way to do so, even if
you are prohibited from spending your last pool.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
And here's a summary: there are many times where you might want to but
actually can't self oust by any other mean than spending your last
pool on cards or influences.
On May 13, 5:47 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And here's a summary: there are many times where you might want to but
> actually can't self oust by any other mean than spending your last
> pool on cards or influences.
Considering how rarely you are in a situation where you are actually
allowed to self oust, want to self oust, and self ousting will
actually have an impact on the game, you really think an extra, not
really effective rule is necessary?
-Peter
On May 13, 7:56 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not thinking of just the annoying Wall
Deck that works backwards. If that's his strategy, then he's doing
fine. But if he's just a wall that waits until the end to do anything.
That's both poor deck design and playing. If you aren't a Wall deck
that does that. I'm clearly not talking 'bout you.
If someone is self ousting out of Frustration. They are being poor
sports. However, if one self ousts due to the realization that they
have no chance of gaining a VP outside using the other Methuselahs to
abandon their own VPs(fat chance) so that you can get one of your own.
You clearly don't realize what game you a playing because. Everyone
only care's about themselves. As I mentioned in the one game I'm in,
I have no chance of gaining a VP what so ever. So I should self oust,
but I still haven't so that I can show the others just how it was only
their combined efforts that kept me in the game in the first place.
Although, now that the "weenie" threat is gone, I'm still incapable
of moving forward without essentially giving my new Predator another
VP. Or I can stay in and make it so that he can't get another VP. A
bit spiteful in itself. But those are my options. Play a game I have
no chance of winning or play King Maker. Not very fun in my
estimation.
Now, the only time I self oust is when I'm clearly dead. I'm willing
to admit defeat and self oust. That's all it is. But some are
convinced that I'm ruining the game because I'm willing to admit
defeat. I should also note that self ousting is typically only done in
casual games. No need to prolong the inevitable. Admit defeat and
perhaps the game will quickly follow so a new one can start as someone
has previously mentioned. It's that simple.
As for your example. He clearly doesn't realize that this game is
everyone for themselves. And the power on a given table is always
marked as a "Threat" and if players can do something against it. As in
this case, Vote against a referendum. They will. The fact that he
wasn't prepared with Vote Push or Bribery is his own fault.
I'll also point out I'm one of those freaks who only plays for Fun. I
don't care about winning. I simply enjoy playing the game with
intelligent players. The socializing from it is just as entertaining
as the game itself. The bartering and diplomacy of the players
themselves making various deals to either stay alive or whatever. The
only thing I assume when playing this game is that the others playing
it, know the rules. I don't expect rational behavior because people
can become emotional over games.
On May 13, 7:58 pm, Jyhad <jy...@storageannex.com> wrote:
> If someone is self ousting out of Frustration. They are being poor
> sports.
Just for the sake of clarity, I'll point out (again) that self ousting
out of frustration is already illegal--you can only legally self oust
if you are in a truly lost position. Being frustrated, but not in a
truly lost position, does not give you legal sanction to self oust. As
such, self ousting in frustration isn't something that is covered by
the discussion at hand.
I mean, yeah, it happens, but in competitive play it is already
illegal.
-Peter
swamplor wrote:
> And I'm telling you that this is unequivocally a waste of time.
> Players will play how they play. This isn't a VtES thing, its
> a multiplayer game thing.
I don't think you can self-oust in Bridge. =) You certainly can't
commit suicide and self-oust on your turn in Scrabble, Risk,
Settlers, or Monopoly. Scrabble allows you to 'Pass' your turn,
but that rule exists more for strategic purposes than for fools
to use as an excuse not to play the game anymore.
There's a boardgame called Through The Ages which has in the
rulebook something called Leave The Game Honorably:
"At the beginning of your turn, you have the right to announce
the fall of your civilization and leave the game. Your score will
not count and everyone still in the game will finish ahead of you."
Even if LSJ thinks it's just playing the game, it's really terrible
that our great game has a mechanic which allows dunderheads
to use it as an excuse to relieve themselves of the social contract
we all agreed to in sitting down at the gaming table in order to go
get themselves some coffee and a doughnut.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
On May 13, 10:10 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Even if LSJ thinks it's just playing the game, it's really terrible
> that our great game has a mechanic which allows dunderheads
> to use it as an excuse to relieve themselves of the social contract
> we all agreed to in sitting down at the gaming table in order to go
> get themselves some coffee and a doughnut.
Even if Kevin doesn't think it's just playing the game, the basic
rulebook says otherwise.
The social contract involved doesn't include any arbitrary
restrictions on forced-lunging or forced-walling or forced-cross-
tabling or forced-withdrawal.
swamplor wrote:
> In a situation where you might want to transfer yourself out, you
> could always transfer down to 1 and make sure you have no
> defenses. In 99% of situations that's basically just as good.
> So now you try to ban that,
[snip]
Why would we want to ban people's quality of play?
Only self-ousting needs to be banned, for the obvious reasons.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On May 12, 5:21 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
> <nikolajwe...@gmail.com>>> I just want it to be harder for that person to ruin the balance of the
>> game just because he feels like it.>> It is already against the rules of the game to ruin the balance of the
> game just because he feels like it. You can't act randomly and
> capriciously in tournament VTES, due to the PTW rules.
>
> In the small number of situations where someone is in a truly "lost"
> position, they were put there somehow. If they were put their by their
> predator, them ousting themselves isn't ruining the balance of the
> game--their predator is just doing a good job. If they were put in
> that position by their prey, them ousting themselves to spite their
> prey (who effectively back ousted them) provides grand scheme
> disincentive to not back oust your predator. Neither of these are a
> problem.
Egg-fucking-zactly.
The defense rests.
best -
chris
On May 13, 4:05 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a situation where you might want to transfer yourself out, you
> > could always transfer down to 1 and make sure you have no defenses.
> > In 99% of situations that's basically just as good.
>
> Are you sure? The deck types that typically get punished by someone
> self ousting are some sort of rush decks. Having 1 pool doesn't matter
> if there are no ready minions that can bleed you out.
[...]
> Nobody's trying to ban everything.
So all you want is a rule requiring people to be good little pool
sacks after someone nukes all their minions cross table?
That would be terrible for the game.
If you want to play rush combat decks, learning to play them well is
probably a better use of time than whinging on the internets, trying
to get the rules changed to require other players to let you win.
-Steve Wampler
On May 13, 10:10 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> swamplor wrote:
> > And I'm telling you that this is unequivocally a waste of time.
> > Players will play how they play. This isn't a VtES thing, its
> > a multiplayer game thing.
>
> I don't think you can self-oust in Bridge. =) You certainly can't
> commit suicide and self-oust on your turn in Scrabble, Risk,
> Settlers, or Monopoly. Scrabble allows you to 'Pass' your turn,
> but that rule exists more for strategic purposes than for fools
> to use as an excuse not to play the game anymore.
Bridge doesn't really count as a "multiplayer" game they way I have
been using the word, as the four players are divided into two teams
and thus there are only two sets of interests. And bridge *does*
include a "claim" mechanic that essentially allows the losing team to
concede a lost position (though it isn't quite as elegant as that).
Some sort of concession mechanic is a common feature of many games.
That's not what I was saying was "a multiplayer game thing" though.
The aspect of multiplayer (used to mean more than two sides or sets of
interests, though I'm going to keep using the sloppy word to avoid
multi-line parantheticals and other confusions) games that can't be
engineered out is the ability of other players to make you lose. Self-
ousting is one move that can, on the rare occasions it is relevant,
harm the position of a player across the table. Some people find it
objectionable. Me, I'm much more upset when someone doesn't even try
going forward and getting their prey. That's *way* more common than
self-ousting and, to me, *much* more annoying. We should ban that
shit.
Finally, recall that we're talking about someone already in a lost
position. They don't need to go looking for "an excuse not to play
the game anymore" - they're already out and probably more interested
in finding "an excuse to clean up their stuff."
-Steve Wampler
On May 13, 10:37 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Peter (as well as others) I'd have to say that until your pool is
> reduced to 0, you are not in a truly lost position.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
-Steve Wampler
On May 13, 10:46 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Only self-ousting needs to be banned, for the obvious reasons.
Everyone who reads this newsgroup needs to send me $100.
Because of, you know, the obvious reasons...
-Steve Wampler
On May 14, 6:49 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Cute. But not quite a parallel. "Send me $100" is clear and well-
> defined. :-)
I <3 LSJ.
-Peter
On May 13, 10:37 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Peter (as well as others) I'd have to say that until your pool is
> reduced to 0, you are not in a truly lost position.
Sure. But the game recognizes that such a position exists. It is
certainly hard to define concretely, but being in a truly lost
position means that you have no reasonable chance at getting more
VPs.
Having 1 pool, no minions, an Anarch Revolt on the table, and a
predator with 4 minions and 12 pool and a prey with 3 minions and 15
pool is, arguably, being in a lost position. There is no reasonable
chance that you will get any more VPs. Is it *possible*?
Hypothetically, sure. But also *incredibly* unlikely. So as a judge,
I'd accept that this a lost position.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually, the only time you are absolutely guaranteed to NEVER get a
VP is when you have 0VP and 0 pool. Until then, you have a chance,
potentially vanishingly small, but a chance. In fact the only time
you are guaranteed to not gain any more VPs than you currently have is
when: a) the game ends, b) you are no longer in the game. Until then,
you have a chance, however vanishly small, of gaining VPs. So the PTW
rule would appear to be significantly harsher than it seems and also
would currently prohibit any single obvious action that will cause you
to end up on 0 pool, including transferring out.
On May 15, 5:53 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 8:21 pm, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 10:37 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And Peter (as well as others) I'd have to say that until your pool is
> > > reduced to 0, you are not in a truly lost position.
>
> > Saying it doesn't make it true.
>
> > -Steve Wampler
>
> Actually, the only time you are absolutely guaranteed to NEVER get a
> VP is when you have 0VP and 0 pool.
Actually, not even then.
Life Boon.
> Until then, you have a chance,
> potentially vanishingly small, but a chance. In fact the only time
> you are guaranteed to not gain any more VPs than you currently have is
> when: a) the game ends, b) you are no longer in the game. Until then,
> you have a chance, however vanishly small, of gaining VPs. So the PTW
> rule would appear to be significantly harsher than it seems and also
> would currently prohibit any single obvious action that will cause you
> to end up on 0 pool, including transferring out.
False, as has been covered in detail already.
Look for "reasonable".
On May 15, 5:53 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, the only time you are absolutely guaranteed to NEVER get a
> VP is when you have 0VP and 0 pool. Until then, you have a chance,
> potentially vanishingly small, but a chance.
The VTES rules don't look for "no chance at all". It looks for "no
reasonable chance". It is true that, if you still have 1 pool but no
minions and no deck, there is a mathematical chance that you could
still get another VP or win the game, 'cause everyone else just self
destructs and ends up ousted due to someone calling an Anarchis
Uprising or something. But that is incredibly unlikely.
Being in a truly "lost" position doesn't require absolutely no chance.
Just a really unlikely one.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
What is a "lost" position? What is reasonable? For example, I go to my
first tournament. I luck into the final table with a janky vote deck.
Unluckily, the other finalists are all tournament veterans with good
decks and tons of rares/expensive cards that I don't have access to.
Now, if everyone is equal in skill/deck, I have at best a 20% chance
to win. But being it's my first tournament, my deck is decidedly
worse, and the other players are most likely better, I decide I have
>5% chance to win. To me that would qualify as unlikely. Can I act
arbitrarily (going crosstable, transfering out, whatever) in pursuit
of the 0 vp I "reasonably" have a chance at? What if my prey's first
vamp is Uchenna who proceeds to get No Secrets when I have no stealth
in my deck? I assume (reasonably, in my mind) that my >5% chance has
now gone to approximately 0. Can I now transfer out?
On May 15, 8:27 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is a "lost" position?
LSJ covered this, but I figure I'll chime in too, as you asked me :-)
A truly "lost" position, as I understand it, is hard to define, but
easy to recognize (like porn!). You look at your position. You look at
the people around you. You say "Huh. I have no reasonable chance of
getting any more VPs. I'm done.", at which point you are free to do
what you want with yourself. Luckily, any time that this is important,
there is a judge to help make the determination (i.e. in casual play,
you can do whatever you want--this discussion and topic only covers
tournament play).
There are certainly any number of situations one can invent or trump
up to prove or disprove a given position as "lost". But in general, if
the likelihood of you getting any more VPs is small enough such that
it isn't really gonna happen, you are in a "lost" position.
Keep in mind that:
-If you have a reasonable chance of surviving to the end of the game,
and getting that .5 VP, you are obligated to legally try to do so.
-If you have a reasonable chance of withdrawing to get that .5 VP, you
are obligate to attempt.
-If you have a reasonable chance of your prey dying and you getting
that VP, you are obligated to try and make that happen.
Which, in most cases, any one of these will result in someone not
being in a truly "lost" position.
> Can I act arbitrarily (going crosstable, transfering out, whatever) in pursuit
> of the 0 vp I "reasonably" have a chance at? What if my prey's first
> vamp is Uchenna who proceeds to get No Secrets when I have no stealth
> in my deck? I assume (reasonably, in my mind) that my >5% chance has
> now gone to approximately 0. Can I now transfer out?
In all of these situations, you have the not unreasonable chance of
surviving till the game times out. Which gives you .5VP. Which you are
obligated to try for.
You need to be *really* in bad shape, generally speaking, to be judged
to be in a truly lost position. Such that your ousting is imminent. As
otherwise, you will always have the reasonable chance of surviving
till the game times out, which gives you more VPs (.5) than being
ousted before that. Are you at 1 pool with no ready minions and there
are Anarch Revolts on the table and the guy with the Revolts has vote
lock? Yeah, you are probably in a truly lost position. Are you in a
crappy seat where you can't really do much, but you can wall up and
reasonably try to stay alive? Then you probably aren't in a truly lost
position.
-Peter