This is something that I have been thinking about for a while. The
Withdraw option is far more appealing that a draw or a time out. Sure,
there are more conditions to a Withdraw in theory, but in any given
game they can usually be reached without too much bother.
e.g. 5 minutes to the end of a game. 3 methusulas left. The game is
virtually a stalemate, each player has roughly the same amount of pool
(above 10). There are no "table shagging" effects in play (Anarch
Revolt, Smiling jack, etc) and no-one is likely to oust. Each player
has about 25 cards in their library. The options are:
1) Keep going and get timed out - 0.5 VP each
2) Call it a draw - 0.5VP each
3) Manufacture a withdraw to get 1VP each.
How do you manufacture a Withdraw? Simple. Everyone's takes the next
26 goes in the space of 5 mins. Everyone's only action in their turn
is to discard a card or more if they have the capacity. Once
everyone's library is empty, withdraw. This is almost like a table
splitting deal, but at the other end of the scale (i.e. maximising VPs
by arranging NOT to play!). In fact, I doubt if most judges wouldn't
even enforce the "letter of the law" regarding the conditions of
withdrawing if it is the clear intent of all the players in the game -
again much like a Draw.
In fact, since the Withdraw option is availible, surely every game
that heads down the stalemate route MUST (by virtue of the rules) try
to engage a mutual withdraw to gain more VPs than a stalemate? Sure,
there are situations where this isn't quite so easy (Anarch Revolts
being a key one, but I'm talking about games where there are lots of
static or relevant table effects in play), but in the vast majority of
games, these can be circumvented in a turn or two when the game has
reached an impasse.
So here's the question - why is the "we'll accept a draw" option still
around? Why can't the Draw option be replaced permenantly with a
withdraw (either actual or "virtual" - i.e. lots of cards left but all
players are willing)?
Are there any situations where a Draw seriously is the only way of
stopping the game other than a time out?
Thoughts people?
Dave
Watford
>
> So here's the question - why is the "we'll accept a draw" option still
> around?
Because I hate when people might get the additional VP when they already
have one in order to get a GW.
Just think of players ousting there prey really fast and then waht? DO
nothing and wait or intervene into the game just to get everyboday to
withdraw?
Why can't the Draw option be replaced permenantly with a
> withdraw (either actual or "virtual" - i.e. lots of cards left but all
> players are willing)?
see above
--
Andreas Nusser
www.vekn.de
a.nu...@vekn.de
hamdamcwa wrote:
> How do you manufacture a Withdraw? Simple. Everyone's takes the next
> 26 goes in the space of 5 mins. Everyone's only action in their turn
> is to discard a card or more if they have the capacity. Once
> everyone's library is empty, withdraw. This is almost like a table
> splitting deal, but at the other end of the scale (i.e. maximising VPs
> by arranging NOT to play!). In fact, I doubt if most judges wouldn't
Performing no non-mandatory activity in your (or anyone else's) turn
except discarding is an example of playing the game. It is not an
example of NOT playing.
> even enforce the "letter of the law" regarding the conditions of
> withdrawing if it is the clear intent of all the players in the game -
> again much like a Draw.
I would be very surprised to find judges not enforcing rules that they
know. I would be very interested to hear of cases where a judge allows
known rules violations.
> In fact, since the Withdraw option is availible, surely every game
> that heads down the stalemate route MUST (by virtue of the rules) try
> to engage a mutual withdraw to gain more VPs than a stalemate?
No. You cannot force a player to trust another player to honor a deal.
--
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/
hamdamcwa wrote:
> So here's the question - why is the "we'll accept a draw" option still
> around? Why can't the Draw option be replaced permenantly with a
> withdraw (either actual or "virtual" - i.e. lots of cards left but all
> players are willing)?
> Are there any situations where a Draw seriously is the only way of
> stopping the game other than a time out?
Well, mostly I guess because the player's can't trust eachother. Not
that this is a bad thing, mind you. But you've just given your predator
26 turns to put together the perfect hand. Or maybe your predator is
able to oust you, but not without fear of being ousted by his predator.
His predator withdraws, and your predator decides that 2 VPs are
better than 1.
And, of course, there's also Brinksmanship. Might not be found in many
decks, but all it would take would be once to sour people on the idea of
a voluntary group withdrawal.
--Colin McGuigan
> > even enforce the "letter of the law" regarding the conditions of
> > withdrawing if it is the clear intent of all the players in the game -
> > again much like a Draw.
>
> I would be very surprised to find judges not enforcing rules that they
> know. I would be very interested to hear of cases where a judge allows
> known rules violations.
I have judged several events (also big ones) and in a given game when there
was :
a) enough time left
b) everyone agreeing on a withdrawal
c) everyone agreeing to stop the game immediately
I allowed the players to withdraw immediately without the ridiculous 5-10
min of card discarding.
Especially when there is little time between rounds and players are hungry
this was always a welcome decisicion.
It might have been against the rules, but sometimes I prefer common sense
instead of rules.
--
johannes walch
v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/
Johannes Walch wrote:
> I allowed the players to withdraw immediately without the ridiculous 5-10
> min of card discarding.
Five to ten minutes?
Try one or two.
Forcing players to honor deals or not make them at all is not a good idea.
> Especially when there is little time between rounds and players are hungry
> this was always a welcome decisicion.
> It might have been against the rules, but sometimes I prefer common sense
> instead of rules.
I believe your "common sense" didn't account for the possibility of
someone not honoring the deal.
V:EKN-sanctioned tournaments should follow the rules.
Please indicate on your tournament reports when this is not done.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In other words, LSJ, a judge should consider valid if everyone at the table
withdraws (although there is still a possibility of trying to "play to win"
in such a case, methinks...), as long as the actual discarding and
withdrawing is played ?
--
Orpheus
"Having faith means denying what you know is real
Because reality is too hard to live with"
Brian Azarello
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message :
3F0D854B...@white-wolf.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <3f0dd254$0$12421$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus
<orph...@free.fr> writes:
>In other words, LSJ, a judge should consider valid if everyone at the table
>withdraws (although there is still a possibility of trying to "play to win"
>in such a case, methinks...), as long as the actual discarding and
>withdrawing is played ?
Mutual withdraw can be arranged if:
- the deal is a VP maximising deal, realistically speaking (which can be
hard - but in the late game, you often don't have time to oust someone)
- they actually go through and withdraw, turn by turn
The potential for a player to double cross has to be there.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
> Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> writes:>>In other words, LSJ, a judge should consider valid if everyone at the table
>>withdraws (although there is still a possibility of trying to "play to win"
>>in such a case, methinks...), as long as the actual discarding and
>>withdrawing is played ?>
> Mutual withdraw can be arranged if:
>
> - the deal is a VP maximising deal, realistically speaking (which can be
> hard - but in the late game, you often don't have time to oust someone)
>
> - they actually go through and withdraw, turn by turn
>
> The potential for a player to double cross has to be there.
Correct.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> In fact, since the Withdraw option is availible, surely every game
>> that heads down the stalemate route MUST (by virtue of the rules) try
>> to engage a mutual withdraw to gain more VPs than a stalemate?>
>No. You cannot force a player to trust another player to honor a deal.
LSJ has really hit the nail on the head with this part.
There's really an important trust issue with attempts to withdrawals. For the
judges who simply allow a table withdrawal since everyone "agrees" to a
withdrawal, he might be foiling the plans of one of the players who plans to do
a 180 at the last minute.
Similarly, a player who has the advantage in permanents might very well want to
see the combat monster or intercept wall deck run out of cards this way.
Halcyan 2
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F0D854B...@white-wolf.com>...
> Johannes Walch wrote:
> > I allowed the players to withdraw immediately without the ridiculous 5-10
> > min of card discarding.
>
> Five to ten minutes?
> Try one or two.
>
> Forcing players to honor deals or not make them at all is not a good idea.
>
> > Especially when there is little time between rounds and players are hungry
> > this was always a welcome decisicion.
> > It might have been against the rules, but sometimes I prefer common sense
> > instead of rules.
>
> I believe your "common sense" didn't account for the possibility of
> someone not honoring the deal.
>
> V:EKN-sanctioned tournaments should follow the rules.
> Please indicate on your tournament reports when this is not done.
While I agree with your sentiment I beleive that is a little to harsh.
The judge who constantly monitors a game and lets the players do what
they seem to want to do should not be vilified compared to the judge
who does not monitor games and allows the results to be reported to
him/her. I recently witnessed a 'withdrawal' agreed to and immediately
carried out in a tournament. I doubt the judge knew anything about it
and I suspect it happens all the time.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I do not vilify the judge. I point out the incompatibility of that stance
with V:EKN sanctioning.
A judge who allows rules violations thereby removing a player's ability
to bluff ("seem to want to do") is adversely affecting the game of the
player who wants to bluff, and inappropriately so. This is also contrary
to the espoused "common sense".
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>No. You cannot force a player to trust another player to honor a deal.>
>
>LSJ has really hit the nail on the head with this part.
>
>There's really an important trust issue with attempts to withdrawals. For the
>judges who simply allow a table withdrawal since everyone "agrees" to a
>withdrawal, he might be foiling the plans of one of the players who plans to
>do
>a 180 at the last minute.
>
>Similarly, a player who has the advantage in permanents might very well want
>to
>see the combat monster or intercept wall deck run out of cards this way.
I don't find the idea of someone breaking a mutual withdrawal plan realistic.
Since it takes so little time to accomplish, might as well wait til the last
few minutes. Since it takes a bunch of time to oust people you were thinking
of agreeing to withdraw with, you won't have time to oust once you enact your
withdrawal plan. If there's a big disparity in permanents, the plan is
unlikely to occur or likely to occur only so late as to make it impossible to
oust anyone. It's easy enough to see someone trying to back out of an
agreement, which leaves the game in basically the same situation if everyone
stops turbowithdrawing. If you can oust someone whether with the "perfect
hand" or not, there was never any basis for a withdrawal agreement in the first
place.
I think more credit should be given to players. The agree to a draw rule
serves no purpose. There's no benefit to playing out a mutual withdrawal.
>>Similarly, a player who has the advantage in permanents might very well want
>>to
>>see the combat monster or intercept wall deck run out of cards this way.>
> I don't find the idea of someone breaking a mutual withdrawal plan realistic.
> Since it takes so little time to accomplish, might as well wait til the last
> few minutes. Since it takes a bunch of time to oust people you were thinking
> of agreeing to withdraw with, you won't have time to oust once you enact your
> withdrawal plan. If there's a big disparity in permanents, the plan is
> unlikely to occur or likely to occur only so late as to make it impossible to
> oust anyone. It's easy enough to see someone trying to back out of an
> agreement, which leaves the game in basically the same situation if everyone
> stops turbowithdrawing. If you can oust someone whether with the "perfect
> hand" or not, there was never any basis for a withdrawal agreement in the first
> place.
>
> I think more credit should be given to players. The agree to a draw rule
> serves no purpose. There's no benefit to playing out a mutual withdrawal.
It's not so much that you can oust someone with the perfect hand as that you
can oust someone after dealing with their perfect hand and them not having
anything new to draw.
The real problem with this argument is that you force an assumption of good
play by the non-betraying methuselahs and don't allow any room for
manipulation by the betrayer.
I for one will always insist on playing it through now even though I
certainly won't be the one to break the deal -wouldn't want to mess up the
tournament's status now would we?
Have fun1
Timlagor
I still have some nice estates on the Moon on the books if anyone wants one
;-D
In message <6933e80c.03071...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Haar
<kit3...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I recently witnessed a 'withdrawal' agreed to and immediately
>carried out in a tournament. I doubt the judge knew anything about it
>and I suspect it happens all the time.
I tend to ask what happened when the update is reported to me. It seems
silly not to. If nothing else, it helps verify that the numbers you're
being given are right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030711151755...@mb-m02.aol.com>, Curevei
<cur...@aol.commetal> writes:
>It's easy enough to see someone trying to back out of an
>agreement
Oh yes? I think you fail to give some players the credit they deserve.
Or fail to note that some players are crap at reading people.
[ quoted text not captured ]
cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030711151755...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
here's a real scenario in a tournament a while ago.
(Me)Toreador anti toolbox bleeding
Lasombra vote/bleed bleeding
Ventrue bigcap vote bleeding
Inner Circle vote bleeding
Tremere toolbox
At one point there were 27 votes on the table with noone having
votelock and everyone calling votes. Because of exstensive
negotiations and slow play by some, the table threathens to time out
without anyone ousted. However, I've managed to get a nice chunk out
of my predator, leaving him with 6 pool and only an angelica with 1
blood on her. I'm holding a pentex subversion in my hands. Then the
Ventrue player plays a golconda on angelica with about 3-4 minutes
left in the game, not giving me a chance to get 2 turns still. With my
prey on 16 pool, I'm kinda annoyed, but I agree to withdraw. Just
before I'm out of cards, I draw my palla grande and bleed him to death
with 4 enchant kindreds and 2 aire of elations. Hurrah! sneaky
dealbreaking inc. Table times out afterwards.
It does happen :)
-Bram Vink
>At one point there were 27 votes on the table with noone having
>votelock and everyone calling votes. Because of exstensive
>negotiations and slow play by some, the table threathens to time out
>without anyone ousted. However, I've managed to get a nice chunk out
>of my predator, leaving him with 6 pool and only an angelica with 1
>blood on her. I'm holding a pentex subversion in my hands. Then the
>Ventrue player plays a golconda on angelica with about 3-4 minutes
>left in the game, not giving me a chance to get 2 turns still. With my
>prey on 16 pool, I'm kinda annoyed, but I agree to withdraw. Just
>before I'm out of cards, I draw my palla grande and bleed him to death
>with 4 enchant kindreds and 2 aire of elations. Hurrah! sneaky
>dealbreaking inc. Table times out afterwards.
It sounds like no one at the table can do anything to stop you from ousting
your prey whether there's a plan to withdraw in place or not. I don't see
anything sneaky or dealbreaky about this. Basically, the game turns out as
expected, though the other players may want to stop a TW by no longer
attempting to withdraw. The plan to withdraw was poorly conceived in the first
place if someone had the time to oust anyone.
>It does happen
What happens every single time I see players agree to withdraw is that people
stop looking at what they draw and discard as fast as they possibly can in
order to make sure it gets done in time because it's required to go through the
motions. Kind of hard to be sneaky when you aren't aware of what you are
capable of doing.
If people are going to take the time to study their hands every time they
discard, then someone thinks ousting someone is possible and you might as well
keep playing until you don't have time to oust anyone before going into
turbowithdrawal mode.
cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20030712134545...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> >At one point there were 27 votes on the table with noone having
> >votelock and everyone calling votes. Because of exstensive
> >negotiations and slow play by some, the table threathens to time out
> >without anyone ousted. However, I've managed to get a nice chunk out
> >of my predator, leaving him with 6 pool and only an angelica with 1
> >blood on her. I'm holding a pentex subversion in my hands. Then the
> >Ventrue player plays a golconda on angelica with about 3-4 minutes
> >left in the game, not giving me a chance to get 2 turns still. With my
> >prey on 16 pool, I'm kinda annoyed, but I agree to withdraw. Just
> >before I'm out of cards, I draw my palla grande and bleed him to death
> >with 4 enchant kindreds and 2 aire of elations. Hurrah! sneaky
> >dealbreaking inc. Table times out afterwards.
>
> It sounds like no one at the table can do anything to stop you from ousting
> your prey whether there's a plan to withdraw in place or not. I don't see
> anything sneaky or dealbreaky about this. Basically, the game turns out as
> expected, though the other players may want to stop a TW by no longer
> attempting to withdraw. The plan to withdraw was poorly conceived in the first
> place if someone had the time to oust anyone.
I wouldn't have had this time to oust if not for the withdrawal part.
I couldn't oust him in 1 turn w/o the best hand i could get, nor would
there have been time to allow me to play 2 rounds.
> >It does happen
>
> What happens every single time I see players agree to withdraw is that people
> stop looking at what they draw and discard as fast as they possibly can in
> order to make sure it gets done in time because it's required to go through the
> motions. Kind of hard to be sneaky when you aren't aware of what you are
> capable of doing.
I discarded pretty fast, there were two experienced players at that
table, and I doubt they saw I was gathering my hand. Also I knew I
could get him in one turn with the cards left in my deck.
> If people are going to take the time to study their hands every time they
> discard, then someone thinks ousting someone is possible and you might as well
> keep playing until you don't have time to oust anyone before going into
> turbowithdrawal mode.
Well, there wouldn't have been the time to oust someone with the
length of the turns involved. AFAICS This was the only way I could've
ousted my prey within the time limits.
-Bram Vink