Situation:
A (ousted) > B > C > D > E
B has 3x fighty but weakened !Tremere
C has 3x relatively healthy, untapped !Brujah, Dogs of War and vote
lock
D has 5x Daughters and can push votes through sometimes
E has 8x Independent childer of Mata Hari and 1 VP
B has 5 pool
C has 1 pool but 3-5 after his next turn via Dolls/bloat
D has 10+ pool
E has 12+ pool
B announces to the table that he sees no hope and transfers down to 1
pool.
C asks if this means he is transferring out and therefore won't
interfere with his turn.
B denies this and says he's trying to force the issue for C and D to
do something to alter the game state.
So what's really going on here? Most would interpret transferring down
to 1 pool as intent to self-oust from a hopeless situation. However, B
has some permanent and transient intercept available. So
theoretically, he might do some blocking, or perhaps bounce some of
the horde of bleeds for 1 which are coming his way on E's next turn.
But if it really isn't so hopeless, why transfer down to 1 pool?
I guess my big picture question is this: Is it legal to put yourself
into an extremely fragile position (which is just shy of transferring
out of a hopeless situation) and still try to interfere with the game?
Where do you draw the line between choosing how you lose the game and
choosing how to take others down with you? While I believe this
situation is unusual, it would be bad for the game if this sort of
brinksmanship became the norm for winning a close game (e.g. Transfer
down to an almost untenable position, than twist arms to get me out of
my own predicament). Any additional guidance is appreciated.
Jeff
[ quoted text not captured ]
Can't say really... But to be honest, in his position might be worse
then you think. Did B try to take actions/no actions to survive only
to have C hurt his vampires? Did player A and Player C do so much
hurting on his minions that he can't mount an effective defence
anymore, but player C is still worried and rushing/hurting backwards?
Is D so worried about C that he's not putting forward pressure, con
booning only himself, or even hurting player B for some reason? From
the sounds of it C is worried about B, leaving 3 untap minions. Since
B couldn't oust C right then at 1 pool, B probably won't get another
chance to take out C before he's gone. His best bet to survive is to
have the other player kill/cripple his predator, and if he can't ask
for it... Force their hand into it. In this example, 5 pool vs 1 pool
might just mean that E bleed with all 8 minon instead of 4.
[ quoted text not captured ]
So far, C has been on the hurting end of combat with B's minions. Thus
far B has shown no stealth (only bruise) and C is leaving enough
blockers that B has no reasonable chance of ousting unless C taps out,
whether that is rushing E or trying to oust before he also gets run
over by E.
D has plenty of minions, but has so far shown no signs of being able
to pass votes without help or being able to bleed for more than one. D
actually has 6 DoC and 2 Procurers.
> Is D so worried about C that he's not putting forward pressure, con
> booning only himself, or even hurting player B for some reason? From
> the sounds of it C is worried about B, leaving 3 untap minions. Since
> B couldn't oust C right then at 1 pool, B probably won't get another
> chance to take out C before he's gone. His best bet to survive is to
> have the other player kill/cripple his predator, and if he can't ask
> for it... Force their hand into it. In this example, 5 pool vs 1 pool
> might just mean that E bleed with all 8 minon instead of 4.
C&D tried to talk alliance to kill E, but likely that would still not
be enough to save B. If E were crippled and unable to oust B, then D
will probably just slip into position to finish B anyway.
E
Jeff Kuta wrote:
> Situation:
> A (ousted) > B > C > D > E
>
> B has 3x fighty but weakened !Tremere
> C has 3x relatively healthy, untapped !Brujah, Dogs of War and vote
> lock
> D has 5x Daughters and can push votes through sometimes
> E has 8x Independent childer of Mata Hari and 1 VP
>
> B has 5 pool
> C has 1 pool but 3-5 after his next turn via Dolls/bloat
> D has 10+ pool
> E has 12+ pool
>
> B announces to the table that he sees no hope and transfers down to 1
> pool.
> C asks if this means he is transferring out and therefore won't
> interfere with his turn.
> B denies this and says he's trying to force the issue for C and D to
> do something to alter the game state.
>
> So what's really going on here? Most would interpret transferring down
> to 1 pool as intent to self-oust from a hopeless situation. However, B
> has some permanent and transient intercept available. So
> theoretically, he might do some blocking, or perhaps bounce some of
> the horde of bleeds for 1 which are coming his way on E's next turn.
> But if it really isn't so hopeless, why transfer down to 1 pool?
If it isn't "really hopeless" and B has some reasonable chance of possibly
getting more VPs, then this violates play to win.
> I guess my big picture question is this: Is it legal to put yourself
> into an extremely fragile position (which is just shy of transferring
> out of a hopeless situation) and still try to interfere with the game?
If "putting yourself in a fragile situation" doesn't violate play to win, then yes.
> Where do you draw the line between choosing how you lose the game and
> choosing how to take others down with you? While I believe this
You don't. There is no line to draw. Being able to choose how you gt your
remaining zero VPs is exactly the same as choosing how to take others down with
your (or elevate them -- the normal term is "king making").
> situation is unusual, it would be bad for the game if this sort of
> brinksmanship became the norm for winning a close game (e.g. Transfer
> down to an almost untenable position, than twist arms to get me out of
> my own predicament). Any additional guidance is appreciated.
It is illegal to take yourself down from a position of "can reasonably get more
VPs" to "cannot reasonable get more VPs". Other than that, the "tactic" or going
from zero VPs to zero VPs (no change) in order to get a king making position
(still no change) and pointing out your zero VP status (no change) in the hopes
of making a deal for more VPs is fine.
"Jon" <jsush...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip>
I considered replying to Jeff's post with a few clarifications of my own but
thought it best not to. Chris does not use the newsgroup and it is unfair, I
think, to discuss the situation without his input.
Anyway, a judge will be looking at the game shortly...
Cheers,
WES
On Feb 27, 12:51 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
> It is illegal to take yourself down from a position of "can reasonably get more
> VPs" to "cannot reasonable get more VPs". Other than that, the "tactic" or going
> from zero VPs to zero VPs (no change) in order to get a king making position
> (still no change) and pointing out your zero VP status (no change) in the hopes> of making a deal for more VPs is fine.- Hide quoted text -
How about this situation (happened to me in the last tournament I
played):
I was playing a combat rush/bleed deck. My prey was playing a large
capacity voting/bloat deck. I pull out a minion, my prey pulls out
Arika. I rush and torporise Arika before my prey has a chance to
minion tap her, and pull out my second minion. My prey decides that
there is nothing that can be done, and just gives up. No more
transfers, no asking for a rescue, nothing. Just sits there waiting
for me to bleed through the 19 pool. Of course I didnt complain at
the time, but is giving up and doing what is effectively walking away
legal during a tournament?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Does that mean that people that it's illegal to transefer out when
somone propose you 0.5 VP if you just accepte to not transfer out?
lysan...@excite.com wrote:
> How about this situation (happened to me in the last tournament I
> played):
>
> I was playing a combat rush/bleed deck. My prey was playing a large
> capacity voting/bloat deck. I pull out a minion, my prey pulls out
> Arika. I rush and torporise Arika before my prey has a chance to
> minion tap her, and pull out my second minion. My prey decides that
> there is nothing that can be done, and just gives up. No more
> transfers, no asking for a rescue, nothing. Just sits there waiting
> for me to bleed through the 19 pool. Of course I didnt complain at
> the time, but is giving up and doing what is effectively walking away
> legal during a tournament?
If he cannot reasonably expect to get more VPs (or the best method by which he
can hope to get more VPs involves not wasting more pool on vampires for you to
trash), then yes, it is legal.
Olivier_PEREZ wrote:
> Does that mean that people that it's illegal to transefer out when
> somone propose you 0.5 VP if you just accepte to not transfer out?
No, it's still legal. You're never obliged to trust someone to honor a deal.
But if there is the reasonable possibility of withdrawing or going to time, that
almost certainly means it is not play to win to play for less than 0.5 VPs, deal
or no deal.
LSJ schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
So it is actually never possible to transfer out, because someone might
have a Life Boon? How will "reasonable possibility" be defined?
Johannes
[ quoted text not captured ]
You don't have to trust that they have one or that they will use it to
save you. Additionally, if they DO life boon you, they get your next
VP, so unless you can get more than one VP after being booned, you may
as well not consider the possibility.
> How will "reasonable possibility" be defined?
By the judge.
> Johannes
witness1
-believe the bacon