Does the Game Win rule cloud the objective?

I was a judge at the recent Australian Nationals and I would like to share my thoughts regarding the direction of playstyle and see if anyone here has similar thoughts. Up until the Game Win rule was introduced it seemed that tournament decks were very forward focussed because making the final was simply a matter of the number of vp's accrued. Nowadays, and particularly at our recent championships, a large number of decks are either defensive in construction or played defensively. Withdraw deals also seem to be flavour of the month (four out of seven tables in the first round). It seems that players are happy to simply get a game win and are not building decks that can sweep or going all out to sweep. I am not suggesting that they were not playing to maximise their vps however i am suggesting that the mental calculations people use to decide whether to take a hassle-free 3 vps over a more difficult 4 vps are influenced by the Game Win rule. I have noticed that several posters in the past have posted things like: 1) A player must try to obtain the game win. 2) If a player has no reasonable chance of a game win, he must try to maximize his VPs. 3) If the player has no reasonable chance of getting more than zero VPs (or he has already obtained the game win), he may play however he wants (including self-ousting, giving away VPs, etc.) and this seems to support the idea that obtaining a game win has a higher priority than maximising vps however i could find no basis for the above priority list in the online rules (rulebook and tournament). All I found was the object of the game from the rulebook: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" and this from the tournament rules: "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" I myself recently agreed to a withdraw deal that gave me 3 vps where i was in a position where i had a roughly 15% chance to get 3.5vps and about a 5% chance to get 5 vps. Should i have gone for the 3.5 vps (or 5)? The fact that the virtually guaranteed 3vps gave me the game win influenced my decision. If a game win was defined as 3.5 vps (for whatever reason) i doubt that i would have gone for the withdraw deal. Is it ok to have your decisions influenced by the Game Win rule or should you always be gunning for the most vps even if it would jeopardise your chances of getting a game win? Chris. p.s. Having said all that the Aussie championships where won by a very forward focussed deck.

The good ship rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad was dashed upon the rocks, killing all on board but Chris Arthur ... > I myself recently agreed to a withdraw deal that gave me 3 vps where i > was in a position where i had a roughly 15% chance to get 3.5vps and > about a 5% chance to get 5 vps. Should i have gone for the 3.5 vps (or > 5)? The fact that the virtually guaranteed 3vps gave me the game win > influenced my decision. If a game win was defined as 3.5 vps (for > whatever reason) i doubt that i would have gone for the withdraw deal. > Is it ok to have your decisions influenced by the Game Win rule or > should you always be gunning for the most vps even if it would > jeopardise your chances of getting a game win? > IMHO if you withdraw, even as one of the last two players, you should not receive a Game Win. If you want to win, stick it out to the end and make a fight of it. Everyone will have different opinions but I think if you're entering a tournament and not coming to play you might as well stay at home. -- Kurt *Kill the nospam to reply* It was my mum and she said you were a crap shag and that your dick was like a 6 year old cocktail sausage that had had one end eaten by a team of ants wearing dentures. -- RGMW outtake

On 15 Dec 2003 23:24:28 -0800, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) scrawled: >I have noticed that several posters in the past have posted things >like: > >1) A player must try to obtain the game win. >2) If a player has no reasonable chance of a game win, he must try to >maximize his VPs. >3) If the player has no reasonable chance of getting more than zero >VPs (or he has already obtained the game win), he may play however he >wants (including self-ousting, giving away VPs, etc.) this third point should be more correctly stated as "if the player has no reasonable chance of getting any more vps..." they might already have say 1 or 2, but if they have no reasonable chance to get any more they are free to gain those _extra_ 0 in any manner they want. >and this seems to support the idea that obtaining a game win has a >higher priority than maximising vps however i could find no basis for >the above priority list in the online rules (rulebook and tournament). >All I found was the object of the game from the rulebook: > >"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" this means, of all the players, you want to have the most victory points. ie: more than anyone else. it could be interpreted as 'get the most vps you can', but that is not the official interpretation. >I myself recently agreed to a withdraw deal that gave me 3 vps where i >was in a position where i had a roughly 15% chance to get 3.5vps and >about a 5% chance to get 5 vps. Should i have gone for the 3.5 vps (or >5)? you could have chosen to do so. the deal is not enforced by the rules, so you could have been backstabbed at an incoveinient moment. >The fact that the virtually guaranteed 3vps gave me the game win >influenced my decision. If a game win was defined as 3.5 vps (for >whatever reason) i doubt that i would have gone for the withdraw deal. >Is it ok to have your decisions influenced by the Game Win rule or >should you always be gunning for the most vps even if it would >jeopardise your chances of getting a game win? you have to go for the game win. if you can't reasonably get the game win, you have to try and get as many vps as you can. if that number of vps you can reasonably get is 0 _more_, feel free to gain those 0 in whatever manner you want. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Kurt <kur...@nospam.optushome.com.au> wrote: > Chris Arthur <chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote: >> I myself recently agreed to a withdraw deal that gave me 3 vps >> where i was in a position where i had a roughly 15% chance to >> get 3.5vps and about a 5% chance to get 5 vps. Should i have >> gone for the 3.5 vps (or 5)? The fact that the virtually guaranteed >> 3vps gave me the game win influenced my decision. If a game >> win was defined as 3.5 vps (for whatever reason) i doubt that i >> would have gone for the withdraw deal. Is it ok to have your >> decisions influenced by the Game Win rule or should you always >> be gunning for the most vps even if it would jeopardise your >> chances of getting a game win? >> > IMHO if you withdraw, even as one of the last two players, you > should not receive a Game Win. Even if you've already achieved the Game Win conditions? > If you want to win, stick it out to the end and make a fight of it. Ah, I see. You want to change the victory conditions to 'Max VPs' instead of 'Game Win'. Fair enough. > Everyone will have different opinions About changing the victory conditions? Sure. > but I think if you're entering a tournament and not coming > to play you might as well stay at home. They did come to play. They achieved the victory conditions. > Kurt *Kill the nospam to reply* FYI: the 'nospam' in your email address has not helped you avoid the spammers for over 2 years, as they automatically remove that particular phrase from your email address. Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

> > >and this seems to support the idea that obtaining a game win has a > >higher priority than maximising vps however i could find no basis for > >the above priority list in the online rules (rulebook and tournament). > >All I found was the object of the game from the rulebook: > > > >"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" > > this means, of all the players, you want to have the most victory > points. ie: more than anyone else. > it could be interpreted as 'get the most vps you can', but that is not > the official interpretation. This is where my confusion lies. I thought it meant the most vps you can. If it doesn't mean that and actually means "more than anyone else" then isn't that condition achieved when you get 3vps on a five player table? If so, what is to stop you from then giving away the other two to someone else? > > you have to go for the game win. if you can't reasonably get the game > win, you have to try and get as many vps as you can. if that number of > vps you can reasonably get is 0 _more_, feel free to gain those 0 in > whatever manner you want. Are you getting the goal of going for the game win from that line about "most vps"? I couldn't find any part of the rules that actually says the first priority is to go for the game win. Chris.

Chris Arthur wrote: >>>"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" >> >>this means, of all the players, you want to have the most victory >>points. ie: more than anyone else. >>it could be interpreted as 'get the most vps you can', but that is not >>the official interpretation. > > This is where my confusion lies. I thought it meant the most vps you > can. If it doesn't mean that and actually means "more than anyone > else" then isn't that condition achieved when you get 3vps on a five > player table? If so, what is to stop you from then giving away the Yes. Barring you losing one later via Gambit Accepted. > other two to someone else? Nothing. > >>you have to go for the game win. if you can't reasonably get the game >>win, you have to try and get as many vps as you can. if that number of >>vps you can reasonably get is 0 _more_, feel free to gain those 0 in >>whatever manner you want. > > > Are you getting the goal of going for the game win from that line > about "most vps"? I couldn't find any part of the rules that actually > says the first priority is to go for the game win. > > Chris. -- 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/

On 16 Dec 2003 14:52:11 -0800, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) scrawled: >This is where my confusion lies. I thought it meant the most vps you >can. If it doesn't mean that and actually means "more than anyone >else" then isn't that condition achieved when you get 3vps on a five >player table? If so, what is to stop you from then giving away the >other two to someone else? as LSJ said: there is nothing stopping you giving away the other vps willy nilly if you already have 3vps. >> >> you have to go for the game win. if you can't reasonably get the game >> win, you have to try and get as many vps as you can. if that number of >> vps you can reasonably get is 0 _more_, feel free to gain those 0 in >> whatever manner you want. > >Are you getting the goal of going for the game win from that line >about "most vps"? I couldn't find any part of the rules that actually >says the first priority is to go for the game win. erm, as has been pointed out before, it is assumed that a person playing a game is doing so to win that game. having to point it out seems somewhat redundant. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > >Are you getting the goal of going for the game win from that line > >about "most vps"? I couldn't find any part of the rules that actually > >says the first priority is to go for the game win. > > erm, as has been pointed out before, it is assumed that a person > playing a game is doing so to win that game. having to point it out > seems somewhat redundant. I think you're misunderstanding me Salem. I thought that the goal was to maximise your vps, not go for the game win. Therefore someone on 3vps with one opponent left would still have to try to oust their prey. Thus i thought the idea of "playing to win" was redundant and could not understand why people were quoting it. Chris.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FDFA23E...@white-wolf.com>... > Chris Arthur wrote: > >>>"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" > >> > >>this means, of all the players, you want to have the most victory > >>points. ie: more than anyone else. > >>it could be interpreted as 'get the most vps you can', but that is not > >>the official interpretation. > > > > This is where my confusion lies. I thought it meant the most vps you > > can. If it doesn't mean that and actually means "more than anyone > > else" then isn't that condition achieved when you get 3vps on a five > > player table? If so, what is to stop you from then giving away the > > Yes. Barring you losing one later via Gambit Accepted. > > > other two to someone else? > > Nothing. > So if i gained 3vps on a five player table could i then just transfer out for no apparent reason? I assume yes but i just wanted to clarify. Chris.

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03121...@posting.google.com>... > > > > > >Are you getting the goal of going for the game win from that line > > >about "most vps"? I couldn't find any part of the rules that actually > > >says the first priority is to go for the game win. > > > > erm, as has been pointed out before, it is assumed that a person > > playing a game is doing so to win that game. having to point it out > > seems somewhat redundant. > Sorry, but the odd situation (3points and a GW and then I oust myself) can be possible by the actual interpretation of the rules... ... but I suggest to modify the rules: ***GO for the GameWin*** then to maximize your points (ALWAYS!)... ...also if you have already a Game Win: you can't concede points without a GOOD reason, and having a GW is not enough.

On 16 Dec 2003 23:04:32 -0800, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) scrawled: >> > >> >Are you getting the goal of going for the game win from that line >> >about "most vps"? I couldn't find any part of the rules that actually >> >says the first priority is to go for the game win. >> >> erm, as has been pointed out before, it is assumed that a person >> playing a game is doing so to win that game. having to point it out >> seems somewhat redundant. > >I think you're misunderstanding me Salem. I thought that the goal was >to maximise your vps, not go for the game win. the goal is to win. to win, you need to get 'the most' vps. 'the most' vps means more than anyone else. in a 4 or 5 player game, if you have 3 vps, everyone else is going to have 2 or less vps. therefore, you have 'the most' as soon as you hit 3. > Therefore someone on >3vps with one opponent left would still have to try to oust their >prey. Thus i thought the idea of "playing to win" was redundant and >could not understand why people were quoting it. nope. once you've got 3, you have won. you already played to win, and did. after that anything else is redundant, for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<m4evtvoc49oijv8vn...@4ax.com>... > erm, as has been pointed out before, it is assumed that a person > playing a game is doing so to win that game. having to point it out > seems somewhat redundant. > > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm There is nothing redundant (to him) about clarifying the game objective. It is true that the rules state nothing about tournament valid game objectives. The notion that it is assumed that one is playing to win and pointing that out is redundant in the vtes tournament scheme is laughable. You are fully aware that the allowable objectives incorporate a concept of 'winning a little' by getting one vp or 1/2 a vp. Why not translate that concept to 'winning more' by getting 4 or 5 vps when you have already won the table.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FDFA23E...@white-wolf.com>... > Chris Arthur wrote: > >>>"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" > >> > >>this means, of all the players, you want to have the most victory > >>points. ie: more than anyone else. > >>it could be interpreted as 'get the most vps you can', but that is not > >>the official interpretation. > > > > This is where my confusion lies. I thought it meant the most vps you > > can. If it doesn't mean that and actually means "more than anyone > > else" then isn't that condition achieved when you get 3vps on a five > > player table? If so, what is to stop you from then giving away the > > Yes. Barring you losing one later via Gambit Accepted. > > > other two to someone else? > > Nothing. > I apologise for the following nitpick but it's only as a judge that i've come to think that the goals of the game have not really been clearly defined. There were a lot of players at the Australian Championships who believed that the goal was to maximise your vps. These are long term players so unless its an Australian aberration perhaps the problem lies in the rules? nitpick: As stated in the rulebook: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" The winner of a game according to the rulebook: "At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most victory points" In the tournament rules there is no rule that says you have to play to win. The only mention i could find was in the rules for Unsportsmanlike conduct: "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" The goal in the rulebook however only talks about getting the most vps so is it possible to play for 1.5vps (with everyone else on less)? Even if you could theoretically get more? If not then is there an implicit assumption that the player is playing to win? If so why the line in the Unsportsmanlike Conduct section? Why not just state the goals explicitly? Chris.

On 17 Dec 2003 07:24:59 -0800, kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) scrawled: >The notion that it is assumed that one is playing to win and pointing >that out is redundant in the vtes tournament scheme is laughable. You >are fully aware that the allowable objectives incorporate a concept of >'winning a little' by getting one vp or 1/2 a vp. Why not translate >that concept to 'winning more' by getting 4 or 5 vps when you have >already won the table. i was trying to show how things currently stand, not propose some sort of changes. the concept of 'winning a little' is only valid when you are reasonably sure that you cannot 'win', in absolute terms. it is not my place to make judgement on translating concepts to include 'winning more'. i was merely trying to explain the current rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Arthur wrote: > I apologise for the following nitpick but it's only as a judge that > i've come to think that the goals of the game have not really been > clearly defined. There were a lot of players at the Australian > Championships who believed that the goal was to maximise your vps. > These are long term players so unless its an Australian aberration > perhaps the problem lies in the rules? Perhaps. Or perhaps in the reader's assumptions and preconceptions. > nitpick: > As stated in the rulebook: > "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" Right. Not "as many as you possibly can", but simply "the most" (i.e., such that no one has more). > The winner of a game according to the rulebook: > "At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most > victory points" Again, this matches the official rules. The winner is the one who has more than anyone else, not the one(s) who got as many as they could possibly get. > In the tournament rules there is no rule that says you have to play to > win. The only mention i could find was in the rules for That one plays a game toward the goal of achieving the goal of the game is obvious enough. And, as you note, the point is driven home: > Unsportsmanlike conduct: > "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the > game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" > > The goal in the rulebook however only talks about getting the most vps > so is it possible to play for 1.5vps (with everyone else on less)? > Even if you could theoretically get more? If not then is there an Yes. Well, except for the fact that the tournament rules override the notion of game win from the default rules in that case. So in a tournament, no, the player would have to play for the win, since it is, by your stated conditions, acheivable. > implicit assumption that the player is playing to win? If so why the > line in the Unsportsmanlike Conduct section? Why not just state the > goals explicitly? The goals are stated explicitly, as you cite above. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FDFA23E...@white-wolf.com>... > Chris Arthur wrote: > >>>"Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" > >> > >>this means, of all the players, you want to have the most victory > >>points. ie: more than anyone else. > >>it could be interpreted as 'get the most vps you can', but that is not > >>the official interpretation. > > > > This is where my confusion lies. I thought it meant the most vps you > > can. If it doesn't mean that and actually means "more than anyone > > else" then isn't that condition achieved when you get 3vps on a five > > player table? If so, what is to stop you from then giving away the > > Yes. Barring you losing one later via Gambit Accepted. > > > other two to someone else? > > Nothing. > If you obtained 3vps on a five player table and rolled over for the last player is that legal in the following circumstances? a) You're tired and couldn't be bothered playing anymore b) They're a friend and you want to see them get 2 vps c) You think they're cute and it might help get them into bed Would it be up to a judge to determine whether any of these reasons are unsportsmanlike? C.

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<8sq1uvkrdbc4k7ab8...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Nor was I. Surely you can see that this would be confusing to someone relying on their own intuition.

On 18 Dec 2003 06:55:55 -0800, kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<8sq1uvkrdbc4k7ab8...@4ax.com>... >> On 17 Dec 2003 07:24:59 -0800, kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) >> scrawled: >> >> >The notion that it is assumed that one is playing to win and pointing >> >that out is redundant in the vtes tournament scheme is laughable. You >> >are fully aware that the allowable objectives incorporate a concept of >> >'winning a little' by getting one vp or 1/2 a vp. Why not translate >> >that concept to 'winning more' by getting 4 or 5 vps when you have >> >already won the table. >> >> i was trying to show how things currently stand, not propose some sort >> of changes. >Nor was I. Surely you can see that this would be confusing to someone >relying on their own intuition. For some people, yes. I don't see that making the object of the game a little more specific (again) could hurt for the next rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Dec 2003 22:36:26 -0800, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote: >If you obtained 3vps on a five player table and rolled over for the >last player is that legal in the following circumstances? Yes. Once you have won the game, you may take any action you want. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

LSJ expounded: > Perhaps. Or perhaps in the reader's assumptions and preconceptions. > > > nitpick: > > As stated in the rulebook: > > "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points" > > Right. Not "as many as you possibly can", but simply "the most" > (i.e., such that no one has more). and no one has as many. > > The winner of a game according to the rulebook: > > "At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most > > victory points" > > Again, this matches the official rules. The winner is the one who > has more than anyone else, not the one(s) who got as many as they > could possibly get. The winner in a tournament is the one with the most and no less than 2. The rulebook does not say that you have to play to win; only that you have to play to get the most VPs (more than any other). So playing for 1.5 would be totally legal. > > In the tournament rules there is no rule that says you have to play to > > win. The only mention i could find was in the rules for > > That one plays a game toward the goal of achieving the goal of the game > is obvious enough. And, as you note, the point is driven home: > > > Unsportsmanlike conduct: > > "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the > > game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" That goal is to score the most VPs; NOT to win the game. > > The goal in the rulebook however only talks about getting the most vps > > so is it possible to play for 1.5vps (with everyone else on less)? > > Even if you could theoretically get more? If not then is there an > > Yes. Well, except for the fact that the tournament rules override > the notion of game win from the default rules in that case. So in > a tournament, no, the player would have to play for the win, since > it is, by your stated conditions, acheivable. They over-ride the victory conditions but not the goal.

Timlagor wrote: > That goal is to score the most VPs; NOT to win the game. You make a distinction where there is none. Scoring the most VPs *is* winning the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > That goal is to score the most VPs; NOT to win the game. > > You make a distinction where there is none. > Scoring the most VPs *is* winning the game. Incorrect. Having the most VPS *AND* having at least 2VPs is winning the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] No. GWs are a tournament-based ranking construct (number of such Game Wins, where not all instances of winning the game count as Game Wins). Even if it were, that would not validate your original assertion: "That goal is to score the most VPs; NOT to win the game." Since scoring 1.5-1.0-1.0-1.0-0.0 is scoring the most VPs (and, therefore, winning the game) while not getting a tournament GW. Every instance of achieving a GW is an instance of winning the game and, therefore, of getting the most VPs, since the latter two are one and the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FF2EF9F...@white-wolf.com>... > No. GWs are a tournament-based ranking construct (number of such > Game Wins, where not all instances of winning the game count as Game > Wins). > > Even if it were, that would not validate your original assertion: > "That goal is to score the most VPs; NOT to win the game." > > Since scoring 1.5-1.0-1.0-1.0-0.0 is scoring the most VPs (and, > therefore, winning the game) while not getting a tournament GW. > > Every instance of achieving a GW is an instance of winning the game > and, therefore, of getting the most VPs, since the latter two are > one and the same. I think that making a GW is not getting the most VPs... A table sweep is making the most VPs (ALL). If It's possible I prefer to clarify the object of the tournment games: making a GW and then the most VPs (also after the GW). So you cannot let some incorrect/lazy/... player to make 3 points and then concede the last points to someone. Now they can: I've 3 points and a GW... so I can act as I want giving the point to who I want... it isn't fair and it isn't good for the game. Best deranges, RavATwoFaces

RavATwoFaces wrote: > I think that making a GW is not getting the most VPs... A table sweep > is making the most VPs (ALL). You're changing topics to "as many as you can" rather than "more than anyone else"; that distinction has already been addressed in this thread (and elsewhere). If you have 3 VPs and everyone else has 2 or fewer, then you have the most. [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.03121...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] If the tournment rules will be changed in "you MUST play for the Game Win *AND* for the most VPs at the table or if you can't have the GW only for the most VPs you can achieve..." All the above cases can't occur and you don't have to judge. In every case giving 2 points to your friend or to a cute person ISN'T a SPORTSMANLIKE conduit (and if I know a Player do that I disqualify him/her)... because you are giving away points using considerations outside the game. Best deranges, RavATwoFaces *New* Italian National Coordinator