Table wins vs VPs: Ties?

So when the Table Wins rules start in effect in January, what happens when players tie (i.e. a 5 player table with scores of 2/2/1)? Is a tie equivelant to a win or a not win, or is there a third "tie" collumn, where a tie is worse than a win but better than a loss? Does having a record of 1 win, 1 loss, and 1 tie get you in to the finals before a guy who has 1 win and 2 losses? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

Here is the new game win rule: 3.8.1. Game Win Scoring A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points than any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case of ties.) In the case of a 2-2-1 tie no game win is awarded, but everyone is credited with their VPs. As for losses, who's keeping track of that anyway? Next year the criteria for final round seating will be: game wins, victory points, and tournament points; in that order. Not every table will have a game win. That should mean that VPs will still be quite important. Jay

Jay wrote: >>In the case of a 2-2-1 tie no game win is awarded, but everyone is credited with their VPs.>> I managed to go find the actual rule about ties at some point (teach me to ask questions before I go lookat the rules :-). I'd think that it'd be a good idea to make a tie for first worth more than a loss (i.e. if you split a table 2/2, you have preference over someone who who doesn't, but the VPs might make it work that way anyways), but I don't think it is gonna be that important. I'd also think that playing at a 4 player table would be less optimal in this setting--more likely to tie, but that also might be rather insignificant. >>As for losses, who's keeping track of that anyway?>> Well, someone will--you play three games and win 1 of them, you have 2 losses :-) >>Next year the criteria for final round seating will be: game wins, victory points, and tournament points; in that order. Not every table will have a game win. That should mean that VPs will still be quite important.>> Yup. Where I see this being problematic, however, is in the obvious situation--a guy who accidentally wins one table with a 2-1-1-1 point split but gets no other VPs during the rest of the tournament will get into the finals way before the guy who never actually wins a table, but gets 2 VPs in each round (point splitting each table 3-2). Guy A has 2 VPs where guy B has 6, but guy A gets into the finals before guy B, which is kind of wonky. I guess it no longer pays to play an intercept deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

<...> > Yup. Where I see this being problematic, however, is in the obvious > situation--a guy who accidentally wins one table with a 2-1-1-1 point split but > gets no other VPs during the rest of the tournament will get into the finals > way before the guy who never actually wins a table, but gets 2 VPs in each > round (point splitting each table 3-2). Guy A has 2 VPs where guy B has 6, but > guy A gets into the finals before guy B, which is kind of wonky. I guess it no > longer pays to play an intercept deck. > I was thinking just the opposite. If an intercept can oust 1 prey and be the last one standing, (wich is IMO not so difficult for such a deck) it does have a game win. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how the metagame adapts. Jeroen

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> a écrit dans le message news: bR1D7.13496$PH1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] a good intercept deck, that is =) not a pityful do-nothing deck who eagle sight blocks his grandprey action "just to cycle cards"... I've seen that quite too often ! > Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how the metagame adapts. Challenge ! that's what it all about =) > Jeroen reyda (hi belgian team ;) )

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9riavs$k4i$1...@neon.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I think part of the whole point is to get rid of those "Last Man Standing" type decks ( which sometimes are happy to just let the game time out ) and 2-2-1 table splitting deals. It also forces you to make deals based more on the game at hand rather than the VPs everyone has accumilated. Lastly, any mechanic that forces people to go forward more is always good in my book.

Jeroen wrote: >>I was thinking just the opposite. If an intercept can oust 1 prey and be the last one standing, (wich is IMO not so difficult for such a deck) it does have a game win.>> Most reliable intercept decks I have seen rarely can oust their first prey (too much defense, which is necessary if you want to be a reliable intercept deck)--they get 2 VPs by virtue of being the last guy standing (1 VP for ousting the other player left in the game and 1 VP for being the last guy alive), and the player who was originally his prey generally has the other three. The only intercept decks I have seen that can reliably oust their prey are Smiling Jack based decks, and they are difficult to pull off, as you suddenly need to fend off the whole table (you probably need a huge vampire and, like, 30 Obediances...) [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20011028220217...@mb-mi.aol.com>... > Jeroen wrote: > >>I was thinking just the opposite. If an intercept can oust 1 prey and be > the last one standing, (wich is IMO not so difficult for such a deck) it > does have a game win.>> > > Most reliable intercept decks I have seen rarely can oust their first prey (too > much defense, which is necessary if you want to be a reliable intercept > deck)--they get 2 VPs by virtue of being the last guy standing (1 VP for > ousting the other player left in the game and 1 VP for being the last guy > alive), and the player who was originally his prey generally has the other > three. I would call that a poor intercept deck, especially in light of the new Game Win rules. A good intercept deck should be able to intercept it's prey's actions, put their vampires in torpor and then bleed at will. Granted that is not easy but it's what you have to aim for when building an intercept deck.

> >>Next year the criteria for final round seating will be: game wins, victory > points, and tournament points; in that order. Not every table will have a > game win. That should mean that VPs will still be quite important.>> > > Yup. Where I see this being problematic, however, is in the obvious > situation--a guy who accidentally wins one table with a 2-1-1-1 point split but > gets no other VPs during the rest of the tournament will get into the finals > way before the guy who never actually wins a table, but gets 2 VPs in each > round (point splitting each table 3-2). Guy A has 2 VPs where guy B has 6, but > guy A gets into the finals before guy B, which is kind of wonky. I guess it no > longer pays to play an intercept deck. Peter, I don't think this will ever be a problem. I don't know about big national tournaments but a local one for us would go something like this: players are: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. First game: 1,2,3,4----Player 1 gets 3VP player 3 gets 1VP(table win player 1) 5,6,7,8----Player 5 gets 4VP(table win player 5) Second game : 7,1,8,2----Player 1 gets 3VP player 2 gets 1VP(table win player 1) 3,5,4,6----Player 5 gets 2 VP player 3 gets 2 VP(tie, no table win) Third Game: 4,7,6,1----Player 6 gets 3 VP player 7 gets 1 VP 8,3,2,5----Some how Player 8(Peter Bakija) "accidently gets 2VP, player 5 gets 1, 2 gets 1(table win to 8) Totals: 1-6(2) 2-2 3-3 4- 5-7(1) 6-3(1) 7-1 8-2(1) Players in the finals via table points are: 1,3,5,6,8 Players in the finals via Victory points are: 1,3,5,6, with a tie breaker between 8 and 2. Only difference, no tie breaker. Much better in my opinion. As the tournament gets larger the chance of someone with only 1 table win going anywhere on a fluke(IE not having a ton of VP to break table win-ties) goes way down. This is pretty much what I can remember from our last tournament. The same people getting into the finals from VP would have been the same people into the finals from table wins, except the last spot which was a VP tie. Basically, it puts more importance on being able to run the table once, then perform standard over multiple rounds.(difference between getting 1-1-2 VP in a tournament and 0-0-4) -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20011028220217...@mb-mi.aol.com... > Jeroen wrote: > >>I was thinking just the opposite. If an intercept can oust 1 prey and be > the last one standing, (wich is IMO not so difficult for such a deck) it > does have a game win.>> > > Most reliable intercept decks I have seen rarely can oust their first prey (too > much defense, which is necessary if you want to be a reliable intercept > deck)--they get 2 VPs by virtue of being the last guy standing (1 VP for > ousting the other player left in the game and 1 VP for being the last guy > alive), and the player who was originally his prey generally has the other > three. > IME, a good intercept deck can kill their first prey. The archtypical Tzimisce intercept/ combat deck can do this if you pack enough Eagle's Sight. Add enough untap to be able to bleed (Pulse and Changeling) and a couple of Warghouls. Besides, with the new rules it doesn't really matter if you kill your predator, as long as you get the game win. Another tought i had this night: I think that the new scoring rules will make combat decks a lot more viable in a tourney. Especially in a small tourney.

Chris Arthur wrote: > > pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message > news:<20011028220217...@mb-mi.aol.com>... > > Most reliable intercept decks I have seen rarely can oust their first prey (too > > much defense, which is necessary if you want to be a reliable intercept > > deck)--they get 2 VPs by virtue of being the last guy standing (1 VP for > > ousting the other player left in the game and 1 VP for being the last guy > > alive), and the player who was originally his prey generally has the other > > three. > > I would call that a poor intercept deck, especially in light of the > new Game Win rules. A good intercept deck should be able to intercept > it's prey's actions, put their vampires in torpor and then bleed at > will. Granted that is not easy but it's what you have to aim for when > building an intercept deck. If your prey is a reasonably good player, he should take into account your deck's strengths and stick strictly to directed actions. So you'll need a fair amount of Eagle's Sights to have much chance of torporizing his vampires via intercept. I haven't observed that that works very often. I agree with Peter. Counting on more than two VPs a game is pretty dicey. Fred

jeroen rombouts wrote: > Another tought i had this night: I think that the new scoring rules will > make combat decks a lot more viable in a tourney. Especially in a small > tourney. That's an interesting conclusion. I would have said exactly the opposite, seeing as many combat decks get many of their victory points by making deals with their unfortunate predator. As their predator will now have little incentive to make such deals, I expect combat decks to have a lot more trouble coming up with three victory points in a five player game and often even two. We'll certainly get a chance to see who's correct. Fred

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20011028161414...@mb-cp.aol.com>... > I managed to go find the actual rule about ties at some point (teach me to ask > questions before I go lookat the rules :-). I'd think that it'd be a good idea > to make a tie for first worth more than a loss (i.e. if you split a table 2/2, > you have preference over someone who who doesn't, but the VPs might make it > work that way anyways), but I don't think it is gonna be that important. Since trying to make sure people to "play to win" (rather than "play to split the table") was one of the goals of the new scoring system, I'm not sure that making ties worth something would be a good thing. :-) > Yup. Where I see this being problematic, however, is in the obvious > situation--a guy who accidentally wins one table with a 2-1-1-1 point split but > gets no other VPs during the rest of the tournament will get into the finals > way before the guy who never actually wins a table, but gets 2 VPs in each > round (point splitting each table 3-2). Guy A has 2 VPs where guy B has 6, but > guy A gets into the finals before guy B, which is kind of wonky. I guess it no > longer pays to play an intercept deck. Well, from another point of view it was kinda wonky that guy B would beat guy A into the finals, considering that guy B never won a single game in the preliminary rounds. (given that winning is defined in the rulebook to be "getting more VPs than anyone else in the game.") In practice, I suspect that it's very rare for anyone to make it to the finals by getting 2 VPs per game but never winning a game. I looked at what the results at the last tournament I ran would've been under the game-win system, and the only difference was that the second and third seed going into the finals would've been reversed (third seed had two table wins to second seed's one, but fewer VPs). There were several games where a table win was not awarded (2/2/0/0 splits on 4-player tables, or 1.5/1.5/.5/0/0 splits on 5-player tables), but that's probably not a problem. I think it may pay more to play an intercept deck (that can win games) than it did before: at a medium-size tournament, you may only need to win one game (of three) to make the finals, as long as you get a couple more VPs in your other games. Under the old system, an intercept deck probably needed two VPs in each of three games to qualify. Now, if you can manage 3/1/1/0/0 once, you're doing well, or 2/1/1/1/0, or even 2/1/1/0 on a four-player table, which is probably much easier to manage. (With a mostly- focused-backwards intercept deck, you probably get your predator ousted first. In a five-player game, your initial prey, with a mostly-free hand, would be liable to oust your grandprey before your new predator gets killed and then get to mop up that new predator for 2 VPs; in a four-player game, your new predator *is* your grandprey, so it should be easier to give 1 VP to each of two people and keep the last two for yourself. In theory, anyway. Josh wants to be sedated

Joshua Duffin wrote: > In practice, I suspect that it's very rare for anyone to make > it to the finals by getting 2 VPs per game but never winning > a game. I looked at what the results at the last tournament > I ran would've been under the game-win system, and the only > difference was that the second and third seed going into the > finals would've been reversed (third seed had two table wins > to second seed's one, but fewer VPs). There were several games > where a table win was not awarded (2/2/0/0 splits on 4-player > tables, or 1.5/1.5/.5/0/0 splits on 5-player tables), but that's > probably not a problem. In fact, I agree with what you're saying to Peter. But I would caution anyone to take anything from looking at the results of tournaments being played under current rules. The fact is, players may very well (in fact I expect them to) play somewhat differently with the knowledge that they need game wins to make the finals. So just going through and recalculating the results given new rules does not accurately reflect how the rule change will affect tournaments. Personally, I expect it affect metagame choices and deck construction at least somewhat and the actual play of the games significantly. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BDD5DD0...@netcom.com>... > Chris Arthur wrote: > > > > pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message > > news:<20011028220217...@mb-mi.aol.com>... > > > Most reliable intercept decks I have seen rarely can oust their first prey (too > > > much defense, which is necessary if you want to be a reliable intercept > > > deck)--they get 2 VPs by virtue of being the last guy standing (1 VP for > > > ousting the other player left in the game and 1 VP for being the last guy > > > alive), and the player who was originally his prey generally has the other > > > three. > > > > I would call that a poor intercept deck, especially in light of the > > new Game Win rules. A good intercept deck should be able to intercept > > it's prey's actions, put their vampires in torpor and then bleed at > > will. Granted that is not easy but it's what you have to aim for when > > building an intercept deck. > > If your prey is a reasonably good player, he should take into account your deck's > strengths and stick strictly to directed actions. True however that is more easily said than done. If your deck is not built around purely directed actions then suddenly changing your strategy is not an easy thing to do especially when purely directed actions are basically bleed and rush. what if you have a vote deck? how does a vote deck suddenly only take directed actions and still expect to win? So you'll need a fair amount > of Eagle's Sights to have much chance of torporizing his vampires via intercept. I agree that relying on eagle's sight is a poor tactic. theoretically it sounds fine but in practice it just doesn't work. anyone who says otherwise has not tried it often enough. an intercept deck should always pack some rush (ideally a few vamps with inbuilt rush) just in case it comes across a deck that is hard to intercept for whatever reason. that way if you put some vamps in torpor by rushing they can now play with a reduced number of vamps or they try to rescue them and that's where your intercept comes in. > I haven't observed that that works very often. I agree with Peter. Counting on > more than two VPs a game is pretty dicey. > intercept decks are a trickier proposition than the more easily constructed bleed or vote decks but they are rewarding to play and a nice challenge if you've become a little bored with more straightforward strategies. Chris.

Chris Arthur wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BDD5DD0...@netcom.com>... > > Chris Arthur wrote: > > > > > > pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message > > > news:<20011028220217...@mb-mi.aol.com>... > > > > Most reliable intercept decks I have seen rarely can oust their first prey (too > > > > much defense, which is necessary if you want to be a reliable intercept > > > > deck)--they get 2 VPs by virtue of being the last guy standing (1 VP for > > > > ousting the other player left in the game and 1 VP for being the last guy > > > > alive), and the player who was originally his prey generally has the other > > > > three. > > > > > > I would call that a poor intercept deck, especially in light of the > > > new Game Win rules. A good intercept deck should be able to intercept > > > it's prey's actions, put their vampires in torpor and then bleed at > > > will. Granted that is not easy but it's what you have to aim for when > > > building an intercept deck. > > > > If your prey is a reasonably good player, he should take into account your deck's > > strengths and stick strictly to directed actions. > > True however that is more easily said than done. If your deck is not > built around purely directed actions then suddenly changing your > strategy is not an easy thing to do especially when purely directed > actions are basically bleed and rush. what if you have a vote deck? > how does a vote deck suddenly only take directed actions and still > expect to win? It is not more easily said than done. It is *AS* easily said as done. Speaking in computerese psuedo-code: If (action === undirected) then don't do it. Not a hard concept to program at all. The answer to your question is that if your deck depends on taking undirected actions, such as voting, you simply don't do them. Period. You sit there, discarding once per turn if there's any hope of drawing something that may help you. Or doing nothing at all if not. Your predator sits there and waits, fruitlessly - at least as far as you're concerned. If your grandpredator has some kind hope of attacking your predator - either by extreme enough stealth or by having better combat - they duke it out and you hope that the latter's position gets beat up enough so that he either goes away at some point or can't afford to worry about you any more. If your grandpredator can do neither, then hopefully he's smart enough to do the same thing as you: nothing. Then whatever else happens in the game that is not to your liking is not likely going to be to your predator's liking either. This whole do-nothing strategy may not help, but it can't hurt either. Certainly there's never a reason to helplessly send your minions off to the slaughter voluntarily. > So you'll need a fair amount > > of Eagle's Sights to have much chance of torporizing his vampires via intercept. > > I agree that relying on eagle's sight is a poor tactic. theoretically > it sounds fine but in practice it just doesn't work. anyone who says > otherwise has not tried it often enough. Yep. My thinking exactly. > an intercept deck should > always pack some rush (ideally a few vamps with inbuilt rush) just in > case it comes across a deck that is hard to intercept for whatever > reason. that way if you put some vamps in torpor by rushing they can > now play with a reduced number of vamps or they try to rescue them and > that's where your intercept comes in. Ah, then it's not what I'm thinking of as an intercept deck. It's a hybrid rush/intercept deck. But I think you have a good supply of intercept (particularly untapped minions sitting around with ravens or sports bikes), I'm not going to bother rescuing my minion any more than I'm going to call my votes. We can all just sit here and wait until Hell freezes over. Which it will, sooner or later. > > I haven't observed that that works very often. I agree with Peter. Counting on > > more than two VPs a game is pretty dicey. > > intercept decks are a trickier proposition than the more easily > constructed bleed or vote decks but they are rewarding to play and a > nice challenge if you've become a little bored with more > straightforward strategies. They certainly. The only really interesting ones I've seen that make some sense to me are ones that set up things the prey doesn't like and has to attack to get rid of - the classic one being Army of Rats. I forget what else is out there but I seem to recall someone showing my a few different interesting ideas of cards to play. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3BDE1849...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I was in a similar situation the other day. I had a non-combat deck and my predator was running Beast w/ CEL and Psyche! amongst other things. After having my first vamp torporised and eaten by my prey I sat there, transfered onto two ther vamps of mine but didn't bring any out. All my predator could do is bleed me for two a turn, eventually my grand predator was ousted and my new grand predator put a lot of pressure on my predator. Now I got my vamps out, my predator was so busy with my grand predator that I could actually start going forward totally unmolested by my predator. Not only that but my prey, thinking that I was a lost cause left himself on very little pool and ousting him was easy. A similar thing applies when facing intercept decks. Take only directed actions, or even take no actions. When a deck is focused primarily on one thing be it intercept and blocking, rush combat or stealth, you can often use that against them buy not allowing them to play cards. I've seen a hell of a lot of S&B decks fall over when you just refuse to block them, they end up with a hand full of stealth and nothing else. > > So you'll need a fair amount > > > of Eagle's Sights to have much chance of torporizing his vampires via intercept. > > > > I agree that relying on eagle's sight is a poor tactic. theoretically > > it sounds fine but in practice it just doesn't work. anyone who says > > otherwise has not tried it often enough. > > Yep. My thinking exactly. If you want to rely on blocking your prey's (D) actions, play with Anneke, otherwise you'll need a crapload of Eagle's sight and them you'll probably not have enough other cards to generate the intercept. > > an intercept deck should > > always pack some rush (ideally a few vamps with inbuilt rush) just in > > case it comes across a deck that is hard to intercept for whatever > > reason. that way if you put some vamps in torpor by rushing they can > > now play with a reduced number of vamps or they try to rescue them and > > that's where your intercept comes in. > > Ah, then it's not what I'm thinking of as an intercept deck. It's a hybrid > rush/intercept deck. But I think you have a good supply of intercept (particularly > untapped minions sitting around with ravens or sports bikes), I'm not going to > bother rescuing my minion any more than I'm going to call my votes. We can all > just sit here and wait until Hell freezes over. Which it will, sooner or later. Not that it's a bad idea but I wouldn't class that kind of deck as an intercept deck either. > > > I haven't observed that that works very often. I agree with Peter. Counting on > > > more than two VPs a game is pretty dicey. > > > > intercept decks are a trickier proposition than the more easily > > constructed bleed or vote decks but they are rewarding to play and a > > nice challenge if you've become a little bored with more > > straightforward strategies. > > They certainly. The only really interesting ones I've seen that make some > sense to me are ones that set up things the prey doesn't like and has to > attack to get rid of - the classic one being Army of Rats. I forget what else > is out there but I seem to recall someone showing my a few different interesting > ideas of cards to play. Some of the best intercept decks that I have seen but out stuff like Rats, Jack, Antedeluvian, Anarch Revolt to drain pool and use Melange on their pray. To stop themselves from dying they use the pool gaining locations, which can typically be (D) actioned, but being an intercept deck that's usually not a problem.

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3BDE1849...@netcom.com... <snip> > They certainly. The only really interesting ones I've seen that make some > sense to me are ones that set up things the prey doesn't like and has to > attack to get rid of - the classic one being Army of Rats. I forget what else > is out there but I seem to recall someone showing my a few different interesting > ideas of cards to play. > My favourites have always been Army of Rats, Aggressive Tactics and Pentex subversion.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 17:43:36 GMT, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] IOW you could tie 2 or more games and have more vps than the single game winner but still watch him play in the final when you dont. That is my objection to the new Win system. Ties shouls count. T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bee858c.233172146@news... > On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 17:43:36 GMT, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> > >A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have > >received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points than > >any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case of ties.) > > > > In the case of a 2-2-1 tie no game win is awarded, but everyone is > >credited with their VPs. As for losses, who's keeping track of that anyway? > >Next year the criteria for final round seating will be: game wins, victory > >points, and tournament points; in that order. Not every table will have a > >game win. That should mean that VPs will still be quite important. > > IOW you could tie 2 or more games and have more vps than the single > game winner but still watch him play in the final when you dont. That > is my objection to the new Win system. With the current system, you could *win* all 3 of your games but still not get into the finals because other players cut deals for 2 VPs each round and lost all of their preliminary round games. Why is it more fair to reward the *almost winner* over the player who actually managed to win their games? > Ties shouls count. If ties were given any game win consideration, we'd have the same situation we have now. Players would simply make deals to tie the table instead of the 3-2 splits we see now. -Robert Robert Goudie rob...@vtesinla.org

In message <3bee858c.233172146@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >IOW you could tie 2 or more games and have more vps than the single >game winner but still watch him play in the final when you dont. That >is my objection to the new Win system. Propose a workable system, then. It is also notable that you never won a game, whereas other players did. IOW, you could win a game and have won more games than those who tied games, but still watch them in the final! >Ties shouls count. How do you propose to deal with combat deck table-splitting under such a system? This system is really quite delicate about handling such. -- James Coupe Everybody knows that "No" means "Yes" PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Just like glasses come free on the NHS EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 But the more I look through them the more I see 13D7E668C3695D623D5D I'm becoming more like Alfie

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:57:51 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3bee858c.233172146@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>IOW you could tie 2 or more games and have more vps than the single >>game winner but still watch him play in the final when you dont. That >>is my objection to the new Win system. > >Propose a workable system, then. > Ties count as half a win. If the player mentioned above gets 2 ties vs the player with 1 win, vps will break that tie. > >>Ties should count. > >How do you propose to deal with combat deck table-splitting under such a >system? This system is really quite delicate about handling such. > By that do you mean 2 combat decks 'agreeing' to share the win by beating down everyone else? They get half a win. My guess would be that at the 11th hour, 1 of them will break the deal and go for the win. T

In message <3bf59e58.239521011@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>Propose a workable system, then. >> > >Ties count as half a win. And on a 5 way tie table? You've just generated two and a half table wins from one table. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:57:51 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > wrote: > >Propose a workable system, then. > > Ties count as half a win. If the player mentioned above gets 2 ties > vs the player with 1 win, vps will break that tie. That gives too much incentive to split the table between two players. The whole point of the "game wins" system is make players work for a win and _not_ settle for a tie. > >How do you propose to deal with combat deck table-splitting under such a > >system? This system is really quite delicate about handling such. > > By that do you mean 2 combat decks 'agreeing' to share the win by > beating down everyone else? > > They get half a win. That's too much. While I agree that people who wind up splitting a table 2-2 or 2-2-1 (as appropriate) against their will are probably unduly penalized by this system, giving them half a win doesn't work either for the reason stated above. > My guess would be that at the 11th hour, 1 of > them will break the deal and go for the win. I think it's been very well established that that seldom happens in tournament play. There's no incentive to do so. Break a deal like that once or twice and you get a reputation for doing so in your local area. You may gain the extra half a win, you may even make the finals of that tournament where you would not have otherwise but you'll never be able to deal with most of the people thereabouts ever again. Few players find this to be a good tradeoff. So it almost never happens. Which is how we got to the existing state of affairs: too many games being decided by having two players agree to divide the table. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BDE1849...@netcom.com>... > If (action === undirected) then > don't do it. > > Not a hard concept to program at all. The answer to your question is that > if your deck depends on taking undirected actions, such as voting, you simply > don't do them. Period. You sit there, discarding once per turn if there's > any hope of drawing something that may help you. Or doing nothing at all if > not. Your predator sits there and waits, fruitlessly - at least as far as you're > concerned. If your grandpredator has some kind hope of attacking your predator - > either by extreme enough stealth or by having better combat - they duke it out > and you hope that the latter's position gets beat up enough so that he either > goes away at some point or can't afford to worry about you any more. If your > grandpredator can do neither, then hopefully he's smart enough to do the same > thing as you: nothing. Then whatever else happens in the game that is not to > your liking is not likely going to be to your predator's liking either. This > whole do-nothing strategy may not help, but it can't hurt either. Certainly > there's never a reason to helplessly send your minions off to the slaughter > voluntarily. A good intercept/combat deck should be packing forward action as well, to stop this kind of a response. For the Nossies and Gangrel, this tends to be AoR and perhaps a ToS, laptop, etc. Dropping Smiling Jack works too, so long as it's done later on.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 21:20:50 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3bf59e58.239521011@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>Propose a workable system, then. >>> >> >>Ties count as half a win. > >And on a 5 way tie table? > >You've just generated two and a half table wins from one table. > As in no one got a vp? Unlikely, but you could simply require a minimum of 1 vp to get that half-win. Afterall, I'd say nobody won that game, ties nothwithstanding. T

On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 22:11:42 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >> >> Ties count as half a win. If the player mentioned above gets 2 ties >> vs the player with 1 win, vps will break that tie. > >That gives too much incentive to split the table between two players. >The whole point of the "game wins" system is make players work for a >win and _not_ settle for a tie. > I understand that, but it screws every player who did everything he did to win and still tied someone for 2 vps each or something. > >That's too much. While I agree that people who wind up splitting a >table 2-2 or 2-2-1 (as appropriate) against their will are probably >unduly penalized by this system, giving them half a win doesn't work >either for the reason stated above. > I'd rather see them rewarded as well as the table splitters myself. Chalk it up to personal preference I suppose. >> My guess would be that at the 11th hour, 1 of >> them will break the deal and go for the win. > >I think it's been very well established that that seldom happens in >tournament play. There's no incentive to do so. Break a deal like that >once or twice and you get a reputation for doing so in your local area. I don't think anyone would really hold that against you when it would get you the game win. Frankly, I'd consider anyone stupid not to. In fact, I think the game requires it when you are the only 2 meth left. Unless you both agreed to just burn cards and then withdraw. T

In message <3beefffe.525869819@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>Ties count as half a win. >> >>And on a 5 way tie table? >> >>You've just generated two and a half table wins from one table. >> > >As in no one got a vp? Not necessarily. And timing out would produce half a VP anyway. > Unlikely, but you could simply require a >minimum of 1 vp to get that half-win. Fine. I can still generate two and a half table wins from one table, then. >Afterall, I'd say nobody won that game, ties nothwithstanding. So ties count as half a win, except when they don't. Interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:53:04 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Afterall, I'd say nobody won that game, ties nothwithstanding. > >So ties count as half a win, except when they don't. Interesting. > When they dont get any vps James, come on now dont willfully misinterpret my words please. Another solution might be to give tieing players wildcard status. That is, instead of counting their ties towards a gamewin, only bring those ties into play if they are short a player or something. Because as you pointed out, there can be games where no one wins. Another reason I dont like the gamewin method is that once someone has collected 3 vps, there is no point in finishing the game. Via the vp method, there was. T

In message <3bf0d12d.579429064@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:53:04 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >>>Afterall, I'd say nobody won that game, ties nothwithstanding. >> >>So ties count as half a win, except when they don't. Interesting. >> > >When they dont get any vps James, A 5 player time out did get some VPs. But you've now denied them that. Even with a 1 VP minimum, you can still get all five players getting 1 VP. >Another reason I dont like the gamewin method is that once someone has >collected 3 vps, there is no point in finishing the game. This is not true. Read the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 22:11:42 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > While I agree that people who wind up splitting a > >table 2-2 or 2-2-1 (as appropriate) against their will are probably > >unduly penalized by this system, giving them half a win doesn't work > >either for the reason stated above. > > I'd rather see them rewarded as well as the table splitters myself. > Chalk it up to personal preference I suppose. That position makes no sense. I repeat: the WHOLE POINT of the game wins rule is to eliminate table splitting. If you want to reward table-splitting, go back to the old rule determining finals positions using victory points first and foremost (backed up by table points). Thankfully, your position seems less popular to me and the rules will change. > >> My guess would be that at the 11th hour, 1 of > >> them will break the deal and go for the win. > > > >I think it's been very well established that that seldom happens in > >tournament play. There's no incentive to do so. Break a deal like that > >once or twice and you get a reputation for doing so in your local area. > > I don't think anyone would really hold that against you when it would > get you the game win. Why shouldn't they? Of course they would! The whole point of the agreement was that you _NOT_ grab the game win when you had the chance. Obviously, I'm not going to make an agreement trusting someone not to take a game win if I give him the chance to get one when he already has a reputation that he wouldn't honor such an agreement. You're really making no logical sense in this argument either. Fred

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 21:19:41 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Another reason I dont like the gamewin method is that once someone has >>collected 3 vps, there is no point in finishing the game. > >This is not true. > >Read the rules. > I have. It would only be worth finishing if he had a previous game win or there were still further rounds remaining. T

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:30:36 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > >That position makes no sense. Makes perfect sense to me. I like the VP method because it rewards people based on their level of victory on a sliding scale, rather than an all or nothing approach. I dont' really mind table splitting. I think that actually furthers table talk, which is always good. > I repeat: the WHOLE POINT of the game wins >rule is to eliminate table splitting. If you want to reward table-splitting, >go back to the old rule determining finals positions using victory points >first and foremost (backed up by table points). I wish I could. But for VEKN sanction, that is not possible. >> >> I don't think anyone would really hold that against you when it would >> get you the game win. > >Why shouldn't they? Of course they would! The whole point of the agreement >was that you _NOT_ grab the game win when you had the chance. Then they would be stupid in my books. Any such agreement is flawed fromt the start imo, as the whole point of the game is to go for the gamewin especially now. You're more likely to see an agreement like 'cooperate/neutrality until we're the only two remaining....". > You're really making no logical sense in this argument >either. > LOL! If you cant see the logic of the above, i'm afraid I cant help you, and would love to make table deals with you. =] T

[ quoted text not captured ] Not true. Off-the-cuff example: 8-player tournament. 3 rounds. Each table is won by a different player. Result: 6 players have 1 game win each. Of those, 5 gained 4 VP in there winning games plus 0 VP in other games. You, the 6th person whose game win comes in the third round (after the other table has finished) have 3 VPs. If you stop now, you don't go to the final. If you continue and get 2 more VPs, you finish 1st (getting your choice of seats in the finals). Therefore, it would behove you to play on. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > > Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 21:19:41 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>Another reason I dont like the gamewin method is that once someone has > > >>collected 3 vps, there is no point in finishing the game. > > > > > >This is not true. > > > > > >Read the rules. > > > > > > > I have. It would only be worth finishing if he had a previous game > > win or there were still further rounds remaining. > > Not true. > > Off-the-cuff example: > > 8-player tournament. 3 rounds. > Each table is won by a different player. > Result: 6 players have 1 game win each. > > Of those, 5 gained 4 VP in [their] winning games plus 0 VP in other games. > You, the 6th person whose game win comes in the third round (after the > other table has finished) have 3 VPs. > > If you stop now, you don't go to the final. > If you continue and get 2 more VPs, you finish 1st (getting your choice of > seats in the finals). Hmm. 2 more VPs implies a 9- or 10- player tournament. (I told you it was off-the-cuff) The conclusion would be the same, since playing on would get you at least to a tie-breaker step of the finalist-decision. > Therefore, it would [behoove] you to play on. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:30:36 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: (referring to the proposal Talonz's proposal to award 1/2 of a game win to the two leaders of a split table by scores of 2-2 or 2-2-1; he stated such players should be rewarded even if deliberately splitting the table) > >That position makes no sense. > > Makes perfect sense to me. I like the VP method because it rewards > people based on their level of victory on a sliding scale, rather than > an all or nothing approach. I meant it makes no sense not to just go back to the VP method then. Why modify a method intended to eliminate table-splitting in order to reward table splitting? That's like if you've got a flat tire and you decide you like it flat, you take out the spare, stab it, and use it to replace the flat tire. Why not just leave the original flat tire on the car rather than go to all that work to replace it with another flat tire? > I dont' really mind table splitting. Table splitting is one of the great evils of the contemporary life. It causes poverty, bigotry, and bad clams. Intelligent people should prefer root canal work over playing a game of Jyhad to a deliberately split-table result. > I think that actually furthers table talk, which is always good. Table talk is always good? See what you think when you have to wait through two players with a Succubus Club exchanging hands every turn and talking about every aspect of ever possible play they might conceivably make. (Hint: it was taking greater than 10 minutes per turn.) > > I repeat: the WHOLE POINT of the game wins > >rule is to eliminate table splitting. If you want to reward table-splitting, > >go back to the old rule determining finals positions using victory points > >first and foremost (backed up by table points). > > I wish I could. But for VEKN sanction, that is not possible. You are now officially insane. "But for VEKN sanction, that is not possible." What could you possibly mean by that statement? Do you, "If no rules are changed, then it is not possible to go back to the old rules."? Of course not. So if you're not going to change any rules, it isn't possible to award 1/2 game wins for VEKN sanction, either? So why are you even asking? If you're asking to change the VEKN rules to allow awarding 1/2 game wins, why not just ask to change the VEKN rules to eliminate game wins altogether and go back to just using victory points? I don't understand. You make no sense. (Referring to the act of doublecrossing an opponent with whom one has agreed to share a game win, assuming game wins could be split.) > >> I don't think anyone would really hold that against you when it would > >> get you the game win. > > > >Why shouldn't they? Of course they would! The whole point of the agreement > >was that you _NOT_ grab the game win when you had the chance. > > Then they would be stupid in my books. Any such agreement is flawed > fromt the start imo, That's your opinion. Anyone who agrees need not care whether they're honored or not because they would consider such agreements worthless. Therefore, the only people who make them are those who assume they'll be honored. And they will BY LOGIC not make them with people who have ever shown that they would not honor such agreements. So if you make one and doublecross, you will never again be trusted by people who value them. For the sake of (possibly) one win, you will lose that advantage. Since I've seen them made many times by people who honor them and gain advantage by being able to participate in them, the short term gain you get seems rather paltry by comparison. That's MY opinion... > > You're really making no logical sense in this argument > >either. > > > > LOL! If you cant see the logic of the above, i'm afraid I cant help > you, and would love to make table deals with you. =] I would never make a table deal with you. But I might make a table deal with your predator who's shown himself trustworthy over time. That's the whole flaw in your position. LOL, victim. Fred

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:09:47 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: > >I meant it makes no sense not to just go back to the VP method then. Why >modify a method intended to eliminate table-splitting in order to reward >table splitting? Well I was kinda hoping to find a middle ground to satisfy both camps, but its not looking possible. > >Table talk is always good? See what you think when you have to wait through >two players with a Succubus Club exchanging hands every turn and talking about >every aspect of ever possible play they might conceivably make. (Hint: it was >taking greater than 10 minutes per turn.) > That's the exception to the rule, and could probably easily by dealt with by some kind of timelimit. That, and grumbling players at the table. =] >> > I repeat: the WHOLE POINT of the game wins >> >rule is to eliminate table splitting. If you want to reward table-splitting, >> >go back to the old rule determining finals positions using victory points >> >first and foremost (backed up by table points). >> >> I wish I could. But for VEKN sanction, that is not possible. > >You are now officially insane. "But for VEKN sanction, that is not possible." >What could you possibly mean by that statement? As in, I thought you were speaking to me directly, as a local solution. Which is not possible if I wish to have VEKN sanction. > >That's your opinion. Anyone who agrees need not care whether they're honored >or not because they would consider such agreements worthless. Therefore, the >only people who make them are those who assume they'll be honored. And they >will BY LOGIC not make them with people who have ever shown that they would >not honor such agreements. Getting slightly off-track here....I would likely try to form the deal such that we'd agree to ally until only the two of us remained, at which point we would contest for the win. If he didn't seem willing to do that, I might have to hide my intention at that point and 'make the deal'. I keep 99% of my deals. For those odd 1% where it might mean the game for me, you better believe I'd break it. We're undead immortals for petes sake, nothing matters but the jyhad. > >I would never make a table deal with you. But I might make a table deal with >your predator who's shown himself trustworthy over time. That's the whole flaw >in your position. > Not at all. I'd deal with everyone else at the table including my predator. You're overestimating the impact of that 1% deal break. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 05:09:47 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > > > > >I meant it makes no sense not to just go back to the VP method then. Why > >modify a method intended to eliminate table-splitting in order to reward > >table splitting? > > Well I was kinda hoping to find a middle ground to satisfy both camps, > but its not looking possible. If that's what you're looking for, then you'd probably want to advocate something like granting something like a quarter of a game win or a fifth of a game win for a tie. Something that's not going to amount to "two ties = one win", because that's rewarding table-splitting pretty much as completely as the victory point system does. It's just a little more tricky to arrange since you have to exactly tie the game instead of, say, splitting the table 3-2. And the trickiness isn't good either way - the main effect of that issue is to make the result more capricious rather than either encouraging or discouraging table-splitting. > >That's your opinion. Anyone who agrees need not care whether they're honored > >or not because they would consider such agreements worthless. Therefore, the > >only people who make them are those who assume they'll be honored. And they > >will BY LOGIC not make them with people who have ever shown that they would > >not honor such agreements. > > Getting slightly off-track here....I would likely try to form the deal > such that we'd agree to ally until only the two of us remained, at > which point we would contest for the win. If he didn't seem willing > to do that, I might have to hide my intention at that point and 'make > the deal'. That kind of deal is not the issue here, IMO. Usually it doesn't come up because it's not nearly as powerful as the kind of deal that purports to settle the entire game, including who is the last player standing, at the time it's made. What you're talking about is inherently much more unstable because a player offered that deal will figure the player offering it has some means of pulling the game out when there's only two players left, so it isn't very valuable to him - at least, not when the game win system is in place, making any VPs gained in the process much less valuable. So the only way the player who is offered the deal will take it is if he has a way to pull the game out when it's down to two players that isn't apparent to his prospective ally. Knowing that, it becomes very risky to offer such a deal: it will only be accepted if the other player is likely to be holding the winning hand somehow that isn't obvious. All in all, I don't worry a deal that isn't offered to bloody end. If two players feel like they can gain something by cooperating to oust another player or players, that's just fine. As long as they have to fight it out eventually. It's the half-reward for splitting tables that's too easy to pull off for too much reward (currently) and screws up the dynamics of the game too much. And the punishment for not keeping deals - that you won't be able to engage in very successful practice of table-splitting in the future - is too high a price for most players to feel comfortable paying just to win one game instead of splitting the table. > I keep 99% of my deals. For those odd 1% where it might mean the game > for me, you better believe I'd break it. We're undead immortals for > petes sake, nothing matters but the jyhad. Did you ever think the reason you might be getting so few offers to split games ("odd 1%") is that you won't keep them? It seems pretty logical to me that if you'd never keep them nor ever offer them to other players, that's probably why you never get an opportunities to enter into them. > >I would never make a table deal with you. But I might make a table deal with > >your predator who's shown himself trustworthy over time. That's the whole flaw > >in your position. > > Not at all. I'd deal with everyone else at the table including my > predator. You're overestimating the impact of that 1% deal break. If you're talking about minor deals to temporarily cooperate, those I might make with you. But I think you're overestimating the value of them in comparison to game-ending deals. Play in some of the major tournaments I've played in and they're far, FAR more common than any "1%" figure you're quoting. You don't seem to be very aware of just how effective they are for getting players into the finals or you wouldn't say a thing like that. Fred

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:43:43 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >> >> Getting slightly off-track here....I would likely try to form the deal >> such that we'd agree to ally until only the two of us remained, at >> which point we would contest for the win. If he didn't seem willing >> to do that, I might have to hide my intention at that point and 'make >> the deal'. > >That kind of deal is not the issue here, IMO. Usually it doesn't come up >because it's not nearly as powerful as the kind of deal that purports to settle >the entire game, including who is the last player standing, at the time it's >made. That seems just as rare imo, because you're likely looking at 2 predators about to oust their respective prey leaving just the 2 predators or something. Which makes me wonder why they would bother with the deal unless the other pred has some way of interfering with that ousting. > And the punishment for not keeping deals - that you won't >be able to engage in very successful practice of table-splitting in the >future - is too high a price for most players to feel comfortable paying >just to win one game instead of splitting the table. > In general I agree, as I have said. But I wouldn't let that stop me from winning the game if I had to. I can only think of one time where I outright broke a deal so far, and unluckily for me it didnt result in a win(curses!) but under the right situation I wouldnt let it stop me either. That player involved still deals with me btw. > >Did you ever think the reason you might be getting so few offers to split >games ("odd 1%") is that you won't keep them? It seems pretty logical to >me that if you'd never keep them nor ever offer them to other players, that's >probably why you never get an opportunities to enter into them. > You're extrapolating here incorrectly. I said I dont see that kind of deal. That doesnt mean deals exclusively with me, I mean at every game I have played or observed, I just havn't seen tablesplitting like that. > >If you're talking about minor deals to temporarily cooperate, those I might >make with you. But I think you're overestimating the value of them in >comparison to game-ending deals. Play in some of the major tournaments I've >played in and they're far, FAR more common than any "1%" figure you're >quoting. By 1% I refer to tablesplitting deals where one player would better benefit by breaking the deal. > You don't seem to be very aware of just how effective they are >for getting players into the finals or you wouldn't say a thing like that. > Perhaps so. As i've said, I havnt seen that myself. Seeing as that would appear to be an out of game consideration, how are players ethically doing this? An example you've seen may help. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3c0054d4.454154652@news>... > On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:43:43 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > > > And the punishment for not keeping deals - that you won't > >be able to engage in very successful practice of table-splitting in the > >future - is too high a price for most players to feel comfortable paying > >just to win one game instead of splitting the table. > > > > In general I agree, as I have said. But I wouldn't let that stop me > from winning the game if I had to. I can only think of one time where > I outright broke a deal so far, and unluckily for me it didnt result > in a win(curses!) but under the right situation I wouldnt let it stop > me either. I think that breaking deals is part of the game. Not breaking every single deal of course, but from time to time, if : * this gives you something between one VP at the expense of the guy you betray and one table win * or the deal spounds you as an insult. Such as your prey proposing "Please don't block this vote, I need to banish your ally's Gabrin to get my vamps back. If you do so, I'll play a bribes for you to gain one pool" > That player involved still deals with me btw. Refusing to deal with someone just because you distrust him can be a serious hindrance if you want to win a table. > >If you're talking about minor deals to temporarily cooperate, those I might > >make with you. But I think you're overestimating the value of them in > >comparison to game-ending deals. Play in some of the major tournaments I've > >played in and they're far, FAR more common than any "1%" figure you're > >quoting. > > By 1% I refer to tablesplitting deals where one player would better > benefit by breaking the deal. > The "Table wins" rules might fix that Emmanuel

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.01112...@posting.google.com... (snip) > Refusing to deal with someone just because you distrust him can be a > serious hindrance if you want to win a table. (snip) > Emmanuel I must precise that Emmanuel is the current french champion =) he won saturday's tournament with a "please don't hurt me i'm just hunting" weenie presence deck. reyda

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:43:43 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> > wrote: > > >> > >> Getting slightly off-track here....I would likely try to form the deal > >> such that we'd agree to ally until only the two of us remained, at > >> which point we would contest for the win. If he didn't seem willing > >> to do that, I might have to hide my intention at that point and 'make > >> the deal'. > > > >That kind of deal is not the issue here, IMO. Usually it doesn't come up > >because it's not nearly as powerful as the kind of deal that purports to settle > >the entire game, including who is the last player standing, at the time it's > >made. > > That seems just as rare imo, because you're likely looking at 2 > predators about to oust their respective prey leaving just the 2 > predators or something. Why would you say that? Any deal in which two players can unite to oust the other two or three is the kind of situation in which this deal would make sense. > Which makes me wonder why they would bother > with the deal unless the other pred has some way of interfering with > that ousting. Because your assumption is wrong. The point of the deal - and what a lot of people including myself intensely dislike about it - is that it allows two players who would normally not be strong enough to easily oust the others to do so. > > And the punishment for not keeping deals - that you won't > >be able to engage in very successful practice of table-splitting in the > >future - is too high a price for most players to feel comfortable paying > >just to win one game instead of splitting the table. > > In general I agree, as I have said. But I wouldn't let that stop me > from winning the game if I had to. Those two statements conflict each other. If you felt the punishment was too high, you would let it stop you. This response makes no sense. > I can only think of one time where > I outright broke a deal so far, and unluckily for me it didnt result > in a win(curses!) but under the right situation I wouldnt let it stop > me either. > > That player involved still deals with me btw. I don't know what the situation was. Based on your many confusing responses in this thread, I suspect you don't really understand the point I've been trying to make. I further suspect this is likely because in your tournament environment, people have not really discovered the power of negotiating for a table split. > >Did you ever think the reason you might be getting so few offers to split > >games ("odd 1%") is that you won't keep them? It seems pretty logical to > >me that if you'd never keep them nor ever offer them to other players, that's > >probably why you never get an opportunities to enter into them. > > > > You're extrapolating here incorrectly. I said I dont see that kind of > deal. Exactly. And I think that explains most of our dispute. You don't seem to believe that such deals can be extremely powerful and difficult to stop. The only real counterstrategy is frequently to make one's own deals whenever one has the chance. This is a case where a game strategy - instead of a card - has become imbalanced. Refusing to participate or honor such deals does nothing to stop others from engaging in them and being very successful with them. Only a change in tournament rules fixes the problem. > >If you're talking about minor deals to temporarily cooperate, those I might > >make with you. But I think you're overestimating the value of them in > >comparison to game-ending deals. Play in some of the major tournaments I've > >played in and they're far, FAR more common than any "1%" figure you're > >quoting. > > By 1% I refer to tablesplitting deals where one player would better > benefit by breaking the deal. In any tablesplitting deal (or almost any one except in extremely rare instances, as far as I know), one player would better benefit by breaking the deal. The whole basis of such deals is to allow one player to collect two or three points and then take a dive, granting the other player the last two. If player taking the dive doesn't honor the deal, he's better off unless he simply fails to survive anyway. > > You don't seem to be very aware of just how effective they are > >for getting players into the finals or you wouldn't say a thing like that. > > > > Perhaps so. As i've said, I havnt seen that myself. Seeing as that > would appear to be an out of game consideration, how are players > ethically doing this? Ethics doesn't enter into it. Any legal means of winning a tournament is ethical, unless you're bending the spirit of the rules or something along those lines. I don't really want open that can of worms. I think you meant to ask, "Why is it legal in view of the 'out-of-game consideration' rule." The answer is that even by this rule, players are allowed to settle for fewer than the number of victory points needed for a win if they can argue that that would represent the best they can possibly do at this point in the game. In short, "I can't hope to get three victory points given my game position, so therefore it's legal to settle for a deal that allows me two victory points." In my experience, such a claim seems frequently to be extremely questionable, but I do care to call a judge over and argue about it. Nor have I ever seen anyone else do it. In practice, the out-of-game consideration rule just isn't effective at stopping this. That's why we need the 'game win' tournament rule, and we need it to have teeth even if it screws people who wound up in a genuine (and unfortunate) two-two VP split. Fred