Self-Ousting -- AGAIN

So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play? Oh, VTES is different than other games, you say? You are allowed to lose in any way that you wish, you say, including scooping up all your toys and going home, and we ADULTS are simply to suffer through your childlike antics and get ready for round two of your continuing bad behavior? I want to know what makes you think that being a self-ousting quitter in-game is something that I shouldn't consider when I'm thinking about what to do with the next two hours of my life? Unless you just pulled off the one-in-a-million shot and somehow got a VP or a GW by self- ousting, what makes you think that I'll want to play **ANYTHING** with you **EVER AGAIN**? I know there are players in several playgroups that have done and continue to do this sort of bad behavior and I know that in at least two of these playgroups this bad behavior is tolerated because the fear of losing those quitters is greater than trying to educate them on their bad behavior and getting them to grow up. To those of you who are full of fear of other players in your group (and just think of how ridiculous THAT is) I ask you to reexamine your games with these quitters and see if you are really having fun, or are you just continuing to live in fear of the next game where the quitter self-ousts at a crucial time and AGAIN wrecks the game in which you chose to invest two hours of your valuable time, not to mention the money you've spent on the game materials. Yes, it's fear that you're feeling. Why else do you tolerate their bad behavior? Would you tolerate their bad behavior if it weren't within a game or would you call them out on it? Would you play ball with them if they kept taking the ball and going home when they were losing and then they came back the next day again and again as if nothing had happened? I rest my case. Oh, and to those of you that have decided to finally grow up and have stopped self-ousting, I thank you deeply. You are the players and the friends that I would do anything for, and you have my respect and admiration forever for being open-minded enough to hear and agree with an argument for never giving up, to play until the bitter end, and to never again reduce yourself to the bad behavior of self-ousting. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On Nov 30, 9:20 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: -snip sky is falling whinge- > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas Kevin, if your RL persona is at all as abrasive as your online one, have you ever considered that that is maybe the reason people self oust so often around you?

Blooded Sand wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > -snip sky is falling whinge- > > Kevin, if your RL persona is at all as abrasive as your online one, > have you ever considered that that is maybe the reason people self > oust so often around you? Oh, that must be it! Thanks for letting me know that! Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 30, 10:48 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Blooded Sand wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > -snip sky is falling whinge- > > > Kevin, if your RL persona is at all as abrasive as your online one, > > have you ever considered that that is maybe the reason people self > > oust so often around you? > > Oh, that must be it! Thanks for letting me know that! see, sarcasm is just a case in point. Sarcastic people are unpleasant to be around. If you are pointing out to someone in a game, in a sarcastic manner, what they did wrong, they definitely don't want to stay near you. Self ousts don't happen around here very often, if ever. Yet you are regularly going on about it. The sky is not falling dude.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: [snip] Is this an attempt at humor? cheers, -jakob

[ quoted text not captured ] It's nice to see how you're trying to help me with my personal issues! [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called > him out on it. What did he do to self-oust? For how many turns was his masochistic plan in effect?

On Nov 30, 2:20 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called > him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good > thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and > get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically > get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you > can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose > to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly, > implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and > sat down to play? I think you make some valid points, but in my personal opinion, I think you're misdiagnosing the issue. The problem is not with self- ousting (it's with the general attitude/personality/maturity of the players involved). When you're in a position where you're considering self-ousting, everything you do (or decide not to do) is going to tilt the game in favor of one player or another. Going all out against your prey will mainly help your predator (and hurt your prey). Staying untapped and just trying to survive helps your prey instead of your predator. If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.) rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.) don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic. How is sitting there as a buffer and not blocking anything, any better than just transferring out? > Oh, VTES is different than other games, you say? You are allowed to > lose in any way that you wish, you say, including scooping up all > your toys and going home, and we ADULTS are simply to suffer through > your childlike antics and get ready for round two of your continuing > bad behavior? Earlier today I played several VTES games. One of the players is actually pretty good, but he's easily frustrated and prone to outbursts. He is my predator, influences out Carna and takes a build-up action. I try to make a deal whereby I won't block some of his build-up actions if he won't block some of mine. He's not willing to negotiate at all, stating: "I don't make those types of deals." Next turn I play Pentex Subversion (insert link to that other newsgroup thread) which stays on Carna the rest of the game. He gets all mad about it. But essentially my options are: A.) Don't play Pentex and get all my actions blocked by Carna for the rest of the game B.) Neutralize Carna I was trying to work out a compromise but he wasn't willing to talk. (Later that game, he also went on a tirade when I chose not to influence out and contest a Scarce vampire with my prey. It would have brought me down to 2 pool and my prey could then bleed me out backwards in one action with a Kindred Spirits. But he wasn't offended that I *wouldn't* do it.). Once my predator had Carna Pentex'ed, he considered transferring out and I wouldn't have blamed him if he did. If that's what he wanted to do (thereby helping my Grand Predator) that would have been his choice. Or if he wanted to do his best to survive (hoping for an opening in my defenses), that would have been okay as well. Of course he could have also tried negotiating with me to get the Pentex removed but he wasn't willing to do so. A few games later, he's my predator again and is aggressively rushing me with Massassi. I suggest trying to work out a deal but once again he's not interested. So obviously I'm going to try and block his tool- up actions (especially getting a gun) because he's not willing to talk. He gets all upset about it. Interestingly enough, I end up Pentexing my new predator's Petrodon for a few turns. But we eventually make a deal (I let him burn the Pentex and he doesn't block my hunts and rescues). (For the record, I did end up winning both of those games). Connecting this to your original topic, I think the underlying problem is attitude/personality/(perhaps even playstyle). The D.C. playgroup recently had a player storm out of their storyline tournament (and it had nothing to do with self-ousting). VTES is a multi-player game and negotiation/diplomacy is a critical aspect of the game. Given that people will be in no-win situations and will serve as kingmakers, instead of complaining about that inevitability, perhaps the better solution is to find ways to convince them to make you the king (rather than someone else). In another game, my grandpredator was going to be ousted during his turn. So he wanted to de-stabilize the table and make the game end as quickly as possible (so he wouldn't have to wait very long for the next game). It ended up messing up my game, but I understand his decision (and if I was in that position I might do the same). Sometimes things work out in your favor, sometimes they don't. The key is to improve the odds of things working in your favor. My final anecdote of the day (cause I know you're sick of hearing about them), illustrates why you shouldn't needlessly antagonize other players. In yet another game, my prey was the Carna/Massassi player and my predator was being extremely aggressive. I knew I didn't have much of a chance at winning, and I was already focused on my predator. Then my prey considers whether to diablerize one of my minions (he was still holding a grudge from the Pentex'ed Carna incident). My response was "Why would you even consider something like that? I'm not going to win. And right now I'm just going to keep backrushing my predator. Why would you want to needlessly antagonize me? Because the alternative is that I just rush you instead and help my predator by going forward." I think some of the other posters are a bit tactless and rude in their comments, but there could be a grain of truth in what they have to say. *Have* you considered your bedside manner? When players self- destruct, it's usually against those who have antagonized them. So maybe you're unconsciously doing things that irritate and annoy these players (who then try to screw you over by self-ousting). The best predators are those that can make their preys happy that they're being ousted. Matt Morgan wrote a really good post recently about letting your prey do his thing and have some fun (i.e. not completing shutting him down needlessly). If you piss people off, obviously they'll try to make things difficult for you if they can. So maybe instead you should try to win them over? And now maybe I should listen a little more to my own advice, eh? :-)

Jozxyqk wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight >> and I called him out on it. > > What did he do to self-oust? He was at 1 pool and saw no hope, so he self-ousted, which guaranteed that I had no chance. If he wouldn't have self-ousted, I had a chance. And he was my cross-table "ally". [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called > him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good > thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and > get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically > get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you > can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose > to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly, > implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and > sat down to play? Because self-ousting is honoring the social covenat of "playing the game" [7]. Standing up and going for a smoke is less "playing the game" than "abandoning your position to the mechanics of the game, undermining the playing the game aspect of the game as you remove the uncertainty of your position in the eyes of the other players than you would by simply finishing your game."

In my opinion, self-ousting is one of several stupid actions a player can do. In my playgroup (or should i say in Portugal), i don't recall ever having that kind of problems (fortunatly, though we had a problem once with Succubus Club), players usually fight to the last counter. One thing i learn from playing is that you only need 1 pool to win, a VP or a GW, as long as you are in game, you still have a chance. I also agree, that sometimes you can not change the inevitable, but i have already got saved a few times by my cross-table allies, so i never quit. It's diferent to play in friendly games, where that kind of behaviour can be "accepted" (though i disaprove) and tournament games where that kind of behaviour is reprehensible. All playgroups have problems, one way or the other, but is up to us princes to try to educate the players, we must show them they might be wrong, but we also have to understand that that's their choice. Good luck changing their prespective :) Ricardo Marta Prince of Lisboa

On Nov 30, 8:20 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > SNIP ALL TEXT > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html I've met some abrasive characters in Palma de Maiorca. Kevin wasn't one of them. Now, about the issue that Kevin brought up: This issue is paramount because it can wreck a playgroup and playgroups of VtES are hard to come by. Childish-aggressive behaviour can have many forms and it affects those who do it and those who witness it. It happens when you have an insecure player that turns up for other things then playing a good game of VtES. Instead, this player just wants to continue his misery by things like Self-Oust, destroying the game of those that seem a bigger threat to his insecurity and trying have others start his bad behaviour. So, why do other people put up with such damaging behaviour? Yes Kevin, you are right, it's fear that stops people from doing anything about it. We have a guy here that either plays with decks that totally destroy another player's game (does not oust, and rarely he uses it against his Prey) OR uses decks that are just annoying, like I-put-a-million- Hauntings-on-you. Besides that, his attitude is always awfull and tables with that guy are never in a good mood. Everybody gets affected, either they see it or not. Being a chauvinist, he has a problem when Teresa kicks ass at a table (and she does quite frequently) just because she's a woman. Also, he tryes for new players to use non-competitive decks, because "they are more fun". Of course, they loose and disappear from the game. Thankfully this guy doesn't go to tournaments (in the last that he went he self ousted by voting in favor the Kines that killed him - without his votes they wouldn't pass). I called the Judge, big discussion, nothing happened. Fear. These cases can only be solved if everyone helps. If there's only one guy doing something against these children's behaviour, that usually gets things worse. He tries to turn people against those that try to improve things. On our case, he's the guy that got us the venue where we play friendlies and he's friends with a few the local players, therefore there is fear of antagonizing a part of the playgroup. But yeah, VtES is a community game. If there is a problem, the community needs to address it as a whole, or else it's hard to solve it. Now that more people are playing good and the level of play is increasing, things are getting better. I find that if one guy is sucking alone for a few games on, he tries to stop sucking and get better. Specially if there is no big fuss. But again, the community as a whole needs to address these issues. Tiago

> If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if > you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going > to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have > Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.) > rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.) > don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do > (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic. > The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points. I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it procures an advantage to the person doing it. For example, in the EC final in Turin, I was being bled for 5 a turn and no one on the table wanted to help me, so i was dead the turn i started at 2 pool. I thus bled for 12 in daring and transfered out hoping that my prey would get ousted (I had a better seeding than him, thus i would not come 5th). Self-ousting out of spite is a bit childish and usually against the spirit of the game. I have often talked to some players who do it, and they actually state that they are breaking the rules in self-ousting as they justify it by saying: "Next game, he won't mess with me"...

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and >> I called him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting >> is a good thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block >> anything" and get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to >> do to physically get away from the game which is obviously so >> angering you that you can't possibly stand another moment at the >> table? Why instead choose to break the social covenant of "playing >> a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to when we choose >> to invest our valuable time and sat down to play? > > I think you make some valid points, but in my personal opinion, > I think you're misdiagnosing the issue. The problem is not with > self-ousting (it's with the general attitude/personality/maturity > of the players involved). That seems a bit too fundamental to me. At least, if that's truly what it is then I really have no hope of ever enjoying the game unless I'm playing with players that I know for 100% certain won't self-oust. I think the issue is more concretely-related to games and gaming and how a player defines gaming, and entertainment in general, and how disposable gaming and primarily gaming-related friends are to them. There was a famous VTES player from long, long ago that (I heard) quit largely over the introduction of Gehenna events and their powerful and globaly destructive effects. At the time, I thought that it was somewhat of an overreaction but over the years I have come to see that the decision was really that the player's conceptualization of VTES was incompatible with (some of) the Gehenna events and that quitting the game was the best solution for that player. Hopefully I can continue to play in an environment and with players who disdain self- ousting as I do, but that won't always be the case, and self-ousting may, in the end, be intolerable, given my definition of games, gaming, and players. > When you're in a position where you're considering self-ousting, > everything you do (or decide not to do) is going to tilt the game in > favor of one player or another. Going all out against your prey will > mainly help your predator (and hurt your prey). Staying untapped > and just trying to survive helps your prey instead of your predator. Sure, that's true, but why would you give a freebie to the guy who's been trying to kill you the entire game and is most likely the one who made you lose? See, I just don't get that. But in the self-ousting player's mind, I can see how having already given up, having already mind-suicided their position, would make it impossible to believe they had any chance at all. > If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter > if you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. It sure matters to the rest of the table, most especially to those who you've been working with the entire game. Perhaps that is the issue I have with self-ousting, that I see the game in a larger context and on a longer timeframe, whereas self- ousters see the game only as ephemeral and essentially meaningless. Sure, it's a game, clearly it isn't real-life. But within the context of the game you are still QUITTING THE GAME, you are still not fulfilling the entire point of playing a game, which is to play from beginning to end to determine a winner. And no one likes it when they are playing a multi-player game and someone just up and quits, absolutely no one. There is a rule that says if you are losing that you may lose in any fashion you wish. There is a rule that says you must play-to-win. There is a rule that says you will receive sanction if you are a bad sport. How are these rules not contradictory? This contradiction constantly makes me sad, most especially for the new players that we keep saying that we want, but can never seem to find. In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game pieces and just up and quit? It is so clearly bad behavior I really can't even grasp that a game would allow such behavior within the rules. Perhaps it is that a multiplayer game MUST allow for such a thing to exist, or the game would be unable to exist, but I don't see that with Scrabble, Bridge, Bowling, Baseball, or any other multi- player game in any other genre that I can think of. [snip Dragonbound example] > How is sitting there as a buffer and not blocking anything, any > better than just transferring out? Because choosing to play in some way is not QUITTING PLAYING. Oh, I know, I know, it's been said many times, many ways, there isn't any difference in VTES between ANY behavior when you're losing, right? You say, how is not blocking anything and just sitting there any better than just transferring out? I have answered that, above, but I'd continue your analogy further and ask, why not just roll a die and take a random action? Why not act like a crazy Malkavian when you're losing? Just do what makes you feel good, right? After all, that's what self-ousting (i.e. quitting) is all about, right? You don't want to be losing so you quit in order to feel better about yourself in some way. I simply can't grasp that level of disconnect when just a while ago you as a player chose to sit down and PLAY A GAME with the rest of us. >> Oh, VTES is different than other games, you say? You are allowed to >> lose in any way that you wish, you say, including scooping up all >> your toys and going home, and we ADULTS are simply to suffer >> through your childlike antics and get ready for round two of your >> continuing bad behavior? [snip Carna example with multiple games with the same player] > VTES is a multi-player game and negotiation/diplomacy is a critical > aspect of the game. Given that people will be in no-win situations > and will serve as kingmakers, instead of complaining about that > inevitability, perhaps the better solution is to find ways to > convince them to make you the king (rather than someone else). Sure, that's an excellent goal, if possible. Well said. [snip destabilization-of-game-to-get-to-the-next-game-ASAP example] > Sometimes things work out in your favor, sometimes they don't. Oh, I don't expect things to always "work out" for me anymore than I expect them to work out for anyone else. What I do expect, though, is for someone to play the game until the end and not quit until THE END. And quitting in some fashion via some rule(s) on your turn isn't THE END, it's just you having quit, that's all. Oh, I know, in their mind it is the end for them so they should be allowed to act in whatever way they wish, right? No. Bad behavior is bad behavior. > The key is to improve the odds of things working in your favor. My > final anecdote of the day (cause I know you're sick of hearing about > them), illustrates why you shouldn't needlessly antagonize other > players. In yet another game, my prey was the Carna/Massassi player > and my predator was being extremely aggressive. I knew I didn't have > much of a chance at winning, and I was already focused on my > predator. Then my prey considers whether to diablerize one of my > minions (he was still holding a grudge from the Pentex'ed Carna > incident). My response was "Why would you even consider something > like that? I'm not going to win. And right now I'm just going to > keep backrushing my predator. Why would you want to needlessly > antagonize me? Because the alternative is that I just rush you > instead and help my predator by going forward." > > I think some of the other posters are a bit tactless and rude in > their comments, but there could be a grain of truth in what they > have to say. *Have* you considered your bedside manner? We were cross-table allies the entire game. There were no issues like that in this game. And for those who don't know me, I'm pretty fun and friendly during the game. Unless you are a self-ouster. > When players self-destruct, it's usually against those who have > antagonized them. So maybe you're unconsciously doing things that > irritate and annoy these players (who then try to screw you over by > self-ousting). The player in question's self-oust had nothing to do with me, he even admitted such. He self-ousted because he was at 1 and saw no hope. I asked him not to self-oust since I had hope if he didn't self-oust, as he was my cross-table ally at the time and was just giving the game to my prey for no reason other than he didn't want to "waste the time" sticking around. I asked him to just get up and leave the table then since that also wouldn't waste his time and wouldn't remove any chance of me getting a VP. He said that he could do whatever he wanted and I should just accept that people are different. Sure, I accept that, but why would I want to play with someone who doesn't fight it out until the bitter end, and just up and quits on their ally? It makes me ill that he feels he did nothing wrong by quitting, since it was only "a game". > And now maybe I should listen a little more to my own advice, eh? Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Ruben Feldman wrote: > I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it > procures an advantage to the person doing it. And what about other activity? Shall all activity be disallowed unless it procures an advantage? Inactivity? If not, then you face the problems of 1) Defining what exactly is self-ousting 2) Defending why exactly the thing(s) defined in 1) get disparate treatment

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure, I hear you. You and I have covered this before and, as a famous philosopher once said, "The truth or falsehood of all man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." Our definition of "playing the game" is fundementally different, therefore we will never agree. Is this an issue? Sure, at some level which is clearly larger for me than it is for you. Thanks for your continued support in the KevinM Dept., though. It's appreciated. (And sorry about that awful BSG game, I'm a bad cylon.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 30, 1:53 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [...] the end [...] There was a lot of "the end" in this message. Don't forget that V:tES is a game where each player usually doesn't play the same amount of turns as others do. For instance, a player who got ousted on turn 6 will no longer participate in the game howsoever. I think this is what your statement should be : A player should play the game from the beginning [of the game] to the end [of her game (which might happen before the time limit)]. That is, for instance, do not leave the table before you're ousted. Or do not give advices to players when you are ousted and they're still playing.

Kevin M. wrote: > Our definition of "playing the game" is fundementally different, therefore > we will never agree. Is this an issue? Sure, at some level which is > clearly > larger for me than it is for you. What it means to be playing any game is defined by the rules of the game. > Thanks for your continued support in the KevinM Dept., though. It's > appreciated. (And sorry about that awful BSG game, I'm a bad cylon.) FYI: The Pegasus expansion makes it less disastrous to be a double Cylon.

Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure, there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum... "screw you guys, I'm going home!". Can something be done to stop it? Probably not. Some people are don't care for sportsmanship, and you can't force them to care. They feel like they are losing, they pack up their toys and go home. -Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, exactly. Well, something like that which you and I could come up with after an hour or so of discussion, something to guide players to behavior which is not bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I just felt like a damn fool (although I was just tired, I suppose) when that huge cylon fleet blew in on Turn 1 and I didn't reveal myself and start smashing heads right away. Although my stupendous failure and the subsequent education by the table makes me feel as if that single game elevated me from novice to advanced player right there. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Hello Ruben. Excellent points. But in many cases, the self-ousting player does perceive him/herself as gaining an advantage (besides tournament points): - Self-ousting could be seen as advantageous if it shifts the table dynamic in favor of a deck/player that the self-ouster would prefer to see in the final (which opens up the separate issue of collusion-like behavior) or, more commonly, against a deck/player that the self- ouster does not want to see in the final (i.e. Player already has 2 GW and is guaranteed a spot in the final, possibly even first seed. He's already going to lose the third round, so he sees an advantage in taking out a deck that would be difficult to play against in the final). - Perhaps it is spiteful and childish. But some players might find it advantageous to establish a reputation (i.e. don't mess with me). For example, if I'm already hosed, I might as well teach my cross-table "ally" that it's not a good idea to cross-table Pentex me so I retaliate by attacking his minions or bleeding him with my last dying breath. This does lead to a slippery slope where we don't want to encourage people to do this all the time (when they can still win). But if they're already going to lose, it seems as good of a reason as any.

Petri Wessman wrote: > Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure, > there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too > often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum... > "screw you guys, I'm going home!". or "Screw you guys, I'm walling up!" or "Screw you guys, I'm tapping out!".

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, yes. On the other hand, both of those give you a *possibility* of still scoring points. Sure, sometimes that possibility is close to zero, but it's usually non-zero. Something unexpected might happen, a cross-table player might jump to your aid... whatever. In any case, you're still on the table and people have to deal with you. If you transfer out, you 100% guarantee that you will not improve your position any more, in that game. Of course, there are people who try to do something destructive, often cross-table, when they are caught in a bad spot... and that's even worse. The simplest solution, of course, is "don't play with dicks". Unfortunately that's not always possible in a tournament context. -Petri

On Nov 30, 7:53 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game > pieces and just up and quit? Titan and Diplomacy both have rules governing "picking up your pieces and going home". Works fine for them. They are both very long games, and it often blows to be in a seriously losing position for hours on end with no hope in sight. So you can leave if you want. And the game recovers. I mean, it often isn't optimal, but the mechanism exists to deal with it. Back to the point at hand, if you mean: -Self ousting as getting up in the middle of the game when you still have a fighting chance, taking all your stuff, and leaving, yeah, I agree that is a problem, and also agree that it isn't something people should do. For any number of reasons. -Self ousting when you are at 1 pool, have no chance, and are gonna get ousted anyway, well, if you can affect the game by self ousting at that point, and the affect is something that you want to happen, I can't so much see a problem with it. If self ousting from a clearly lost position impacts the game in what you would consider a favorable situation--say you are in a lost position 'cause your prey back rushed you to death, self ousting from a lost position to benefit your predator seems completely reasonable. Or if you are in a lost position 'cause of some shenanagins from your grand predator, and self ousting benefits your predator and hinders your grand predator, sure, go nuts. I completely agree that people shouldn't self oust in the name of "Screw you guys! I'm going home!" as that is insane and irrational. But if someone is in a lost position and teetering on the edge of death anyway, and self ousting does something that they consider beneficial, I can't really object. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] That is a good point. As of right now, I am a bit confused as to what the rules are with regards to play to win etc. I would think that it is play for the GW, and most VP/TP otherwise. All activity/inactivity is already disalowed if the player does not really believe it to be procuring an advantage towards that goal. For example, doing something that is grossly counter-productive to you winning the game might be perceived as collusion or out of game consideration and is punishable by gameloss/DQ... Self-oust would not get disparate treatment in this case. If that is so, I realize that self-ousting in most situations is already prohibited under the rules, as they cannot possibly be acting to maximize points. There is always a chance something drastic might happen and the player might survive. Self-ousting would only be justified when it provides a way of obtaining more points (as per my example).

Petri Wessman wrote: > On Nov 30, 3:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Petri Wessman wrote: >>> Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure, >>> there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too >>> often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum... >>> "screw you guys, I'm going home!". >> or "Screw you guys, I'm walling up!" or "Screw you guys, I'm tapping out!". > > Well, yes. On the other hand, both of those give you a *possibility* > of still scoring points. In the context of this example, they both leave you with no reasonable chance at any further VPs. > Sure, sometimes that possibility is close to > zero, but it's usually non-zero. Something unexpected might happen, a > cross-table player might jump to your aid... whatever. In any case, > you're still on the table and people have to deal with you. > > If you transfer out, you 100% guarantee that you will not improve your > position any more, in that game. If you are successful in doing so, right. The activity of attempting to self-oust might give you a possibility of still scoring points if you want to leave the "reasonable" out of it.

On Nov 30, 4:02 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I completely agree that people shouldn't self oust in the name of > "Screw you guys! I'm going home!" as that is insane and irrational. > But if someone is in a lost position and teetering on the edge of > death anyway, and self ousting does something that they consider > beneficial, I can't really object. Yeah... guess the important distinction here is what is considered a clear "lost position". I've seen a few too many self-ousts in situations where (imho) the situation was far from lost. The player was having a hard time, his deck wasn't working... but they were still way over 1 pool and had (again, imho) options left. But they considered the game to be lost, and just went home -- giving their predator an overly-easy instant 6 pool and sometimes completely changing the game. That sucks. -Petri

Ruben Feldman wrote: > On Nov 30, 7:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Ruben Feldman wrote: >>> I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it >>> procures an advantage to the person doing it. >> And what about other activity? Shall all activity be disallowed unless it >> procures an advantage? Inactivity? >> >> If not, then you face the problems of >> >> 1) Defining what exactly is self-ousting >> 2) Defending why exactly the thing(s) defined in 1) get disparate treatment > > That is a good point. As of right now, I am a bit confused as to what > the rules are with regards to play to win etc. I would think that it > is play for the GW, and most VP/TP otherwise. Correct. (Well, it stops at VP without getting into TP -- but you're welcome to use TP as your internal coin toss decider if you like). > All activity/inactivity is already disalowed if the player does not > really believe it to be procuring an advantage towards that goal. Almost. Rather than needing to procure an advantage toward the goal, it need only avoid producing a negative. That is, once in a lost position (where all activities fail to procure an advantage), the player is not "stuck", but can continue to choose from among the available activities. > For > example, doing something that is grossly counter-productive to you > winning the game might be perceived as collusion or out of game > consideration and is punishable by gameloss/DQ... Self-oust would not > get disparate treatment in this case. Correct. The legal self-ousts are the topic of this thread, as I understand it. Not the ones that violate PTW. > If that is so, I realize that self-ousting in most situations is > already prohibited under the rules, as they cannot possibly be acting > to maximize points. Correct. > There is always a chance something drastic might > happen and the player might survive. Self-ousting would only be > justified when it provides a way of obtaining more points (as per my > example). Or when it is simply one of the myriad of options that lead to no VPs when there are no options that do better.

[ quoted text not captured ] And that's already illegal, assuming you're in a V:EKN tournament or using the sportsmanship rules.

On Nov 30, 9:10 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: > Yeah... guess the important distinction here is what is considered a > clear "lost position". Oh, sure--it is likely impossible to define such a position, but when I'm in one, I know I'm in one. And kinda need to assume that other people know when they are in one too. That being said, I'd never self oust, even in an appropriate situation, in a tournament. As it is just likely to piss people off, and I can just as easily survive the next 10 minutes of waiting to get killed. But in casual play, if I'm mostly dead anyway, really have no hope, and self ousting does something I want it to do, I'll self oust, if for no other reason that it speeds up the game, lets me get a drink, and I was gonna die anyway. -Peter

> > Or when it is simply one of the myriad of options that lead to no VPs when there > are no options that do better. What i'm saying is that unless the player gets a TP advantage from the self-oust, it will always be the worse option and so should not be allowed. It is the only option that has a 100% chance of getting you nothing.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game >> pieces and just up and quit? > > Titan and Diplomacy both have rules governing "picking up your pieces > and going home". Works fine for them. They are both very long games, > and it often blows to be in a seriously losing position for hours on > end with no hope in sight. So you can leave if you want. And the game > recovers. I mean, it often isn't optimal, but the mechanism exists to > deal with it. I guess I should've said (as I made clear in my examples) *co-operative* multi-player games. You are right about Titan and Diplomacy, but they really aren't cooperative in the VTES sense of "the guy across from you is hurting your enemies therefore he is your kinda friend". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 30, 7:53 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > echiang...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Going all out against your prey will > > mainly help your predator (and hurt your prey). Staying untapped > > and just trying to survive helps your prey instead of your predator. > > Sure, that's true, but why would you give a freebie to the guy who's > been trying to kill you the entire game and is most likely the one who > made you lose? See, I just don't get that. Maybe you recognize that the whole point of your predator's game is to make you lose, and thus you're acknowledging a job well done while attempting to reinforce in cross-table players' minds that if they wanted you to keep fighting and stay alive, they needed to have helped out by now? Mind you, I've never (that I recall) transferred out, and I'm not particularly in favor of doing so, but as pointed out, when you know you're going to go down and it's just a matter of how, there are as many valid reasons for one way over another. It seems like a strategic mistake to transfer out in just about every scenario I can think of, even when you want to reward a predator, since another trip around the table to xer turn may change things a lot, but that's not to say there aren't reasons, if you're giving out a freebie of help, to send it upstream rather than downstream. - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yet as pointed to above, there ARE occasions when self ousting would deny somebody a final round spot, increasing your overall chances. Still gamesmanship. OTOH, the "wah my decks not working wah" behaviour? Kevin, you take a mallet. You start with the little finger, then so on and so forth. Either they don't do it again (win) or they stop playing (win) or you get some non constructive vengeance out of it(win) Oh yah, people keep missing these ;)

On Nov 30, 8:04 am, Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 30, 7:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Ruben Feldman wrote: > > > I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it > > > procures an advantage to the person doing it. > > > And what about other activity? Shall all activity be disallowed unless it > > procures an advantage? Inactivity? > > > If not, then you face the problems of > > > 1) Defining what exactly is self-ousting > > 2) Defending why exactly the thing(s) defined in 1) get disparate treatment > > That is a good point. As of right now, I am a bit confused as to what > the rules are with regards to play to win etc. I would think that it > is play for the GW, and most VP/TP otherwise. > All activity/inactivity is already disalowed if the player does not > really believe it to be procuring an advantage towards that goal. For > example, doing something that is grossly counter-productive to you > winning the game might be perceived as collusion or out of game > consideration and is punishable by gameloss/DQ... Self-oust would not > get disparate treatment in this case. Playing for the GW or VP's makes sense. But I'm a bit wary of a strict requirement to maximize TP's (though in many cases, it may be in the best interest of those players). Cause otherwise you have the case where: Player A is the first to get a VP. He could then reasonably argue that every player in a losing position (say C, D, and E in a 5- player game) is *obligated* by the rules to help him win. (Because if they help Player B win, then they'd tie for 3rd place but if they help Player A win, there would be a four-way tie for 2nd place). A rule requirement like that would seem kind of silly to me. Also, the trouble with rule requirements is that it's hard to narrow down the difference between bad play and mistakes vs intentionally trying to oust yourself.

Ruben Feldman wrote: >> Or when it is simply one of the myriad of options that lead to no VPs when there >> are no options that do better. > > > What i'm saying is that unless the player gets a TP advantage from the > self-oust, it will always be the worse option and so should not be > allowed. It will be among the worst = best options (all options being equal in a lost position, PTW-wise). > It is the only option that has a 100% chance of getting you > nothing. It's not 100%, thanks to Life Boon (and/or other methods of intervention from other players, depending on the actual method employed to self oust. Blocking, DI, etc.)

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with LSJ. Ironically enough, even someone in a losing position could still get a VP if their prey is in even more of a loserly position and transfers out first! (So if you have one of those players in your playgroup, be happy when he's your prey!). But the probability of that happening is so negligible it's essentially zero. And you could technically argue that attempting to self-oust could actually lead to a VP. "Oh, I was just trying to flush out a Life Boon. I spent all my pool, on the off chance that my prey would Life Boon me, thus putting him within ousting range." Hey it could happen!

"Ruben Feldman" <fru...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4b7d6d66-61df-4e0d...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >> If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if >> you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going >> to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have >> Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.) >> rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.) >> don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do >> (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic. > > The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your > standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can > sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points. Wow! I agree with the second sentence but I think the third/final sentence is a tad extreme. Table points (or tournament points, whatever they're called) are a tournament construct, like game wins. I don't think they should be given any consideration in a casual game. One should play to maximize victory points but beyond that, one is free to respond to perceived (in-game) provocation however one chooses. Even within the context of maximizing victory points, there's certainly some latitude for interpreting questions like: "I perceive that I have a 2% chance of sweeping the table, a 5% chance of getting two VPs, and a 50% chance of getting only one VP - all mutually exclusive of one another and strictly depending on which course of action I choose to pursue." Whichever choice one makes - along with affecting one's own chance of getting to certain levels of victory - will also tend to favor or oppose the interests of different opponents in the process. So who pissed me off and who seems to be helping me will also have an affect on my decision - both in a practical sense (I'm often better off trying to work in tandem with someone who has shown he's willing to work to me) and a philosophical sense (who "deserves" my cooperation vs. who "deserves" to receive my attacks). All choices in such a scenario strike me as a fair game. Fred

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ecaec0e-a55f-466a...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > Playing for the GW or VP's makes sense. But I'm a bit wary of a strict > requirement to maximize TP's (though in many cases, it may be in the > best interest of those players). Where PTW in a sanctioned tournament was concerned, I thought it only took the Game Win and Victory Points into consideration. I didn't think you could justify any given behavior (or needed to) by the number of tournament points you would receive from it. The term "tournament points" does not appear in rule 4.8. Fred

As someone who has and will continue to self oust "if" in a no win situation. I see nothing wrong with it. I've been playing long enough that it's pretty easy to see where a game is going when things are down to the end especially. Early on in a game you can't tell, so anyone self ousting then, should be tarred and feathered maybe even beaten. However I expect that the other players in this game are as knowledgeable about this game as I am. Aside from the fact that I'm technically a "Prince" I know the rules. I know the clans and what they are capable of doing. And I expect all those I play with to know these things as well. It makes things a lot easier to understand and then explain positions if necessary. Although sometimes explaining things doesn't help as pointed out earlier in this thread. Some people just will not listen to reason. What do you do then when said person who is not listening completely neuters all aspects of your game giving you no chance to do anything. I'm sorry, but I will not just sit by and wait for the inevitable to come. I'd sooner remove myself and move on to the next game if there is one. Accept my beating and move on. It's that simple. Of course, I'm this crazy person that plays to have fun. Winning doesn't matter to me. I simply enjoy playing the game with intelligent people that have learned and understand the game as I do.

On Nov 30, 9:56 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yet as pointed to above, there ARE occasions when self ousting would > deny somebody a final round spot, increasing your overall chances. > Still gamesmanship. What you mention is against the rules. You have to take each game in isolation (except for the final, in which you are allaowed to consider the previous rounds). Thus you should not be thinking about what your actions will do with respect to people getting into the final round. " Playing for the GW or VP's makes sense. But I'm a bit wary of a strict requirement to maximize TP's (though in many cases, it may be in the best interest of those players). Cause otherwise you have the case where: Player A is the first to get a VP. He could then reasonably argue that every player in a losing position (say C, D, and E in a 5- player game) is *obligated* by the rules to help him win. (Because if they help Player B win, then they'd tie for 3rd place but if they help Player A win, there would be a four-way tie for 2nd place). A rule requirement like that would seem kind of silly to me. " The argument would not be "reasonable". A player would be gaining from self-oust on his/her last turn, when there is obvioulsy plenty of time left for him to be ousted, and no possible way for him to survive another turn. If he can survive another turn, then he might survive to the end (0.5 vp or more). " And you could technically argue that attempting to self-oust could actually lead to a VP. "Oh, I was just trying to flush out a Life Boon. I spent all my pool, on the off chance that my prey would Life Boon me, thus putting him within ousting range." Hey it could happen! " All dishonest play can be justified in a way. The function of the rules is not to prevent players from being dishonest. " It's not 100%, thanks to Life Boon (and/or other methods of intervention from other players, depending on the actual method employed to self oust. Blocking, DI, etc.) " That is true, but the player's intention should be to flush out a life boon/sudden on DI etc. and not self-oust. If a player's intention is to self-oust, he intends to succeed and so he intends to diminish his possible outcome to the worse possible scenario. " > The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your > standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can > sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points. Wow! I agree with the second sentence but I think the third/final sentence is a tad extreme. Table points (or tournament points, whatever they're called) are a tournament construct, like game wins. I don't think they should be given any consideration in a casual game. One should play to maximize victory points but beyond that, one is free to respond to perceived (in-game) provocation however one chooses. " I am talking about tournament play, although playing differently just because it is casual is like playing a different game. There is no reason to disregard TP's, they are important and can often influence the outcome of a tournament. " (I'm often better off trying to work in tandem with someone who has shown he's willing to work to me) " Working in tandem with someone by self-ousting does not make you "better off".

[ quoted text not captured ] And you can always pool sack. I think what Kevin is saying is that he could have ousted his prey when they were at x pool, but when grand prey self-ousted, now Kevin can't oust his prey at x+6 pool, and Kevin's whole game is screwed. I have seen that several times, and it sucks for the grand pred - who has sometimes been me. Pool sack people, pool sack. best - chris

On Nov 30, 3:45 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > Kevin M. <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight > >> and I called him out on it. > > > What did he do to self-oust? > > He was at 1 pool and saw no hope, so he self-ousted, which > guaranteed that I had no chance. If he wouldn't have self-ousted, > I had a chance. And he was my cross-table "ally". I'm a big fan of sticking it out with that one pool. Strange things happen in this game and I want to stick around and maybe lightning will strike. That said, maybe he just quit and wasn't making a thoughtful decision. But if it was an intentional, thoughtful decision then it comes down to playing king-maker. So who do you want to be the king? It's rarely your predator so that's another reason not to transfer out. But maybe he's mad at his grand-predator for not putting enough pressure on his predator. Maybe he was denied assistance from his grand-predator or from his prey? So he chooses to hurt those who hurt him. Imagine that on your grand prey's turn he called a vote to make one of his vamps a Justicar with the intention of using a Voter Captivation to gain a bit of pool. You are playing a vote deck and that Justicar will cause you to lose your vote lock. You are also hoping to oust your prey AND your grand prey both on your next turn. So you cast the deciding vote and crush your grand-prey's Justicar vote. Your grand- prey transfers out to spite you. I have no problem with that scenario. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] In a parallel universe, Bingus, Kevin's prey, is posting: "So here we are again. Someone pool-sacked on me tonight and I called him on it. I asked the guy why he thinks pool-sacking is a good thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, you got me" and get out of the way to go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you can't gracefully conclude your part? Why instead choose to break the social covenant of "playing the a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?"

On Nov 30, 11:38 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I think what Kevin is saying is that he could have ousted > his prey when they were at x pool, but when grand prey > self-ousted, now Kevin can't oust his prey at x+6 pool, and > Kevin's whole game is screwed. Well, sure. But if his grand prey did that purposefully for some reason (Kevin done him wrong?), then that is sad for Kevin, but completely reasonable. If it was just random, well, that is lame. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Like if his grand prey had pool sacked purposefully for some reason, then that would have been sad for Kevin's prey, but reasonable. If he had just randomly pool-sacked, that would have been lame? Really?

[ quoted text not captured ] Pointing out that preferences are largely arbitrary doesn't really invalidate them. (It does, of course, help to realize that preferences shouldn't be rationalized.)

On Nov 30, 6:47 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> In what other multiplayer game are you able to pick up your game > >> pieces and just up and quit? > > > Titan and Diplomacy both have rules governing "picking up your pieces > > and going home". Works fine for them. They are both very long games, > > and it often blows to be in a seriously losing position for hours on > > end with no hope in sight. So you can leave if you want. And the game > > recovers. I mean, it often isn't optimal, but the mechanism exists to > > deal with it. > > I guess I should've said (as I made clear in my examples) *co-operative* > multi-player games. You are right about Titan and Diplomacy, but they > really aren't cooperative in the VTES sense of "the guy across from you > is hurting your enemies therefore he is your kinda friend". Maybe you have an over-developed sense of "your grandprey is your friend". If you focus on the fact that all of them are your enemy then a grandprey self-oust is right in-line with expected behavior. :-) -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <robertt...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:96c70ab6-59a8-426b...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Quite true. Still, there are times when I get really jealous/annoyed when my predator and prey have allied themselves so effectively where as I seem to have an ally who doesn't comprehend the concept of cooperation. "Sure, I'll vote for prey's KRC if he takes the last pool damage on himself. After all, if my prey loses a pool, that's good for me, right?" Fred

On Nov 30, 9:53 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <robertt.gou...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] In the few moments over the last 15 years when I've lost my cool it was always connected to my feeling betrayed by some "ally". A bounced bleed with stealth added or an attack from someone I'd been repeatedly saving, and so on. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] > we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?"- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This reply isn't directly aimed at LSJ, but it feels like a good time to jump in. But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for sure. Come up with a situation where it is for sure and a counterpoint can be made. The lost position everyone points to is no minions and very low pool, but crosstable a vote deck might kill your prey because giving you a VP now and removing that other player means a GW for them later. Later, ~Rehlow

Rehlow wrote: > But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game state > magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some VPs. That > is the thing I don't understand with transferring out being legal - > once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you cannot gain any > more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for sure. True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable" (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc. Put "reasonable" back in, and taking the inactive approach to self-ousting (i.e., pool sacking) and taking the active approach to self-ousting (i.e., transferring out) are on the same footing, legal-wise.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Robert Goudie wrote: > Imagine that on your grand prey's turn he called a vote to make one of > his vamps a Justicar with the intention of using a Voter Captivation > to gain a bit of pool. You are playing a vote deck and that Justicar > will cause you to lose your vote lock. You are also hoping to oust > your prey AND your grand prey both on your next turn. So you cast the > deciding vote and crush your grand-prey's Justicar vote. Your grand- > prey transfers out to spite you. I have no problem with that > scenario. Ahem! What the what? My grandprey can self-oust because I'm hoping to oust my prey and my grandprey the next turn? Are you trying to make me take Kevin's side or something? Sorry, that's complete BS. I mean, maybe you're imagining some additional details that you didn't list, but with this base scenario, utter BS. Matt Morgan

On Nov 30, 8:05 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Petri Wessman wrote: > > On Nov 30, 3:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Petri Wessman wrote: > >>> Well, add me to the crowd who sees self-ousting as a bad thing. Sure, > >>> there are rare exceptions where it maybe makes sense, but all too > >>> often it's just a childish passive-aggressive Eric Cartman tantrum... > >>> "screw you guys, I'm going home!". > >> or "Screw you guys, I'm walling up!" or "Screw you guys, I'm tapping out!". > > > Well, yes. On the other hand, both of those give you a *possibility* > > of still scoring points. > > In the context of this example, they both leave you with no reasonable chance at > any further VPs. > > > Sure, sometimes that possibility is close to > > zero, but it's usually non-zero. Something unexpected might happen, a > > cross-table player might jump to your aid... whatever. In any case, > > you're still on the table and people have to deal with you. > > > If you transfer out, you 100% guarantee that you will not improve your > > position any more, in that game. > > If you are successful in doing so, right. The activity of attempting to > self-oust might give you a possibility of still scoring points if you want to > leave the "reasonable" out of it. OK, I now see the problem I have is with the "reasonable" clause. I need to start judging tournaments so that I can enforce my level of reasonableness and I find the smallest chance of obtaining VPs to be reasonable. Later, ~Rehlow

Rehlow wrote: > OK, I now see the problem I have is with the "reasonable" clause. I > need to start judging tournaments so that I can enforce my level of > reasonableness and I find the smallest chance of obtaining VPs to be > reasonable. If you plan on not executing your duties as judge properly, best not to announce it on public forums.

You can transfer out to win the table. It is risky, but it can happen.

On Nov 30, 2:42 pm, wedge wrote: > You can transfer out to win the table. It is risky, but it can happen. I've transferred out to win a 50 player tournament. It can definitely be play-to-win. (I already had 2 VP, couldn't oust the next person and they were guaranteed to get my predator and me eventually.)

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, the only thing I left out was the assumed "lost position" that the grandprey is in (we're only discussing legal self-ousts here). So feel free to add in that the grandprey is at 1 pool and was trying to gain a couple of pool with his passed vote and Voter Captivation and that, as a result of the vote going down he is now in a lost position. He can stand pat and let grand predator take 2 VPs or he can self-oust to punish "his ally" grandpredator who voted down his vote. -Robert

On Nov 30, 12:07 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Like if his grand prey had pool sacked purposefully for some reason, then that > would have been sad for Kevin's prey, but reasonable. If he had just randomly > pool-sacked, that would have been lame? > > Really? My point was the rational actions that are taken rationally are reasonable. Irrational actions that are taken irrationally, not so much. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure, but that's A taken X are reasonable, B taken Y are not. Which is just overly restrictive. A are reasonable; B are not. But the example you gave was A taken X are reasonable, A taken Y are not. To which I objected: A are reasonable whether taken X or Y. A: rational actions (these are reasonable) B: irrational actions (these are "not so much") X: rationally Y: irrationally If you take a reasonable action irrationally, the action is still reasonable.

LSJ wrote: > Rehlow wrote: >> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game state >> magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some VPs. That >> is the thing I don't understand with transferring out being legal - >> once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you cannot gain any >> more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for sure. > > True. But attempting to transfer out How can you be stopped from transferring out? What is this "attemtping" stuff in reference to transferring? I'm certainly far from being a rules guru, but I can't remember anything that can prevent a person from transferring to their uncontrolled minion *at that moment* in the influence phase (unlike say DI or SR). best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] In the end, it's all up to the Judge, I mean, Head Philosopher. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] I have to come forth and admit to have self-ousted during a tournament (and in the final, no less!). I had been first-seed but made a poor judgment call while choosing my starting position. I was faced with an overly agressive predator, with the most agressive deck on the table as grandpredator (whose main bleeding efforts where being consistently redirected onto me). My prey and grandprey mostly did nothing for the duration of the game and seemed quite content to watch the first two players leave the table in quick sucession. Since the tournament had a prize pool that differed for all the finalists (i.e. we still effectively had a 2nd place, 3rd place, etc.) and I was first seed, about to fall, I opted for some alpha striking onto my prey followed by a transfer-out. The transfer-out was somewhat contested since the players are not familiarized with this particular instance and thus I obliged them by staying at 1 pool and tapped out. I did myself the service of showing my hand to my original predator (already ousted at that time), so that he could later attest that my chances were between zero and none. The plan, as it was, worked, my predator managed (just barely) to sweep the table, assuring me a "2nd place" and a couple more boosters. Could I have hung back a little and try to salvage that trainwreck of a game, hoping for some sudden reversal of fortunes? I could. But there was no one at the table that seemed the least interested in my overtures (too much Dom bleed on that one table), so I deem that my actions were justified, rational and would doubtlessly repeat them if the situation arised once more. Drain

On Nov 30, 10:10 pm, Drain <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could I have hung back a little and try to salvage that trainwreck of > a game, hoping for some sudden reversal of fortunes? I could. But > there was no one at the table that seemed the least interested in my > overtures (too much Dom bleed on that one table), so I deem that my > actions were justified, rational and would doubtlessly repeat them if > the situation arised once more. > > Drain It will not, since all our Tournaments will have the same prizes for 2nd to 5th players. Tiago

On Nov 30, 3:49 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Sure, but that's A taken X are reasonable, B taken Y are not. Which is just > overly restrictive. A are reasonable; B are not. Ah, see, that is what I thought my example was: A) "Person self ousts specifically to hose Kevin": reasonable. B) "Person self ousts. Hoses Kevin by accident": lame. It is all about intention. If someone in position A specifically whacks themselves to hinder Kevin cross table ('cause Kevin was the architect of his demise, one way or the other, say), that strikes me as a reasonable course of action. On the other hand, if someone in position B whacks themselves 'cause they are cranky and want to bail, and this hoses Kevin cross table, that strikes me as lame. I'd never claim that one is any more legal than the other (both are either legal or illegal, depending on the situation), but I think an intentional self ousting, done for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the game is a reasonable action, where an intentional self ousting done without regard for the end results or effect on the rest of the game is lame. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] And a step in the right direction that is. :) I'll add: Caveat emptor: all circunstances being the same. Drain

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hf1eiq$maq$1...@news.eternal-september.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Others have been making reference to it. You must have missed it. I transfer my last two pool, I'm ousted except....someone plays Life Boon and gives me 6 pool. D'OH! Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Aha, see, the rules and my brain are not even in the same zip code... best - chris

LSJ wrote: > In a parallel universe, Bingus, Kevin's prey, is posting: "So here we > are again. Someone pool-sacked on me tonight and I called him on it. > I asked the guy why he thinks pool-sacking is a good thing? Why not > just say "Good Game guys, you got me" and get out of the way to go > have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically get away from > the game which is obviously so angering you that you can't gracefully > conclude your part? Why instead choose to break the social covenant > of "playing the a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to > when we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?" This is disengenuous, as Bingus would have no need to write this, as a single bleed action for 1 would for 100% sure oust his prey, therefore he wouldn't have any of these feelings you ascribe to him. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

LSJ wrote: > Rehlow wrote: >> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game >> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some >> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out >> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you >> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for >> sure. > > True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game > with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable" > (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc. Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc. Please stop the clearly absurd comparisons. [ quoted text not captured ]

wedge wrote: > You can transfer out to win the table. It is risky, but it can happen. This is the ridiculous one-in-a-million I describe in my OP. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Rehlow wrote: >>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game >>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some >>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out >>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you >>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for >>> sure. >> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game >> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable" >> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc. > > Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun > isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get > a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc. I'm not getting into living wills and assisted suicide, sorry. > Please stop the clearly absurd comparisons. It is a clearly applicable parallel. If you find it absurd, well, investigate the main.

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> In a parallel universe, Bingus, Kevin's prey, is posting: "So here we >> are again. Someone pool-sacked on me tonight and I called him on it. >> I asked the guy why he thinks pool-sacking is a good thing? Why not >> just say "Good Game guys, you got me" and get out of the way to go >> have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically get away from >> the game which is obviously so angering you that you can't gracefully >> conclude your part? Why instead choose to break the social covenant >> of "playing the a game" that we all clearly, implicitly agreed to >> when we choose to invest our valuable time and sat down to play?" > > This is disengenuous, as Bingus would have no need to write this, > as a single bleed action for 1 would for 100% sure oust his prey, > therefore he wouldn't have any of these feelings you ascribe to him. I agree he would have no need to write this. Just as there's no need to write the parallel regarding self-ousting.

LSJ wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Rehlow wrote: >>>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game >>>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some >>>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out >>>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you >>>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for >>>> sure. >>> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game >>> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable" >>> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc. >> >> Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun >> isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get >> a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc. > > I'm not getting into living wills and assisted suicide, sorry. A living will won't bring a dead person back to life. Well, ok, if your intent upon asking and later answering the question was to so twist the reality of self-ousting into not self-ousting and suicide-by-gun-to-the-head as not ending one's life, then I agree. Sigh. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 30, 8:52 am, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 30, 6:52 am,RubenFeldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > If you have 4 pool left and no minions, it probably doesn't matter if > > > you transfer out or sit there as a 4 pool buffer. Or say you're going > > > to be ousted by Dragonbound this turn no matter what, but you do have > > > Beast untapped. In this case Kevin, is the "right" thing to do: A.) > > > rush your prey, B.) rush your predator, C.) rush crosstable, or D.) > > > don't rush anyone. You're going to die regardless, so whatever you do > > > (or don't do), is going to influence the table dynamic. > > > The answer is actually simple. You should play to maximize your > > standing in the outcome of the game. If you think your predator can > > sweep, then help him in order to increase your table points. > > > I personally think self-ousting should not be allowed unless it > > procures an advantage to the person doing it. For example, in the EC > > final in Turin, I was being bled for 5 a turn and no one on the table > > wanted to help me, so i was dead the turn i started at 2 pool. I thus > > bled for 12 in daring and transfered out hoping that my prey would get > > ousted (I had a better seeding than him, thus i would not come 5th). > > > Self-ousting out of spite is a bit childish and usually against the > > spirit of the game. I have often talked to some players who do it, and > > they actually state that they are breaking the rules in self-ousting > > as they justify it by saying: "Next game, he won't mess with me"... > > HelloRuben. > > Excellent points. But in many cases, the self-ousting player does > perceive him/herself as gaining an advantage (besides tournament > points): > > - Self-ousting could be seen as advantageous if it shifts the table > dynamic in favor of a deck/player that the self-ouster would prefer to > see in the final (which opens up the separate issue of collusion-like > behavior) or, more commonly, against a deck/player that the self- > ouster does not want to see in the final (i.e. Player already has 2 GW > and is guaranteed a spot in the final, possibly even first seed. He's > already going to lose the third round, so he sees an advantage in > taking out a deck that would be difficult to play against in the > final). > > - Perhaps it is spiteful and childish. But some players might find it > advantageous to establish a reputation (i.e. don't mess with me). For > example, if I'm already hosed, I might as well teach my cross-table > "ally" that it's not a good idea to cross-table Pentex me so I > retaliate by attacking his minions or bleeding him with my last dying > breath. > > This does lead to a slippery slope where we don't want to encourage > people to do this all the time (when they can still win). But if > they're already going to lose, it seems as good of a reason as any.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Both your points exhibit behaviour specifically illegal as per the rules. Any player doing this should receive sanction.

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> Rehlow wrote: >>>>> But when you pool sack you are still in the game and if the game >>>>> state magically changes you can jump back in and possibly get some >>>>> VPs. That is the thing I don't understand with transferring out >>>>> being legal - once you are out of the game it is 100% for sure you >>>>> cannot gain any more VPs, but up until that point no one knows for >>>>> sure. >>>> True. But attempting to transfer out doesn't put you out of the game >>>> with 100% certainty. As long as we're leaving out the "reasonable" >>>> (see "magic" above), we can always appeal to Life Boon, etc. >>> Attempting to shoot yourself in the head with a fully-loaded handgun >>> isn't suicide, either, right? Since the gun could jam, you could get >>> a misfire, you could get a bad primer, etc. >> I'm not getting into living wills and assisted suicide, sorry. > > A living will won't bring a dead person back to life. > > Well, ok, if your intent upon asking and later answering the question > was to so twist the reality of self-ousting into not self-ousting and > suicide-by-gun-to-the-head as not ending one's life, then I agree. Clearly, it was not. > Sigh. Indeed.

[ quoted text not captured ] I would have to side with Kevin with "self-ousting = bad". My main contention with it is that: a.) the reward to the predator of said player is immediate - they get 6 pool right then and there, before the other 3 players get a chance to interact. b.) It completely destroys the social covenant of game playing of "the guy that wins EARNED the win". That one of the reasons why I like multiplayer games like Vtes and Shadowfist - you can have a player who is a complete master at game mechanics, has spent $1000's of dollars on cases of cards and super valuable rare cards, and is the best table talker you have ever seen, but that doesn't mean he will win the game, as there are 3-4 other players at the table who could gang up and kill him because they have each determined that Superman needs to die in order for them to have a chance of winning. There is perhaps nothing in the world so irritating has spending precious time and money building a deck, and sitting down to play a game, taking 1-2 hours to carefully set yourself up to get some VP and maybe even a GW, you've got your prey at 1 pool, and then your grand prey just ups and transfers out, putting your prey at 7 pool IMMEDIATELY - THROUGH NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN. And I'm talking about friendly play here - there is no tournament prize, no bragging rights, no NAC titles at stake. Just people getting together to play some games and have some fun. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, it is not satisfying at all to win because "someone LET ME win". I'd rather win through skilled playing, good deck design, and maybe a little luck in the card/ crypt draw. It is also detrimental to gaining new players - who the hell wants to get into a game where some jerkoff can just randomly destroy the table state by picking up his ball and going home? Trust me, if I had witnessed more of that in Ithaca before putting serious money into the game, I probably never would have joined in. Self-ousting sucks. At least for friendly play. That said, in response to Matt Morgan being outraged that he would be prevented from getting 2 Vp in 1 turn - if I was the guy trying to play the game and live, and you spent the whole game shutting me down with vote lock from Cross-table, I'd probably spite self oust to screw said "cross-table ally". Because another part of the social covenant of gaming is - LET ME PLAY THE GAME. i.e., let me play some cards, draw some cards, actually have a successful action at least ONCE in a while, etc. If that's not going to happen, then all bets are off. Because sitting around just transferring to vamps, just to see them killed/sen dep'd/pentex'd immediately is a crappy way to spend an evening. It's understandable and acceptable that your predator would do everything in his power to stop your deck - it's HIS JOB. What's NOT so easy to take is when the predator has inordinate amounts of help from your grand pred plus your prey, and maybe even your grand prey. Then, friendly play becomes not so friendly. And if I had a cross table ally who shot down every single vote I tried, without even considering bargaining with me, then he deserves NO help from me whatsoever. Just my $0.02 - I can understand Scott's point on trying to legislate "good sportsmanship" and how difficult it can be but self ousting sucks. -AC

OldFan wrote: [snip unused quoted material -- please quote responsibly] > I would have to side with Kevin with "self-ousting = bad". > > My main contention with it is that: > > a.) the reward to the predator of said player is immediate - they get > 6 pool right then and there, before the other 3 players get a chance > to interact. > > b.) It completely destroys the social covenant of game playing of "the > guy that wins EARNED the win". Then see the rest of this thread where those points are addressed directly. To wit: a) Any activity or inactivity on the part of the lost-position player benefits one player or another. (The other three players have had all game to interact -- someone has to get ousted sooner or later) b) It is playing the game. [7]. The predator earned it.

[ quoted text not captured ] But no guidelines for "reasonable" have ever been given. Its up to the judge to determine what is reasonable. I have seen tables completely shaken up, so you will have to be in extremely dire straits before you cross my threshold of being unable to reasonably gain any more VPs. I believe there is too much hidden information in Vtes to say I can't reasonably get any more VPs with any amount of frequency. Later, ~Rehlow

Rehlow wrote: > On Nov 30, 1:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Rehlow wrote: >>> OK, I now see the problem I have is with the "reasonable" clause. I >>> need to start judging tournaments so that I can enforce my level of >>> reasonableness and I find the smallest chance of obtaining VPs to be >>> reasonable. >> If you plan on not executing your duties as judge properly, best not to announce >> it on public forums. > > But no guidelines for "reasonable" have ever been given. Its up to the > judge to determine what is reasonable. The V:EKN doesn't use those sorts of min-max loophole rules, true. It is up to the judge to determine what is reasonable (i.e., what a reasonable person would consider reasonable), not to redefine "reasonable".

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, OldFan wrote: > That said, in response to Matt Morgan being outraged that he would be > prevented from getting 2 Vp in 1 turn - if I was the guy trying to > play the game and live, and you spent the whole game shutting me down > with vote lock from Cross-table, I'd probably spite self oust to screw > said "cross-table ally". Well, I should've assumed Robert was talking about a guy who is pretty well in a lost position and really has no hope without that Voter Cap. Maybe he has 1 pool and the Cap will put him up to 3 with an outside chance of remaining alive and gaining VPs, but without the Cap he's on 1 pool and if I don't pull off the kill, then my prey will. That's fair enough. Danging hope in front of the doomed is a very important part of vtes. If I'm going to get outraged, it would be by a player who wants to bail on the game because somebody at the table is making life difficult, but he's not yet in a completely lost position. He still has vampires and pool and maybe his hand is bad right now, maybe it looks like somebody else is very likely to take the table, but he can still do stuff, still play the game. Unless the dude is Nostradamus, I expect him to hang around and try to enjoy the game or at least not try to ruin my fun. Matt Morgan

On Dec 1, 7:21 am, OldFan <asif.i.chaud...@gmail.com> wrote: > That one of the reasons why I like multiplayer games like Vtes and > Shadowfist - you can have a player who is a complete master at game > mechanics, has spent $1000's of dollars on cases of cards and super > valuable rare cards, and is the best table talker you have ever seen, > but that doesn't mean he will win the game, as there are 3-4 other > players at the table who could gang up and kill him because they have > each determined that Superman needs to die in order for them to have a > chance of winning. > > There is perhaps nothing in the world so irritating has spending > precious time and money building a deck, and sitting down to play a > game, taking 1-2 hours to carefully set yourself up to get some VP and > maybe even a GW, you've got your prey at 1 pool, and then your grand > prey just ups and transfers out, putting your prey at 7 pool > IMMEDIATELY - THROUGH NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN. > > I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, it is not satisfying > at all to win because "someone LET ME win". I'd rather win through > skilled playing, good deck design, and maybe a little luck in the card/ > crypt draw. You don't see any sort of logical inconsistency in these comments? On the one hand, you like multiplayer games because the better player can be ganged up on and made to lose simply because the player was better. On the other, the person who plays better should be rewarded? > It is also detrimental to gaining new players - who the hell wants to > get into a game where some jerkoff can just randomly destroy the table > state by picking up his ball and going home? Trust me, if I had > witnessed more of that in Ithaca before putting serious money into the > game, I probably never would have joined in. I see it as the nature of multiplayer CCGs. A huge advantage, IMO, of two-player games is that you remove a kingmaking element. Someone wants to take a ball and go home, fine, deserving player wins. > Self-ousting sucks. At least for friendly play. Lots of things suck. Being ganged up on because your deck is better sucks. Being ganged up on because you play better sucks. Winning games easily because other people throw them or don't know what they are doing sucks. As Eric brings up much earlier in the thread, I don't see the problem being self-ousting but the problem being lack of maturity. Mature players are going to self-oust for a reason and, when they do, mature opponents probably won't care because they will understand why. Now, two-player games see a lot of players who have maturity problems as well, and they suck to play against; it's just that there's more control and more damage control when it's one on one. > Because another part of the social covenant of gaming is - LET ME PLAY > THE GAME. i.e., let me play some cards, draw some cards, actually > have a successful action at least ONCE in a while, etc. If that's not > going to happen, then all bets are off. Because sitting around just > transferring to vamps, just to see them killed/sen dep'd/pentex'd > immediately is a crappy way to spend an evening. No, it isn't. It's my philosophy to the game, sure, to not play decks that prevent my opponents from playing the game. And, one's play group may have a social covenant to allowing people to do stuff in games. But, it's absurd to believe that it's part of this competitive game to be nice enough to let people do stuff. Again, advantage to two-player games - if you are screwed, you concede and move on to the next game. With this game, it's rarely clean to concede while there are more than two players in the game. If the game were faster, by the way, it would be less noticeable when people just want to move on to the next game.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:20:32 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > So here we are again. Someone self-ousted on me tonight and I called > him out on it. I asked the guy why he thinks self-ousting is a good > thing? Why not just say "Good Game guys, I can't block anything" and > get up and go have a smoke, or whatever you need to do to physically > get away from the game which is obviously so angering you that you > can't possibly stand another moment at the table? Why instead choose > to break the social covenant of "playing a game" that we all clearly, > implicitly agreed to when we choose to invest our valuable time and > sat down to play? Dude. Get a grip. This is recurring premediated necroequestripugilism. FACT #1: If you are in a reasonably lost position where you cannot reasonably expect to get any more VPs, then having fulfilled your obligation to Play to Win, you are free to get your remaining VPs in any way you choose (*inluding self-ousting*). FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions) is *not supported by the rules*. You are basically breaking them if you do this (or encourage someone to do this). Consider the judging guidelines put forth for the case of someone having to leave a round early. You are of course free to have your opinion, just please be aware of the rules and their implications, and don't try to convince other people to break them (or make them beleive they are doing something wrong when they are in fact playing by them). -- Regards, Daneel

On Dec 1, 2:53 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Dude. Get a grip. This is recurring premediated necroequestripugilism. That word is *awesome*! -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Dude. Get a grip. This is recurring premediated necroequestripugilism. > > > FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard > representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the > game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects > of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions) > is *not supported by the rules*. Really? So, if you continue to sit at the table and play no more cards nor block, nor take actions, nor interact with the table in any way, but you are *sitting* at the table, that is supported by the rules? But it's the standing up/leaving that is a problem? Just wondering. I'm vaguely remembering a rule that you need to take your cards with you if you leave, but typically I'm not so hot on the rules. And I question your use of the word premediated (meaning advocated). Not sure where it fits in with "beating a dead horse". Even if you meant premeditated. best - chris

Howdy, [ quoted text not captured ] I'm pretty sure the previous word is supposed to be 'premeditated', but I like 'premediated' too. As to the other: Necroequestripugilism Type: Action/Combat Cost: 1 blood [nec] The acting minion gains 1 blood. [nec][pot] Strike: make a hand strike at +2 damage, with an optional press to continue combat. [NEC][POT] As above, and if the opposing minion strikes to end combat or dodge, cancel the opposing minion's strike (and no new strike may be chosen). <insert really horrific picture along the lines of Stunt Cycle, but with a (dead) horse> Alex

On Dec 1, 3:47 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > I'm pretty sure the previous word is supposed to be 'premeditated', > but I like 'premediated' too. As to the other: Heh. I wasn't even paying attention to the "premeditated" aspect. I was just wildly impressed by the use of "necroequestripugilism". I gotta find a way to use that in everyday conversation. -Peter

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:37:58 -0800, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard >> representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the >> game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects >> of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions) >> is *not supported by the rules*. > > Really? So, if you continue to sit at the table and play no more cards > nor block, nor take actions, nor interact with the table in any way, but > you are *sitting* at the table, that is supported by the rules? But > it's the standing up/leaving that is a problem? Just wondering. I'm > vaguely remembering a rule that you need to take your cards with you if > you leave, but typically I'm not so hot on the rules. Do you generally interpret every "Doing X while also doing Y is not Z" statement to automatically mean "Doing X but not Y *is* Z"? ;) Anyway, I'm pretty sure that if you are in a lost position, playing in an unmotivated way is one of the ways you can aspire to reach your remaining 0 VPs. > And I question your use of the word premediated (meaning advocated). > Not sure where it fits in with "beating a dead horse". I intended to write "premeditated" (as in, decided in advance), but I made a typo and mistakenly omitted the first "t". Thanks for pointing this out! > Even if you meant premeditated. Beating the dead horse pre-decidedly (as opposed to beating the dead horse, you know, on impulse). -- Regards, Daneel

On Dec 1, 2:53 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:20:32 -0800, Kevin M. <youw...@imaspammer.org> [ quoted text not captured ] Your fact 2 is just as illegal as your fact 1. Having no reasonable chance at a VP doesnt mean you dont have a chance. Therefore self- ousting would be directly stopping you from maximizing your victory points, as by staying alive, you always have more chance to get more VPs than by dying right then.

[ quoted text not captured ] From the rulebook: Object of the Game Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs. Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec. 1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game. As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game (see Victory Points, sec. 9.1). From the tournament rules: 4.8. Play to Win One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players, spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. See also "Play to Win" in section 4.8 above. These seem to indicate that in casual play, if you can't win the game you are free to do what you want. Ruben is right that you must try to get the most victory points possible, but I would further agree with what LSJ is getting at that the less chance you have of getting VPs, the less reasonable your approach would have to be in a tournament. For example, you have 1 pool and one Tupdog in play. Your hand has nothing helpful, except for something that costs you a pool (Vessel, Ivory Bow, etc). Why not play that card in the hopes that you either get a Life Boon or draw into that Extremis Boon you might have accidentally included in your deck? Your chance for a VP is about as good either way and there's no way to determine exactly what effect that play would have until you do it. Just about anything is "reasonable" at this point. Yay, no cognitive dissonance! Brandon

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:55 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman <fru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard >> ￜ representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the >> ￜ game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects >> ￜ of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions) >> ￜ is *not supported by the rules*. You are basically breaking them >> ￜ if you do this (or encourage someone to do this). Consider the >> ￜ judging guidelines put forth for the case of someone having to >> ￜ leave a round early. > > Your fact 2 is just as illegal as your fact 1. No. My fact 2 is a fact. > Having no reasonable chance at a VP doesnt mean you dont have a > chance. True. Technically, you do have a chance as long as you are in the game (I mean, it's possible, though not very likely, that all your opponents choose to self-oust before you, handing you the table). Having no reasonable chance, though, means just that - having no reasonable chance. > Therefore self-ousting would be directly stopping you from > maximizing your victory points, as by staying alive, you always > have more chance to get more VPs than by dying right then. If you don't have a reasonable chance to score any more VPs, then you have reasonably already maximized your VPs (and fulfilled PTW). I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner. Because, remember, we are talking about a player who is deeply convinced that he or she cannot gain any more VPs - otherwise, he or she would just keep on playing. As most people just do 99% of the time. I mean, after having played an immense number of V:tES games during about 15 years, I only remember self-ousting about twice (not counting table-split deals). The other 99.9% of the cases I just keep on playing irrespective of the game state, trying my best to score my point(s), even if the odds seem to be stacked against me. You could say I'm pro-choice when it comes to self-ousting, even though I hardly ever self-oust. -- Regards, Daneel

On Dec 2, 12:05 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:19:55 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> FACT #2: Standing up from the table and using whatever haphazard > >> representation of some aspect of your continued presence in the > >> game (e.g. pool counters) while withdrawing from the other aspects > >> of the game (e.g. playing cards and blocking/taking actions) > >> is *not supported by the rules*. You are basically breaking them > >> if you do this (or encourage someone to do this). Consider the > >> judging guidelines put forth for the case of someone having to [ quoted text not captured ] How about 0.5 VP? Some of other players might not be able to secure GW and go for time in order to stop your Predador from sweeping. Specially if one of your allies has 2 VPs. 0.5 is better then 0. Tiago

"These seem to indicate that in casual play, if you can't win the game you are free to do what you want. Ruben is right that you must try to get the most victory points possible, but I would further agree with what LSJ is getting at that the less chance you have of getting VPs, the less reasonable your approach would have to be in a tournament. For example, you have 1 pool and one Tupdog in play. Your hand has nothing helpful, except for something that costs you a pool (Vessel, Ivory Bow, etc). Why not play that card in the hopes that you either get a Life Boon or draw into that Extremis Boon you might have accidentally included in your deck? Your chance for a VP is about as good either way and there's no way to determine exactly what effect that play would have until you do it. Just about anything is "reasonable" at this point. " In casual play... who cares - play with 4CL or madness of the bard if you want. What about discarding a card at your discard phase. Let's be honest this increases your odds of staying alive than the chance of something else saving you from suicide. (Also on a side note, lifebooning someone who is trying to self-oust is semi-retarded in most situations as that person will be able to do it again in most cases). What if you predator gets all his minnions toprored. What if your great predator ousts his prey with his last action. What if people start making deals with onkly 10 minutes left on the clock. what if... the point is that you just dont know. however improbable that you might increase your score for that game, self-ousting will reduce that improbability to zero. > > Having no reasonable chance at a VP doesnt mean you dont have a > > chance. > > True. Technically, you do have a chance as long as you are in the > game (I mean, it's possible, though not very likely, that all your > opponents choose to self-oust before you, handing you the table). > > Having no reasonable chance, though, means just that - having no > reasonable chance. > Yes, and my point is haveing an unreasonable chance is always better than having no chance.Therefore self-ousting when a player has an (even unreasonable) chance at getting more points out of the game is playing against the rules to maximize your victory points. > > Therefore self-ousting would be directly stopping you from > > maximizing your victory points, as by staying alive, you always > > have more chance to get more VPs than by dying right then. > > If you don't have a reasonable chance to score any more VPs, then > you have reasonably already maximized your VPs (and fulfilled PTW). > Reasonably maximized is not maximized. You do not play a game by abiding to the rules up to an extent you deem reasonable. Else it is called cheating. > I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to > this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to > hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing > this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess > their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to > disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner. > My point is that no one should hand any VPs. People should be able to take their own VPs. > Because, remember, we are talking about a player who is deeply > convinced that he or she cannot gain any more VPs - otherwise, > he or she would just keep on playing. As most people just do 99% > of the time. I mean, after having played an immense number of > V:tES games during about 15 years, I only remember self-ousting > about twice (not counting table-split deals). The other 99.9% of > the cases I just keep on playing irrespective of the game state, > trying my best to score my point(s), even if the odds seem to be > stacked against me. > > You could say I'm pro-choice when it comes to self-ousting, even > though I hardly ever self-oust. > I wouldnt mind if it wasn't called cheating in most situations. " From the tournament rules: 4.8. Play to Win One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. " Self-ousting is playing to get as many points as possible? No, self- ousting with the intent of leaving the game (ie not trying to draw out a life boon etc.) is intentionally ending up in the worse possible immediate state of having NO chance of increasing your points.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Ruben Feldman (quoting Daneel) wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to >> � this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to >> � hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing >> � this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess >> � their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to >> � disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner. >> > > My point is that no one should hand any VPs. People should be able to > take their own VPs. Agreed. In some ways it's a state of mind. If your attitude is "well, my game is F'd, so I'm going to hand a VP to that guy 'cause he was nice to me" then the likely outcome is just that. If your attitude is "well, I'm in a real mess now, but maybe there's a way to pull off a VP in here somewhere or at least play to time" then that's way more likely to happen, even if it's still unlikely. The decision of who to hand the game to is not one that finalists of major tournaments are often faced with because those players are thinking about how to get themselves more VPs, not how to get them for others. Matt Morgan

I won't go through all these posts, but I want to share my thoughts on this self oust thing. 1. Generally I am against it. If your prey or grandpredator or whoever plays well, he deserves the win. Most self-ousts I see when people can't deal with being killed cross tabel, or killed backwards from their prey. If I see, that from that players point it does make sense (= he will get the Game Win), than I would say you should never self- oust, because it is just not cool to punish somebody for playing well. 2. If somebody pisses me off, lets say because he breaks a deal, or he tries to win the game for another player (his friend or fellow countryman), than I think it is ok to self oust, unless of course you see a good chance to make at least 1 vp.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry Scott - this is just one of those "agree to disagree" things. I understand how you arrive at your reasoning - I simply don't agree with it. a.) Yes - regardless of what happens (pool sack vs self oust) SOMEONE benefits. But - self ousting is just quitting. Plain and simple. b.) If a person self ousts because his predator alone has thoroughly demoralized him into do so, then sure - the pred earned it. If someone self ousts because his grand pred and grand prey conspired to eagle sight/vote lock him out of the game, then NO, the predator didn't earn it. As I said in my post - self ousting in general stinks, but each game/ circumstance is different and could lead to a reason why someone would do so. So, I agreed with you - you can't legislate good sportsmanship or make self ousting illegal. -AC

[ quoted text not captured ] True enough - I concur with your point. Again - the point of Vtes is to play a game AND have fun. Even if you think someone is just dangling hope if front of you to keep you going. :-D -AC

OldFan wrote: > I understand how you arrive at your reasoning - I simply don't agree > with it. That's cool. > a.) Yes - regardless of what happens (pool sack vs self oust) SOMEONE > benefits. But - self ousting is just quitting. Plain and simple. So is pool-sacking (is just quitting, that is). Or tapping out (and otherwise leaving yourself defenseless after an all-out futile offensive). > b.) If a person self ousts because his predator alone has thoroughly > demoralized him into do so, then sure - the pred earned it. If > someone self ousts because his grand pred and grand prey conspired to > eagle sight/vote lock him out of the game, then NO, the predator > didn't earn it. Perhaps. But that's getting into a lot of variables and gray area. The short answer is: if your prey is ousted, you earned the VP (either by your own heroic efforts, or by playing the table correctly, or by simply being the lesser of four evils).

On Dec 1, 2:53 pm, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 1, 7:21 am, OldFan <asif.i.chaud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > That one of the reasons why I like multiplayer games like Vtes and > > Shadowfist - you can have a player who is a complete master at game > > mechanics, has spent $1000's of dollars on cases of cards and super > > valuable rare cards, and is the best table talker you have ever seen, > > but that doesn't mean he will win the game, as there are 3-4 other > > players at the table who could gang up and kill him because they have > > each determined that Superman needs to die in order for them to have a > > chance of winning. > > > There is perhaps nothing in the world so irritating has spending > > precious time and money building a deck, and sitting down to play a > > game, taking 1-2 hours to carefully set yourself up to get some VP and > > maybe even a GW, you've got your prey at 1 pool, and then your grand > > prey just ups and transfers out, putting your prey at 7 pool > > IMMEDIATELY - THROUGH NO EFFORT OF THEIR OWN. > > > I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, it is not satisfying > > at all to win because "someone LET ME win". I'd rather win through > > skilled playing, good deck design, and maybe a little luck in the card/ > > crypt draw. > > You don't see any sort of logical inconsistency in these comments? > > On the one hand, you like multiplayer games because the better player > can be ganged up on and made to lose simply because the player was > better. On the other, the person who plays better should be rewarded? No - I don't see any logical inconsistency. It is a good game where (to borrow Magic terminology) can't spend $3000 on Black lotus, 5 Moxen, Power blue cards, Juzam Djinn, and piles of other hard to find/expensive/broken cards, and just crush everyone. Even if somone spends uber money on lots of Deflection/Parity Shift/ Enkil Cog/etc and super vamps like Arika or Saulot - there is still hope for the other 4 players at the table because no one deck is that great. And if the result of getting ganged up on results in said Munchkin player: a.) building and playing decks that are "fun" and not "uber competitive/kill-y" or b.) not contaminating your play group Then that's fine with me. > > It is also detrimental to gaining new players - who the hell wants to > > get into a game where some jerkoff can just randomly destroy the table > > state by picking up his ball and going home? Trust me, if I had > > witnessed more of that in Ithaca before putting serious money into the > > game, I probably never would have joined in. > > I see it as the nature of multiplayer CCGs. A huge advantage, IMO, of > two-player games is that you remove a kingmaking element. Someone > wants to take a ball and go home, fine, deserving player wins. Hence, why I don't play "competitive" games anymore - i.e. tournaments, etc. I play "fun" games, where all the participants get to a.) play the game b.) have fun > > Self-ousting sucks. At least for friendly play. > > Lots of things suck. Being ganged up on because your deck is better > sucks. Nonsense - if people respect your deck enough to say "hey, no offense, but you are going to kill us all if we let you build up", then guess what? Mission accomplished - you built a really good/Tier 1 deck. Congrats - NOW go build another deck! > Being ganged up on because you play better sucks. Nonsense - if people gang up on you because you are a better player ALL the time, then maybe you should take some time and effort to help teach your newer/younger players how to play better THEMSELVES. Tell them how you came up with your deck design. When someone goes "why the heck in turn 10 did you do that / not do this?", explain to them your reasoning. One the best parts for me about playing in Ithaca is that the guys here are funny, knowledgeable, and they are willing to take the time to explain what their deck is doing or how they are playing. > Winning > games easily because other people throw them or don't know what they > are doing sucks. I agree - so TEACH your players how to play better. See above. > > Because another part of the social covenant of gaming is - LET ME PLAY > > THE GAME. i.e., let me play some cards, draw some cards, actually > > have a successful action at least ONCE in a while, etc. If that's not > > going to happen, then all bets are off. Because sitting around just > > transferring to vamps, just to see them killed/sen dep'd/pentex'd > > immediately is a crappy way to spend an evening. > > No, it isn't. Uhm....Yes, it is. According to dictionary.com, the definition of game is: 1.) an amusement or pastime: children's games. 3.) a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their OWN (note plural, not one person or the other) amusement or for that of spectators. If you constantly try to set up an activity where one side or the other is ALWAYS not having fun or "amusement", you are doing some kind of activity but it sure as heck isn't a "Game". > It's my philosophy to the game, sure, to not play decks that prevent > my opponents from playing the game. And, one's play group may have a > social covenant to allowing people to do stuff in games. But, it's > absurd to believe that it's part of this competitive game to be nice > enough to let people do stuff. Again with the competitive. I'm not talking tournaments - sure, if there are prizes and bragging rights involved, the do whatever you can within the scope of the rules to win. Go for it - knock yourself out. Which is why I avoid tournaments and "competitive" gaming like the plague. I play games to have fun and amuse myself AND my opponent AND any possible spectators that may be watching, because hey, today's spectator might be tomorrow's new player. If the only thing your playgroup does, is build/tweak/practice decks in anticipation of the next tournament - well, in my mind that is a shame. Vtes has so much more to offer than that. -AC

On Dec 2, 3:02 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > OldFan wrote: > > I understand how you arrive at your reasoning - I simply don't agree > > with it. > > That's cool. > > > a.) Yes - regardless of what happens (pool sack vs self oust) SOMEONE > > benefits. But - self ousting is just quitting. Plain and simple. > > So is pool-sacking (is just quitting, that is). Or tapping out (and otherwise > leaving yourself defenseless after an all-out futile offensive). I can see that point - someone who taps out and deliberately leaves himself defenseless is quitting, just in a different way. Guess I just had a different notion of what "pool sack" is - thanks for the clarification. That said, I still feel that the pool sack is the lesser of 2 evils compared to self ousting. Again - just agreeing to disagree here Scott. > > b.) If a person self ousts because his predator alone has thoroughly > > demoralized him into do so, then sure - the pred earned it. If > > someone self ousts because his grand pred and grand prey conspired to > > eagle sight/vote lock him out of the game, then NO, the predator > > didn't earn it. > > Perhaps. But that's getting into a lot of variables and gray area. The short > answer is: if your prey is ousted, you earned the VP (either by your own heroic > efforts, or by playing the table correctly, or by simply being the lesser of > four evils). This might be semantics, but it would be more accurate to say "if your prey is ousted, you are AWARDED the VP (by game rule)". Again, agreeing to disagree - getting a VP by game rule because the player to your left is ousted is NOT the same as "earning" the VP through your own efforts of bleeding/voting/Fame-killing your prey to death. Just my opinion. -AC

I've pool-sacked before, and even though it may be a kind of quitting, it is certainly not the same thing as self-ousting. Pool-sacking gives your prey a lot more time than self-ousting does. It makes your predator have to take actions to oust you, actions which may make it harder for him to defend against his predator. When you pool-sack, there is always the chance that your predator will get hosed by his predator before he gets you. Pool-sacking is usually what I do when I'm being hit with aggressive stealth-bleed, he's going to get me, and there's nothing that I can do that won't reward his sleaziness. I know some players will choose to self-oust rather than pool-sack; my predator did it in one of my games of the First Chance Qualifier at the NAC this year. He was being pummeled by his predator's ally combat deck. He had no chance, was frustrated, so he gave his predator a quicker VP than necessary. Is the argument is that I "didn't play the table right" because I couldn't convince him not to self-oust?

Aaron Clark wrote: > I've pool-sacked before, and even though it may be a kind of quitting, > it is certainly not the same thing as self-ousting. Of course not. But it is equivalent, sportsmanship-wise. As covered. > Pool-sacking gives your prey a lot more time than self-ousting does. True. And self-ousting gives your predator a lot more time than pool sacking. As already covered. > It makes your predator have to take actions to oust you, actions which > may make it harder for him to defend against his predator. True. Although she's already apparently done the major portion of the work (since you are in a lost position already). And self-ousting makes your grand predator have to take more actions to oust her prey. > When you pool-sack, there is always the chance that your predator will > get hosed by his predator before he gets you. Pool-sacking is usually > what I do when I'm being hit with aggressive stealth-bleed, he's going > to get me, and there's nothing that I can do that won't reward his > sleaziness. Certainly a valid option. As covered. > I know some players will choose to self-oust rather than pool-sack; my > predator did it in one of my games of the First Chance Qualifier at > the NAC this year. He was being pummeled by his predator's ally > combat deck. He had no chance, was frustrated, so he gave his > predator a quicker VP than necessary. Is the argument is that I > "didn't play the table right" because I couldn't convince him not to > self-oust? No. The argument is that he is free to self-oust. There's no artifical rule forcing him to favor you over another player in his decisions on how to get his 0 VP. He isn't forced to give his predator a slower VP than necessary.

LSJ wrote: > Aaron Clark wrote: >> I've pool-sacked before, and even though it may be a kind of >> quitting, it is certainly not the same thing as self-ousting. > > Of course not. But it is equivalent, sportsmanship-wise. As covered. Forcing your predator to oust you is equivalent to quitting? Really? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Aaron Clark wrote: >>> I've pool-sacked before, and even though it may be a kind of >>> quitting, it is certainly not the same thing as self-ousting. >> Of course not. But it is equivalent, sportsmanship-wise. As covered. > > Forcing your predator to oust you is equivalent to quitting? Really? Quitting by pool sacking is equivalent to quitting by self-ousting. Really. In a lost position, your choices are reduced to how to quit.

On Dec 3, 6:53 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Aaron Clark wrote: > > I know some players will choose to self-oust rather than pool-sack; my > > predator did it in one of my games of the First Chance Qualifier at > > the NAC this year. He was being pummeled by his predator's ally > > combat deck. He had no chance, was frustrated, so he gave his > > predator a quicker VP than necessary. Is the argument is that I > > "didn't play the table right" because I couldn't convince him not to > > self-oust? > > No. The argument is that he is free to self-oust. There's no artifical rule > forcing him to favor you over another player in his decisions on how to get his > 0 VP. He isn't forced to give his predator a slower VP than necessary. I disagree. As I've argued before, by self-ousting he is intentionally reducing his (already small) chance at some VPs, and thus playing against the rules of the game. If someone doesn't have a reasonable chance at doing better than 0vp, that doesn't mean he has no chance at all, therefore by the rule of having to maximize your VPs, that player must exploit the chance he has at improving his score and play on to the best of his ability.

Ruben Feldman wrote: > I disagree. As I've argued before, by self-ousting he is intentionally > reducing his (already small) chance at some VPs, and thus playing > against the rules of the game. > If someone doesn't have a reasonable chance at doing better than 0vp, > that doesn't mean he has no chance at all, therefore by the rule of > having to maximize your VPs, that player must exploit the chance he > has at improving his score and play on to the best of his ability. I disagree. As I've said before, PTW obliges the player to play for the GW if there is a reasonable chance of getting a GW. If there's no reasonable chance of getting a GW, xe is obliged to play to get the most VPs xe can reasonably get. In a lost position, by definition, the most VPs the player can reasonably get is 0 more than xe has at the moment. So PTW obliges xer not to play for anything less than those 0 VPs, but doesn't oblige xer to choose one path to those 0 VPs over another path, or to favor one other player over another in the choosing.

[ quoted text not captured ] In the tournament rules, the word "reasonable" is only mentioned when talking about GWs though. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules.html "For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible."

henrik wrote: > In the tournament rules, the word "reasonable" is only mentioned when > talking about GWs though. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules.html > "For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it > is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably > possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible." Yeah. Gotta love context to aid concise writing.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Aaron Clark wrote: > I've pool-sacked before, and even though it may be a kind of quitting, > it is certainly not the same thing as self-ousting. Pool-sacking = pack up your cards and leave a few pool on the table, possibly borrowed from someone so you can actually walk away? If so, I agree it's not the same as self-ousting. It's worse. > Pool-sacking gives your prey a lot more time than self-ousting does. This is arbitrary. There's nothing in the game rules or sportsmanship rules that say you should favor your prey over your predator. > It makes your predator have to take actions to oust you, actions which > may make it harder for him to defend against his predator. Also arbitrary. > When you pool-sack, there is always the chance that your predator will > get hosed by his predator before he gets you. Pool-sacking is usually > what I do when I'm being hit with aggressive stealth-bleed, he's going > to get me, and there's nothing that I can do that won't reward his > sleaziness. I'm not even sure why that's a consideration. You advocate punishing players for playing aggressive decks? Have you ever heard of Deflection? > I know some players will choose to self-oust rather than pool-sack; my > predator did it in one of my games of the First Chance Qualifier at > the NAC this year. He was being pummeled by his predator's ally > combat deck. He had no chance, was frustrated, so he gave his > predator a quicker VP than necessary. Is the argument is that I > "didn't play the table right" because I couldn't convince him not to > self-oust? Who was playing the ally deck, Binkus? Binkus is off in that alternate dimension complaining about how he lost a game because his prey pool-sacked and wouldn't try to oust you. The point that Scott has made so many times that I almost hesitate to repeat is that if you're to the point in the game where no action (or inaction) can improve your position, then any action (or inaction) is going to improve somebody else's. Self-oust? That helps your predator for no gain. Poolsack? That helps your prey for gain. Why would the rules or some social contract favor helping one player over another when one is in a lost position? But what really annoys me is when somebody packs up his cards before he's ousted and before the game is over. What if somebody calls a vote and that guy's bishop could be the deciding factor? What if I play the Ericyes Fragments and want to grab a card that is now in a deckbox in his backpack? What if I want to diablerize one of his guys to get his Magnum? I guess he can just sit there with all his cards on the table, but if he's gonna do that, why not just play the game? Both self-ousting and poolsacking are forms of quitting when you don't have to quit. I find both of them distasteful, but I also strongly disagree that poolsacking is somehow a noble death like ritual seppuku while self-ousting is drinking bleach. They are both drinking bleach.

[ quoted text not captured ] It's hard to tell sometimes. It could have been left out deliberately to make transferring out somewhat harder to justify.

On Dec 3, 8:59 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > In a lost position, by definition, the most VPs the player can reasonably get is > 0 more than xe has at the moment. So PTW obliges xer not to play for anything > less than those 0 VPs, but doesn't oblige xer to choose one path to those 0 VPs > over another path, or to favor one other player over another in the choosing. A position lost by definition is usually a position that doesn't allow you to choose your path to 0vp. If you have a choice, then usually you are not in a lost position. A lost position to me would be being at 1 pool with a fame in torpor at my predator's discard phase, or perhaps at 2 pool having all my vamps in torpor with a dragonbound in play. ie a position where there is 0 chance of doing better than what I already have. If there is a slight chance, however unreasonable, all is not lost. henrik wrote: > In the tournament rules, the word "reasonable" is only mentioned when > talking about GWs though. > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules.html > "For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it > is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably > possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible." The use of the word "reasonable" came from LSJ's arguments similar to "If there's no reasonable chance of getting a GW, xe is obliged to play to get the most VPs xe can reasonably get" The lack of the word "reasonable" in the rules reinforces my opinion, since they state that one must play to maximize points, regardless of whether the chance of that happening is reasonable or not.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:48:44 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman <fru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Having no reasonable chance, though, means just that - having no >> ￜ reasonable chance. > > Yes, and my point is haveing an unreasonable chance is always better > than having no chance.Therefore self-ousting when a player has an > (even unreasonable) chance at getting more points out of the game is > playing against the rules to maximize your victory points. [...] >> If you don't have a reasonable chance to score any more VPs, then >> ￜ you have reasonably already maximized your VPs (and fulfilled PTW). >> > > Reasonably maximized is not maximized. You do not play a game by > abiding to the rules up to an extent you deem reasonable. Else it is > called cheating. [...] >> I'm pretty sure that some people would like the kind of tone to >> ￜ this discussion that could be used to coerce another player to >> ￜ hand his or her VP to them instead of someone else. Preventing >> ￜ this kind of coercion by allowing players to reasonably assess >> ￜ their game state (just like allowing players the freedom to >> ￜ disbelieve other Methuselah's promises) makes the game cleaner. >> > > My point is that no one should hand any VPs. People should be able to > take their own VPs. Mate, with all due respect, you seem to be stuck in write-only mode. No player should be expected to do (and accountable for) anything unreasonable. Not in playing, not in dealing, not ever. Not by the rules, not by other players, not by anybody. If you accept this, everything else will fall into place. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Most mind changing post in this thread. Thanks Matt. best - chris

On Dec 3, 12:27 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:48:44 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > No player should be expected to do (and accountable for) anything > unreasonable. Not in playing, not in dealing, not ever. Not by the > rules, not by other players, not by anybody. > > If you accept this, everything else will fall into place. > > -- > Regards, > > Daneel I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a player to play the game to it's end, following the rules throughout. I am not expecting unreasonable things done, just players to keep playing even if they don't have a *resonable* chance at improving their score.

Ruben Feldman wrote: > I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a player to play the game > to it's end, following the rules throughout. > > I am not expecting unreasonable things done, just players to keep > playing even if they don't have a *resonable* chance at improving > their score. No one is suggesting that any player not follow the rules throughout. The rules on transfers are given in section 7. Self ousting through the use of transfers follows those rules. If that is done (and no one plays Life Boon), then the player will have played the game to its end, following the rules throughout. Just like if he had poolsacked. Or made a grand final tilt at his prey's windmill of defenses. Or any of the other rules-following courses of action or inaction available to him.

On Dec 3, 2:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Just like if he had poolsacked. Or made a grand final tilt at his prey's > windmill of defenses. Or any of the other rules-following courses of action or > inaction available to him. I'm not sure poolsacking - at least, not as defined in the only definition I've seen above, which is "leave a pile of pool, take your cards and go home" - actually *is* a rules-following course of action. As mentioned, what if another player wants to interact with your permanents, etc.? Other than that, yeah. - D.J.

From what LSJ has written here, I gather that it is admissible to play for 0 VPs if that is the maximum that you can reasonably win. You can play for those 0 VPs in any way you choose, according to LSJ. According to Matt Morgan, you are under no obligation to either favor your prey or predator with what you do in this situation. If you choose to self-oust and thus help your predator, that is acceptable under the rules of sportsmanlike play. If you choose to sit there and "pool sack" and thus help your prey, that is acceptable under the rules of sportsmanlike play. You essentially have complete freedom to play as you wish in this situation. Or is this incorrect? Is it not therefore true that if you can only play for 0 VPs, then you are free to do whatever you want to help or hurt another player based on your personal relationship with him or her, and this is acceptable according to the rules as written? Is it not therefore true that you are free to punish or reward another player based on your opinion of his or her choice of deck when you can only play for 0 VPs? I know that you are not supposed to play based on another player's tournament ranking, but besides that I see no official guidelines that govern this situation.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah. I'm using the old meaning: sitting at the table and making no non-mandatory effects.

Aaron Clark wrote: > From what LSJ has written here, I gather that it is admissible to play > for 0 VPs if that is the maximum that you can reasonably win. You can > play for those 0 VPs in any way you choose, according to LSJ. > According to Matt Morgan, you are under no obligation to either favor > your prey or predator with what you do in this situation. If you > choose to self-oust and thus help your predator, that is acceptable > under the rules of sportsmanlike play. If you choose to sit there and > "pool sack" and thus help your prey, that is acceptable under the > rules of sportsmanlike play. You essentially have complete freedom to > play as you wish in this situation. Or is this incorrect? Correct. Once in a truly lost position, you are free to play out that loss as you see fit. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a835653d85b13c67 > Is it not therefore true that if you can only play for 0 VPs, then you > are free to do whatever you want to help or hurt another player based > on your personal relationship with him or her, and this is acceptable > according to the rules as written? > Is it not therefore true that you are free to punish or reward another > player based on your opinion of his or her choice of deck when you can > only play for 0 VPs? > > I know that you are not supposed to play based on another player's > tournament ranking, but besides that I see no official guidelines that > govern this situation. Yes. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f489dc379084a7d4

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:01:46 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman <fru...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 3, 12:27ￜpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:48:44 -0800 (PST), Ruben Feldman >> <frub...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> No player should be expected to do (and accountable for) anything >> ￜ unreasonable. Not in playing, not in dealing, not ever. Not by the >> ￜ rules, not by other players, not by anybody. >> >> If you accept this, everything else will fall into place. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Daneel > > I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a player to play the game > to it's end, following the rules throughout. > > I am not expecting unreasonable things done, just players to keep > playing even if they don't have a *resonable* chance at improving > their score. This discussion seems to have become more semantics now. Anyway: It is *reasonable* to expect players to do everyhing *reasonable* to improve their score. It is *unreasonable* to expect players to do anything *unreasonable* to improve their score (e.g. following a course of action that does not *reasonably* improve one's score as that score is already *reasonably* maximized). Of course, players are free to pursue their preferred course of action even in this case (it would be silly for the rules to force every player who is no longer having a reasonable chance at winning to immediately self-oust). Like-wise, it would be silly for the rules to try to somehow prevent self-ousting (especially since suicidal options are not limited to transferring your last pool counter, or however you define it - but the main point is not the feasibility, even if we could add a 5-page or whatever length definition of "self-ousting" to the rulebook, the main problem would still be that limiting the choice like this is silly). Otherwise, it's as Scott said, he is fully right in this case. -- Regards, Daneel

On Dec 3, 3:22 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Correct. Once in a truly lost position, you are free to play out that loss as > you see fit. > How do you define a "truly lost position"? Do you start to transfer out on turn 2 because you see your prey plays weenie auspex? Yes that is probably not acceptable (even though I've seen it happen), but where do you draw the line?? > > I know that you are not supposed to play based on another player's > > tournament ranking, but besides that I see no official guidelines that > > govern this situation. > > Yes. So you are allowed to make out-of-game considerations, purposely help your friends, or disadvantage someone at a table because he speaks a different language etc.- all this just because you have decided (through your permanently incomplete view of the situation) that you have reasonably lost? I just think it would be much more logical (and much less fustrating for the players affected) if people had to play to maximize their VPs until they are ousted (by someone else).

Ruben Feldman wrote: > On Dec 3, 3:22 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Correct. Once in a truly lost position, you are free to play out that loss as >> you see fit. >> > > How do you define a "truly lost position"? As given: a position from which the player has no reasonable chance of getting more VPs. > Do you start to transfer out on turn 2 because you see your prey plays > weenie auspex? No. > Yes that is probably not acceptable (even though I've > seen it happen), but where do you draw the line?? At the point when the player no longer has a reasonable chance of getting more VPs. Judgment call. And, as I've acknowledged before, being in a truly lost position is rare (except in the moments before you're ousted). >>> I know that you are not supposed to play based on another player's >>> tournament ranking, but besides that I see no official guidelines that >>> govern this situation. >> Yes. > > So you are allowed to make out-of-game considerations, purposely help > your friends, or disadvantage someone at a table because he speaks a > different language etc.- all this just because you have decided > (through your permanently incomplete view of the situation) that you > have reasonably lost? If the judge thinks you are in a lost position, yeah. You have to do something (or do nothing). And there's no artificial restriction making choose one path to defeat over another. > I just think it would be much more logical (and much less fustrating > for the players affected) if people had to play to maximize their VPs > until they are ousted (by someone else). OK. Either transferring out is an example of that, or the player is in violation of the rules automatically when reaching the end of his game. Only one of those alternatives is acceptable.

I think what the game needs are guidelines on what to do when a player gets into a supposedly helpless situation. Call it an ethical code if you will. I know that different people and groups have such informal codes; we've been talking about them here. Some think it is unethical to self-oust; some do not. I've just heard definitively that in-game revenge and cronyism (in other words, helping your personal friends over other players) are perfectly acceptable behavior if you feel that you cannot gain more than 0 VPs. I guess some people like this aspect of the game. I saw a lot of this kind of behavior in my last session of VTES on the part of two other players, and it's certainly made the game a lot less attractive to me. I think there should be rules or guidelines that limit losing players' ability to change the dynamics of the game arbitrarily. For one, I think it should be against the rules to voluntarily lower your pool below 1. Obviously such a rule would still allow for virtual self- ousts, but it would enforce some welcome predictability to losing players' actions. I also think that expanding or changing the victory point system to allow losing players to improve their scores right to the end might also discourage some of the petty stuff that losing players are now allowed to do. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm thinking of a VP system like those used in some Euro-games. For instance, Agricola and Caylus (two of my faves) are competitive, but even if you're coming in last, you can still work to improve your overall score as opposed to hindering other players' scores with your actions.

On 4 Dic, 00:56, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > I think there should be rules or guidelines that limit losing players' > ability to change the dynamics of the game arbitrarily. For one, I > think it should be against the rules to voluntarily lower your pool > below 1. Obviously such a rule would still allow for virtual self- > ousts, but it would enforce some welcome predictability to losing > players' actions. > > I also think that expanding or changing the victory point system to > allow losing players to improve their scores right to the end might > also discourage some of the petty stuff that losing players are now > allowed to do. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm thinking of a > VP system like those used in some Euro-games. For instance, Agricola > and Caylus (two of my faves) are competitive, but even if you're > coming in last, you can still work to improve your overall score as > opposed to hindering other players' scores with your actions. If one decides to go along this road (and I am not saying it would be a good thing - I am just reasoning out of an hypothesis), one could introduce "number of turns of survival" as additional tie-breaker after (or before, or instead) tournament points. It could be a not-too- artificial way to encourage staying in the game instead of self- ousting when in a lost position. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Thing is, as you stated before, 0.5 VP is better then 0 VP. Assuming everybody plays by the rules, one never knows the other player's hands. Therefore, a lost position position might still give you 0.5 VP, if someone else keeps you alive. The fact that one never knows the other player's game, makes it so that he is truly in a lost position only when he is ousted. Not before. Correct?

Emiliano Imeroni írta: [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting thread :) My opinion: There is no 100% lost position in this game. There is a reason that the best players argue against any form of self oust. You can win a game if you have no minions and down to 1 pool. -> *multiplayer* game this is. People just need to decide if they want to be kings or kingmakers. Frankie the Wise ;-)

Brum wrote: > Thing is, as you stated before, 0.5 VP is better then 0 VP. > > Assuming everybody plays by the rules, one never knows the other > player's hands. Therefore, a lost position position might still give > you 0.5 VP, if someone else keeps you alive. Not reasonably, no, by definition of "lost position". If you're in a position where you can reasonably get more than 0 VPs, then your position is not a "lost position". And 0.5 is more than 0. > The fact that one never knows the other player's game, makes it so > that he is truly in a lost position only when he is ousted. Not > before. > > Correct? No, because "reasonable" is used.

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Aaron Clark wrote: > I think what the game needs are guidelines on what to do when a player > gets into a supposedly helpless situation. Call it an ethical code if > you will. Like what? All the stuff we've been over already just helps one player (who may or may not "deserve" the help) and hurts someone else (who may or may not "deserve" to be hurt). Don't self-oust? Helps prey, hurts predator. Don't suicide forward with no hope of getting the VP? Helps prey, hurts predator. Don't poolsack? Hurts prey, helps predator. > I know that different people and groups have such informal > codes; we've been talking about them here. Some think it is unethical > to self-oust; some do not. I've just heard definitively that in-game > revenge and cronyism (in other words, helping your personal friends > over other players) are perfectly acceptable behavior if you feel that > you cannot gain more than 0 VPs. Don't get too excited. If you have a halfway decent judge, this is harder than it looks. I've called judges to prevent exactly this kind of thing. Some guy: I can't win, so I'm gonna help my friend. Me: I don't think your position is truly lost. Judge: I agree. Play to win. > I guess some people like this aspect of the game. Acknowledging that there's not a better way given the goals of the game is not the same as liking that aspect of the game. > I saw a lot of this kind of behavior in my last session of VTES on the > part of two other players, and it's certainly made the game a lot less > attractive to me. Was one of them really in a lost position? How is this player in a lost position able to significantly affect the table? I'm not saying it can't happen. It certainly can. I'm just wondering if maybe the players in question might've rushed to judgment on this one. It sounds as if you're talking about casual play, not a tournament ("last session"), so you probably didn't have a judge to call. I'd say if you've got a couple of players who team up when surprisingly one of them finds himself in a lost position yet again, then what you've really got are a couple of asshats. Is a change in the rules going to fix that problem? How about NO ASSHATS? There's a good rule. Go ahead and enforce it. > I think there should be rules or guidelines that limit losing players' > ability to change the dynamics of the game arbitrarily. I'm a broken record. Every action or inaction the player in the lost position takes is going to help someone and hurt someone else. I mean, there could be a rule like "when in doubt, hurt your prey" but that isn't any more or less valid than "when in doubt, hurt your predator" or when in doubt, go cross-table." None of these activities increase your VP count (assuming you area actually in a lost position). > For one, I > think it should be against the rules to voluntarily lower your pool > below 1. Obviously such a rule would still allow for virtual self- > ousts, but it would enforce some welcome predictability to losing > players' actions. There's a lot of reasons this isn't a good idea. * You can actually take the table by self-ousting. * You might need the action that takes you below 1 pool and have some hope of being saved by Life/Extremis Boon. * Remaining in the game while in a truly lost position hurts your predator and helps your prey and grandpredator, but there's no rule that says you need to favor these players over any others. * The threat of a self-oust can be a powerful weapon in negotiation. * In some situations, the self-oust will be just as easy, in others it will be harder to put together. Why arbitrarily favor one self-oust over another? > I also think that expanding or changing the victory point system to > allow losing players to improve their scores right to the end might > also discourage some of the petty stuff that losing players are now > allowed to do. I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm thinking of a > VP system like those used in some Euro-games. For instance, Agricola > and Caylus (two of my faves) are competitive, but even if you're > coming in last, you can still work to improve your overall score as > opposed to hindering other players' scores with your actions. This isn't a terrible idea, but it would create additional work for tournament organizers. I don't really see the need. Most players I come across are either good sports about getting ousted or are content to bide their time/play for time if things aren't going well. I suggest again, that if you're frequently coming across players throwing the game to their buddies due to a lost position, the problem is not with the rules but with the maturity of those asshats...er...ahem...players. Matt Morgan

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] So the chance of someone having a Life Boon is below reasonable?

Johannes Walch wrote: > So the chance of someone having a Life Boon is below reasonable? You mean "has a Life Boon and the means and incentive to use it to delay your demise". Sometimes. Depends on the situation, of course.

[ quoted text not captured ] But the chance of you getting to keep a VP you miraculously manage to earn if someone uses a Life Boon is nearly below reasonable. :)

John P. schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Absolutely not. Often the person saving you is willing to give you a VP as long as the table splits up in a way where he wins.

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 00:15:11 -0800 (PST), Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote: > If one decides to go along this road (and I am not saying it would be > a good thing - I am just reasoning out of an hypothesis), one could > introduce "number of turns of survival" as additional tie-breaker > after (or before, or instead) tournament points. It could be a not-too- > artificial way to encourage staying in the game instead of self- > ousting when in a lost position. Good idea! Caveat: you'll probably see players slowly strangle their last opponent rather than finishing them quickly, giving lots of tie-breaker bonus points to both of them in the process... :) -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Other caveats: it has nothing to do with game performance and involves non-game-state bookkeeping (per player, too, thanks to First Trad, Reversal of Fortunes, and don't forget about calculating fractions due to Last Stand or being ousted mid-turn or having time called mid turn.) If you want to include arbitrary non-game-goal-related metrics, a better try would be time elapsed rather than turns. I don't recommend it myself, but at least it's more tenable than number of turns.

[ quoted text not captured ] But you have to recover from a "losing position" and then gain 2VP (cause the person who played the lifeboon gets your first VP) before you see anything. Not the most common situation I've seen resulting from a life boon. So this hypothetical player who can likely oust you very quickly if they so choose (as they can steal pool from you) and will take your first VP or half VP so long as they survive, is going to somehow manage to assist you in recovering enough to oust your prey and grandprey. More likely you are only alive to affect the table order until your "savior" can get to you. Means you will likely not earn a VP, and if you do manage to lunge and get one it goes to your savior. So in reality unless your prey and grandprey are also crippled, the playing of Lifeboon has really just made your "within reason lost position" more lost. IE Less likely to walk away with a VP when its all said and done.