Hello LSJ,
Consider this scenario:
It's midgame, and my only reasonable chance to get a GW is to pass a
vote that my predator can definitely block. Assume the vote will pass
if it reaches referendum. I threaten my predator, "If you block the
vote, I will beat up your vampire and be very vengeful for the rest of
the game."
If the vote passes, my predator will no longer have a reasonable chance
at a game win, but if I beat up his blocking vampire or play
vengefully, he *also* won't have a reasonable chance at a game win. He
chooses to block, presumably hoping that I was bluffing about the
combat or vengefulness.
Once the vote is blocked, I no longer have a reasonable chance at a GW,
but I still have a reasonable chance at more VPs as long as I don't
follow through with my threat. If I beat up my predator's vampire and
play vengefully against him, then I will give up the reasonable chance
at the additional VPs.
Is it legal to follow through with my threat, which was made as my best
attempt towards a game win? If I had to guess, I would say, "No," even
though a lot of people would want to be allowed to be vengeful.
In practice, a player could easily twist definitions of "reasonable" to
justify a wide variety of actions. I'm not asking this question for
judges to enforce a rule. I'm asking this question for the players who
will voluntarily choose to follow the rules once they understand them,
myself included.
Thanks,
Ira
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it legal to follow through with my threat, which was made as my best
> attempt towards a game win? If I had to guess, I would say, "No," even
> though a lot of people would want to be allowed to be vengeful.
No.
Google: revenge "to win" author:LSJ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/29408eed0bc23c1e
Though, it would be legal and "reasonable" to make a deal with your
grandpredator to mutually focus your efforts on ousting your predator,
accomplishing your goal of revenge and glossing your situation with
"legality," after which your grandpredator might allow you, by terms of
the deal, to seek additional VPs. Correct?
(...not that your grandpredator would have to make good on that deal.)
--there's a limited return on legislation in this area.
heslin
matthew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Though, it would be legal and "reasonable" to make a deal with your
> grandpredator to mutually focus your efforts on ousting your predator,
> accomplishing your goal of revenge and glossing your situation with
> "legality," after which your grandpredator might allow you, by terms of
> the deal, to seek additional VPs. Correct?
>
> (...not that your grandpredator would have to make good on that deal.)
The point is that the threat offers no additional legal support for the
position. If the activity is play-to-win by itself, then it is still
play to win after you'd threated to do it.
If it isn't play-to-win by itself, then having threatened to do it
won't help make it play to win.
Ira wrote:
> Consider this scenario:
>
> It's midgame, and my only reasonable chance to get a GW is
> to pass a vote that my predator can definitely block. Assume
> the vote will pass if it reaches referendum. I threaten my
> predator, "If you block the vote, I will beat up your vampire and
> be very vengeful for the rest of the game."
Stop right there. Regardless of what LSJ's answer is, that's just
bad game strategy. I've seen people in the past try this tactic
with the thinking that if they keep at this threat and keep backing
it up that other players will "get the message" and back down
from this player. What instead happens is that this player gets
sick of losing as people choose not to be bullied, and stops
trying this.
You're locking yourself into a threat that you have to back up
even if you can't gain anything. If your plan for "I didn't get what
I want in this negotiation" is "I'm going to wreck my own chances
for victory", then you need to come up with an alternate plan of
negotiation.
When considering "play to win", people often confuse "not likely"
with "not reasonable" or "untenable". I also think too many
players out there forget how long a game is, and forget that a lot
of things can happen over the course of a game, and you don't
know what's in the decks and hands of your opponents. Yeah,
it might not be likely that you win in a given situation, but
you'll probably win a few more games here or there if you stick
it out.
- Ben Peal
Ira wrote:
> Consider this scenario:
>
> It's midgame, and my only reasonable chance to get a GW is
> to pass a vote that my predator can definitely block. Assume
> the vote will pass if it reaches referendum. I threaten my
> predator, "If you block the vote, I will beat up your vampire and
> be very vengeful for the rest of the game."
Stop right there. Regardless of what LSJ's answer is, that's just
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ben Peal wrote:
> Ira wrote:
> > It's midgame, and my only reasonable chance to get a GW is
> > to pass a vote that my predator can definitely block. Assume
> > the vote will pass if it reaches referendum. I threaten my
> > predator, "If you block the vote, I will beat up your vampire and
> > be very vengeful for the rest of the game."
>
> Stop right there. Regardless of what LSJ's answer is, that's just
> bad game strategy.
You write this comment as an absolute, Ben, so I disagree. It's not
*always* bad game strategy. Sometimes such threats (or bluffs, if you
can't follow through with it) can be your best or only hope of getting
what you want.
Of course, a bluff that gets called has it's own costs, but I disgree
that bluffs or threats are always a bad strategy.
> You're locking yourself into a threat that you have to back up
> even if you can't gain anything.
That's not the situation I described. You cannot be "locked into" an
illegal (non-play-to-win) activity.
> When considering "play to win", people often confuse "not likely"
> with "not reasonable" or "untenable". I also think too many
> players out there forget how long a game is, and forget that a lot
> of things can happen over the course of a game, and you don't
> know what's in the decks and hands of your opponents. Yeah,
> it might not be likely that you win in a given situation, but
> you'll probably win a few more games here or there if you stick
> it out.
I completely agree.
Nonetheless, if a player no longer has a reasonable chance at any VPs,
he's free to play as he wishes. In those cases, many players choose to
maximize fun instead of sticking around for the unreasonable chance of
more VPs (the classic Life Boon + Blood Trade combo.)
"Fun" often means vengeance against the opponent who caused the player
to be in his bad situation.
Ira
Ira wrote:
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > Stop right there. Regardless of what LSJ's answer is, that's just
> > bad game strategy.
>
> You write this comment as an absolute, Ben, so I disagree. It's not
> *always* bad game strategy. Sometimes such threats (or bluffs, if you
> can't follow through with it) can be your best or only hope of getting
> what you want.
>
> Of course, a bluff that gets called has it's own costs, but I disgree
> that bluffs or threats are always a bad strategy.
It's not that you're threatening or bluffing. It's _how_ you're
threatening or bluffing that's the issue. Telling your opponent
that you're going to be vengeful for the rest of the game is a
bad threat/bluff, not only because it rarely works, but because
there's probably a better, alternate path. Yeah, such threats
might work on a few people out there, but those people will
learn quickly. Far more often than not, your opponent won't
back down, and you'll grow tired of losing like that.
> > You're locking yourself into a threat that you have to back
> > up even if you can't gain anything.
>
> That's not the situation I described. You cannot be "locked into"
> an illegal (non-play-to-win) activity.
Let's look at the situation you described again:
Your only reasonable chance to win is for the vote you call to
pass.
If this vote passes, your predator will no longer have a
reasonable chance of winning.
You make a threat of ultimate vengeance upon your predator
if he blocks your vote, which would (if followed through upon
and the cards go right) prevent your predator from having a
reasonable chance of winning.
Making the threat of ultimate vengeance is pointless. Your
predator will block the vote because otherwise he or she will
lose if the vote isn't blocked, and your predator will hope that
you can't or don't follow through on the threat of ultimate
vengeance.
If you don't need to make that threat, then don't make that
threat. You're placing an unnecessary restriction upon
yourself.
- Ben
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nonetheless, if a player no longer has a reasonable chance at any VPs,
> he's free to play as he wishes. In those cases, many players choose to
> maximize fun instead of sticking around for the unreasonable chance of
> more VPs (the classic Life Boon + Blood Trade combo.)
>
> "Fun" often means vengeance against the opponent who caused the player
> to be in his bad situation.
>
> Ira
I am sure that i am not the only one that has won a couple of
UNBELIEVABLE games...
due to something unpredictable happening or even shere luck...
i'll describe a recent case, i had 8 pool and just one 1-cap minion
with a blood doll (i was playing an Etienne Fauberge multi-rush deck).
My predator (had 3 minions) bled me and
left me with 4 pool. (none had been ousted yet, though many of us were
low in pool)
Then my grandpredator got extremely lucky and managed to torporize 2 of
my predator's
minions (enkidu based combat deck) during this time i was constantly
drawing 1 pool from the blood doll and hunting. My predator in fear of
being ousted didn't bleed me any more, so i managed to influence
Etienne again and won the table with 3 VPs...
I am sure that such or more extraodinary wins have happened before. And
this is only a
recent "beyond the odds" win i have managed.
I have managed such wins, because i always play to win till the very
end and i don't give up. Trying to get revenge from whoever screwed my
game is not an option for me.
In a few words, VTES is great because you can be terribly loosing and
after 3 secs
magnificently winning :)
If you have the required resources to get revenge, then it is 99%
certain that you have a chance, maybe a slight one, but still one to
gain more VPs. There is no such thing as a reasonable chance in
VTES.... you assume the role of a mighty Methuselah manipulating kine
and kindred to wage your war on your rivals and achieve supremacy...
nothing reasonable about this :)
and of course methuselahs are not motivated by weak emotions like the
need for revenge, when more important things are in stake :)
ok, seriously... people trying to ruin the game of other people just to
get revenge is something that can definetely ruin the whole game and
certainly spoils the fun and produces some unfriendly feelings...
Game wins should be decided based on brain usuage, skill, luck, e.t.c.
and not due to some angry loser ruining the game of another player out
of vengeance...
Getting revenge earns you what ? makes you feel good though you
lost....
(note that the "you" doesnot refer to you (IRA) i am talking about the
people
who do such things quite regularly)
this is a sign of weakness, if you want to prove something, then play
to win even if you feel that one player "ruined" your game for no
obvious gain.
Explain to him that what he did was stupid, because he had no gain and
thet only the other players will now gain from what he did, tell him
that you could be revengeful and e.g. rush him, but you won't do it
because you have nothing to win and you are not that stupid to
copromise your chances by doing something that will earn you nothing.
This is what i do, with minor exceptions. These exceptions refer to
some people with who it is more effective to try intimidation than
reason. When it comes to them i do the following:
I pretend to be angry and threaten that i will ruin their game with the
first chance i get...
i assure you that they think twice about doing such a thing again in
the same game...
Example: during the NoR pre-release tournament, my grandprey (5-player
table) Sudden Reversed my Parthenon during the first turn... I tell
him, looking angry, something like this "why did you do such a thing ?
we are supposed to be allies.... it's the fucking 1st turn of the game
and you play Sudden on me ? Don't you have a prey to attend to ?
After 4-5 turns he tries to play Far Mastery on one of my imbued [the
other players didn't have any imbued out yet, i had as i was playing an
only imbued deck :)],
so i yell at him "what the fuck are you doing ?...." give him a nice
but short speech about how this is his second attempt to ruin my game
and i will fuck up his game with the first chance that i will have...
"wait and see..." i tell him. I am not trying to convince out of
playing the FM, i just want to make him feel bad and think that what he
is doing is STUPID.... he could wait a couple of turns and then steal
an imbued of his prey... not mine...
Anyway, i Direct intervent his sleezy Far Mastery and no big harm
done... Now he knows that i play Direct Interventions (i say to him
that i have enough in my deck, which wasn't entirely a lie... i had
5...) and expects me that i might try to ruin his game to take revenge,
even if i don't do this he is quite certain that i will certainly do so
if he tries another thing like this (harm me early in the game, when
not being my predator or prey or having any other reason to do so...).
He also expects me to "keep" one DI in handy as he has already tried
twice to "harm" me... So, by fear that another attempt against me would
be likely met with a Direct Intervention and a certain nasty "revenge"
from my side, he didn't attempted to harm my game again in the game and
additionaly never got to be my prey or predator as he was ousted
first...
I believe that he did these things, because he over-estimated me or my
deck, while he should be focusing his attention and resources towards
his prey and predator...
He didn't do so and so he was ousted first... and he is not an
inexperienced player... i guess you can say that some people never
learn, make always the same mistakes, etc
sorry for the long posting :) bottom line... PLAY to WIN, don't be a
bitter LOOSER!!!