Play to win - practical?

First off, let me just point out that I always try to play-to-win and I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't in normal game play. That being said, I find the 'play-to-win' rule to be highly problematic and unpractical. This rule has seen much debate and controversy - mostly around the issue of when a player is allowed to self-oust, or how a person is allowed to play once s/he has no chance of getting any VPs. The rule, however, does expand to situations greater than that, and I'll point to it's non-sensical results in some corner-case situations in another post. This post is really focusing on whether or not having such a rule that is enforcable is better than not having the rule, and rather teaching players (or having them learn the hard way) that those sorts of actions are actually worse for them then better. My opinion about people who self-oust, or who do desperate and crazy things based on the "I have no chance of getting any VP's" argument is that the rules shouldn't get involved in such actions - Common sense should. Sure, it happens - but (A) often pointing to the rules and saying it's in the rules to play-to-win and you do, in fact, still have a chance, just makes people more enraged, gets people arguing, and doesn't help the game at all, regardless of whether the rule is enforced or not or (B) it becomes to difficult and time-consuming to enforce such a rule that people just get on with it. Thus the rule is, largely, inpractical. Personally, I've seen many people do really stupid things that actually ruin whatever chance they did have of getting any VP's, just to do something spiteful, or give up on a game. I've been on the brunt end of people like this more than once as well. Yes, it is annoying. However, I find it far more effective to let them play it out, and show them the error of their ways after they can clearly see that their choices didn't help their situation at all. In the case of spite, it certainly isn't going to change the way I play, and it rarely changes the way anyone plays. If people act out of spite to ruin your game, then you are much less likely to change the way you play in order to suit them. Just plain old common sense. So my question to those players is: why waste your time making everybody see you as a vindictive jackass by playing that way, regardless of whether or not the rules allow for such play? What kind of result are you looking for, and do you really think acting that way is going to get you the result you're looking for? I must admit, I've succumbed to acting like a jackass in this way before as well, and it's very easy to be like that if you feel that someone is unnecessarily ruining your game for no good reason. Experience has taught me better though. It only serves to make people like you less, and be less willing to help you in future games (or, in bad enough situations, less likely to even play with you). The same goes for situations where people just 'give up'. It doesn't accomplish anything. Sure, you may find someone who'll take pity on you, or who will play lightly against you in the future to avoid having you throw a temper-tantrum and storm off the table, but you'll do so by alienating most players of the game, and making things much harder for yourself in the future (as people will be far less likely to help you out). For this reason, I think the 'play-to-win' rule should actually be dropped. It serves no purpose that's better than the basic rules and common sense dictates, and, in fact, often just leads to controversy, heated arguments, and very rarely is it actually enforced (or, at least, by my experience. Counter-examples would be great though). I realise making such a bold statement is going to give rise to flamers. I'm not really interested in arguing the point, although I'm more than willing to debate and understand other players opinions on the matter.

On Feb 18, 12:07 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Just plain old common sense. So my > question to those players is: why waste your time making everybody see > you as a vindictive jackass by playing that way, regardless of whether > or not the rules allow for such play? What kind of result are you > looking for, and do you really think acting that way is going to get > you the result you're looking for? When I selfoust, it's usually due to getting screwed over by someone and wanting that someone to know xe can't pull my strings however they wish. Like someone breaking deals, someone crosstable voting down my referendums because they feel like it etc. Or because someone is keeping me in the game just to be a meatwall and insure their victory points, without giving me any realistic chance of winning. There's, of course, a quite fine line between giving me that small hope of my own victory point and denying me it. I'm not saying I'll selfoust every time someone uses me for their own gain, I mean, that's kinda what vtes is all about. And, I threaten to selfoust more times than I actually selfoust. As for the big question, yes I think that people understand that I won't accept them using me too much.

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with henrik above-mantioned. I think the best way when you decide the selfoust to not say anyone on the table, just do. They will be see you are stupid enough to miscalculate yourself and if the luck is turning, maybe your ass is saved. Sometimes the anger wake up our inner beast and the frenzy clouded our minds. This is the part of the game you like it or not.

On Feb 18, 1:25 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 12:07 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > Just plain old common sense. So my > > question to those players is: why waste your time making everybody see > > you as a vindictive jackass by playing that way, regardless of whether > > or not the rules allow for such play? What kind of result are you > > looking for, and do you really think acting that way is going to get > > you the result you're looking for? > > When I selfoust, it's usually due to getting screwed over by someone > and wanting that someone to know xe can't pull my strings however they > wish. > Like someone breaking deals, someone crosstable voting down my > referendums because they feel like it etc. Personally, if someone is being a dick towards me from across the table without any good reason, I don't think being a dick back is going to earn me any favours from the table. The fact is that people are more likely to side with you if you don't lose your cool and be a dick back. That way, either that cross-table player will lose the respect of other players (in which case people will be less likely to help him out in the future or even less likely to play with him) or they will learn that going needlessly cross-table doesn't help their game at all and stop doing it. I'm not convinced that copying their behaviour helps your situation at all. > Or because someone is > keeping me in the game just to be a meatwall and insure their victory > points, without giving me any realistic chance of winning. That's a good counter-point, and one I didn't think of. I think self- ousting in that situation is justified, unless you can think of someway to outsmart the guy who's propping you up as a meatwall. To clarify, I don't say that self-ousting is always a bad thing - I just think sometime people overdo it, and it's very rare that a self-oust is justified and having a rule about it doesn't change the fact, or help the situation - common sense and the basic rules do a better job of it. > As for the big question, yes I think that people understand that I > won't accept them using me too much. Yeah, but if you're in a playgroup where people are propping you up as a meatshield all the time, then I'd hazard to say there is something wrong with your decks. If, however, you're in a playgroup that people act like dicks and like to destroy your game cross-table all the time, I'd either start questioning why I'm playing with them, or I'd start questioning why everyone acts that way towards me specifically, and see if it's justified.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm struggling to understand your post. Could you explain? > Sometimes the anger wake up our inner beast and the frenzy clouded our > minds. > This is the part of the game you like it or not. Oh, I agree with that - as I said, sometimes emotions do cloud our judgment. Experience has certainly made me far more cool under pressure. But the point is, that when you self-oust in those moments, you are not helping your case at all - it just makes you a worse off player - which is not what you want to be. In other words, that's where common sense, the basic rules and experience will come in - the 'play-to-win' tournament rule doesn't help at all. You're far better off apologizing and saying you lost your cool for a moment. I think most, if not all, VTES players have lost their cool at some point. I know I have. This, of course, is so long as you're still sportsmanlike about it (i.e. you don't start swearing at other players etc.). But there are other rules about that kind of behaviour (namely 5.2 in the tournament rules), and you don't need Play-to-Win to enforce that.

You should spend more time figuring out how to win instead of figuring out how to lose. - Ben Peal

On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Personally, if someone is being a dick towards me from across the > table without any good reason, I don't think being a dick back is > going to earn me any favours from the table. The fact is that people > are more likely to side with you if you don't lose your cool and be a > dick back. That way, either that cross-table player will lose the > respect of other players (in which case people will be less likely to > help him out in the future or even less likely to play with him) or > they will learn that going needlessly cross-table doesn't help their > game at all and stop doing it. I'm not convinced that copying their > behaviour helps your situation at all. I'm not saying that being a dick back is the way to go. I'm saying that when someone crosstable is being a dick, I tend to tell them to stop since I can't play the game with that kind of player behaviour. If they don't stop, I try to get them ousted since I can't play with that kind of player behaviour. If they don't get ousted, I selfoust (unless I can take a gamewin and all that, ofc). > That's a good counter-point, and one I didn't think of. I think self- > ousting in that situation is justified, unless you can think of > someway to outsmart the guy who's propping you up as a meatwall. To > clarify, I don't say that self-ousting is always a bad thing - I just > think sometime people overdo it, and it's very rare that a self-oust > is justified and having a rule about it doesn't change the fact, or > help the situation - common sense and the basic rules do a better job > of it. Well, ofc your primary objective when being used as a meatwall is to stop being used (unless it's good for you to be used). Selfousting shouldn't be used except when there's no chance of getting more victory points, as the rules say. And that's rare. > Yeah, but if you're in a playgroup where people are propping you up as > a meatshield all the time, then I'd hazard to say there is something > wrong with your decks. If, however, you're in a playgroup that people > act like dicks and like to destroy your game cross-table all the time, > I'd either start questioning why I'm playing with them, or I'd start > questioning why everyone acts that way towards me specifically, and > see if it's justified. I'm in a playgroup where we try to use each other constantly, and try to squeeze the last drop out of our "allies" each time. And I think it's important that opponents know I won't be pushed around more than to a certain extent.

On Feb 18, 4:23 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > I'm not saying that being a dick back is the way to go. I'm saying > that when someone crosstable is being a dick, I tend to tell them to > stop since I can't play the game with that kind of player behaviour. Agreed. > If they don't stop, I try to get them ousted since I can't play with > that kind of player behaviour. If they don't get ousted, I selfoust > (unless I can take a gamewin and all that, ofc). Although I think we're probably on the same page - I just want to clarify that this is largely dependent on how the rest of the table feels - if others think that the way the other guy/gal is playing is uncalled for, then sure, go ahead and get the player ousted. If the table thinks that you're being overly sensitive, suck it up... and then get your revenge when that player needs your help someday 8D Someone who's always bemoaning that everyone is out to get them, and is constantly going cross-table because of every slight (real or imagined) hardly gets any favours from others in this game. > > > Yeah, but if you're in a playgroup where people are propping you up as > > a meatshield all the time, then I'd hazard to say there is something > > wrong with your decks. If, however, you're in a playgroup that people > > act like dicks and like to destroy your game cross-table all the time, > > I'd either start questioning why I'm playing with them, or I'd start > > questioning why everyone acts that way towards me specifically, and > > see if it's justified. > > I'm in a playgroup where we try to use each other constantly, and try > to squeeze the last drop out of our "allies" each time. And I think > it's important that opponents know I won't be pushed around more than > to a certain extent. True, but there is a significant difference between people trying to convince you that their idea is the right one to take for both of you, and people trying to convince you that their idea is the right one to take otherwise they'll smash your face into the dirt. While the former happens very often, the latter doesn't happen as much - and when it does, you do have the right to point out that killing you is not serving his ends in any way, and proceed with "Chapter 2 - How to deal with a dick player" (as we've mentioned above).

On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > If they don't stop, I try to get them ousted since I can't play with > > that kind of player behaviour. If they don't get ousted, I selfoust > > (unless I can take a gamewin and all that, ofc). > > Although I think we're probably on the same page - I just want to > clarify that this is largely dependent on how the rest of the table > feels - if others think that the way the other guy/gal is playing is > uncalled for, then sure, go ahead and get the player ousted. If the > table thinks that you're being overly sensitive, suck it up... and > then get your revenge when that player needs your help someday 8D Whether screwing is uncalled for or not isn't really relevant. Let's call the players A -> E. I'm A, my prey is B and the rest goes clockwise. Let's say player C keeps messing with me, making it impossible for me to oust my prey (and thus get a victory point), I need to stop C (either by dealing or by ousting). It doesn't matter if C needs to stop me in order to secure xer own gamewin or if it's done because of personal non-game issues. > Someone who's always bemoaning that everyone is out to get them, and > is constantly going cross-table because of every slight (real or > imagined) hardly gets any favours from others in this game. Of course. > > I'm in a playgroup where we try to use each other constantly, and try > > to squeeze the last drop out of our "allies" each time. And I think > > it's important that opponents know I won't be pushed around more than > > to a certain extent. > > True, but there is a significant difference between people trying to > convince you that their idea is the right one to take for both of you, > and people trying to convince you that their idea is the right one to > take otherwise they'll smash your face into the dirt. While the former > happens very often, the latter doesn't happen as much - and when it > does, you do have the right to point out that killing you is not > serving his ends in any way, and proceed with "Chapter 2 - How to deal > with a dick player" (as we've mentioned above). Except when, as in the situation above, killing me actually does serve their end. Anyway, I don't see where this is going right now, and crosstable ousting isn't rare in these parts of the world so if you're in the way of someone and you refuse to deal with them they're not too unlikely to smash your face in the dirt. After all, 2 victory points is all it takes to get a game win and that means you can throw the rest out to the wolves (as long as you don't throw all to the same wolf).

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:d0e51f0c-6a51-4503...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > For this reason, I think the 'play-to-win' rule should actually be > dropped. It serves no purpose that's better than the basic rules and > common sense dictates, and, in fact, often just leads to controversy, > heated arguments, and very rarely is it actually enforced (or, at > least, by my experience. Counter-examples would be great though). I disagree. It has all these problems you cite. And yet, having a PTW rule is still better than not having a PTW rule. The alternative is having absolutely nothing you can cite if one of your opponents absolutely refuses to play to win in a tournament game, start-to-finish. There are people who would do that. In two-player tournaments, that's not a problem because they only hurt their own positions. In multi- player tournaments, the amount of damage they could do could be endless. Believe me, multi-player tournaments need SOME kind of a rule. If you propose a better one, be my guest. But it can't not have one at all. Fred

On Feb 18, 7:06 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > Whether screwing is uncalled for or not isn't really relevant. Let's > call the players A -> E. I'm A, my prey is B and the rest goes > clockwise. > Let's say player C keeps messing with me, making it impossible for me > to oust my prey (and thus get a victory point), I need to stop C > (either by dealing or by ousting). It doesn't matter if C needs to > stop me in order to secure xer own gamewin or if it's done because of > personal non-game issues. Agreed. I think the table would also be in agreement of that situation. We've had similar situations where cross-table voters have decided to vote down everything you call, so you call votes to oust him to get table support on those votes, and give you the chance of getting the rest of your votes right. Nothing wrong with that. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post, so I won't repeat it. The main thing is when you are doing those actions to your own detriment, making it easier for others to oust you (and hence, you lose) that makes most people think you're taking things too far. For example, when you start going after C, knowing that doing so is going to put you in a worse-off position (either short or long-term - depending on how long you last :), and possibly hurt your chances of making allies in future games. I think we both can agree that that course of action is always a poor one to make.

On Feb 18, 7:32 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > The main thing is when you are doing those actions to your own > detriment, making it easier for others to oust you (and hence, you > lose) that makes most people think you're taking things too far. For > example, when you start going after C, knowing that doing so is going > to put you in a worse-off position (either short or long-term - > depending on how long you last :), and possibly hurt your chances of > making allies in future games. I think we both can agree that that > course of action is always a poor one to make. Well.. If it's between ousting C or not getting a single vp, there's not much choice imo.

On Feb 18, 7:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:d0e51f0c-6a51-4503...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] As I mentioned in another post - I think that we should abandon the relevent portion of the Play-to-win rule - namely: "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 rest of the rules cover most of the situations you talk about - but also have the added benefit of not lumping such decisions about self-ousting on the lap of the judge who, really, has little or no way to make such decisions fairly without wasting a huge amount of time. Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that, and I don't think many people do - in fact, there would be no reason for someone to do it, unless they colluded with another player out of game to do so. Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone).

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message > news:ddc44e15-dc82-4e58...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule. I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart, certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable? I've always thought the "motivational magic fairy dust" was pretty much entirely in the PTW rule. Other rules, like sportsmanship, fill other highly important purposes. But little else in the rules addresses what players should be attempting to accomplish in a game - and multiplayer games absolutely need this, IMHO. Without it, how can you build your deck and make tactical decisions with some hope of understanding what your opponents are likely to do if you do 'X'. If what you're proposing is to maintain the concept of the Play to Win rule but remove the section that defines how PTW is defined, that doesn't work either, IMHO. Without that definition, players could make all kinds of absurd arguments about what "playing to win" actually means. > Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which > people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a > space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that, Maybe the reason you've never or met or played someone who did that is that PTW exists. I don't think 99% of the players need to be told, basically, that they must "play to win". I'm sure the vast majority of VtES players do show up at tournaments with the general motivation of winning the tournament themselves. But, for one thing, in the heat of a tournament with emotions flowing - especially since one's opponents have so much arbitrary power over whether one succeeds or not - it's easy to switch gears and start acting on some non-PTW motivation. I'm pretty sure that just the existance of the PTW rule helps keep such things from going over the top ridiculous in some cases, even if players can still get away with lots of minor mischief when they're determined. And secondly, the existance of the PTW rule prevents anyone from ever _planning_ to show up at VtES tournament with the intent of spreading mischief instead of winning. If it didn't exist, you _might_ meet a player who "did that". As it is, such people know they'd just eventually get confronted and booted from the event. So why bother? > Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is > already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've > noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the > part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone). I'm not sure where you think it's covered. Please cite. And even if it is, it's not enough by itself. Fred

On Feb 18, 9:04 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message > > > > As I mentioned in another post - I think that we should abandon the > > relevent portion of the Play-to-win rule - namely: > > > "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 rest of the rules cover most of the situations you talk about - > > Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please > point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to > finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos > that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a > large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that > demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule. > > I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart, > certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable? Sure. Section 5.1. Cheating. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities: - Collusion to alter the results of a game If you are playing simply to get your buddies into the final table - that seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of collusion. It's also in the V:EKN Judge's Guide under 164 - Cheating - Collusion Definition: Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the results of a game. Examples: A player agrees to let his friend oust him without offering resistance in order to improve the friend's standings in the event. With two players remaining, each agree to flip a coin to determine which player will concede the game. > I've always thought the "motivational magic fairy dust" was pretty much > entirely in the PTW rule. Other rules, like sportsmanship, fill other highly > important purposes. But little else in the rules addresses what players > should be attempting to accomplish in a game - and multiplayer games > absolutely need this, IMHO. Without it, how can you build your deck and > make tactical decisions with some hope of understanding what your opponents > are likely to do if you do 'X'. I think the motivation to win by following the rules is generally good enough. There's not many people who go into tournaments with the intention to lose - and usually, those people don't last long in the VTES scene. Either way, it's difficult to do without infringing on another rule. > If what you're proposing is to maintain the concept of the Play to Win > rule but remove the section that defines how PTW is defined, that doesn't > work either, IMHO. Without that definition, players could make all kinds > of absurd arguments about what "playing to win" actually means. No - "playing towards goals that are in conflict with the goals of the game" and it's relevent examples are more than enough to get you were you are going. You could even add a further example of 'playing solely to earn other players victory points' to help shut down your previous example - although I believe colluding is strong enough (or should be strong enough) to stop people from doing that. > > Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which > > people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a > > space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that, > > Maybe the reason you've never or met or played someone who did that is > that PTW exists. Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as possible. The fact that you should try and win is a given in all games. You don't see chess championships with rules like 'you must attempt to checkmate in as few moves as possible'. Or championship bridge games where both members of the partnership must always try to get the highest score possible when it is their turn. Or poker games that tell you that you must try maximise your pot and earnings on each hand. Why should VTES need such an arbitrary rule to force players to try and maximise their 'winnings' in VPs or GWs constantly? In all of those games, it hasn't lead to the kinds of problems you're talking about (at least in ways that the other rules don't cover - I know colluding is a big issue in Poker). > I don't think 99% of the players need to be told, > basically, that they must "play to win". I'm sure the vast majority of > VtES players do show up at tournaments with the general motivation of > winning the tournament themselves. > But, for one thing, in the heat of a > tournament with emotions flowing - especially since one's opponents have > so much arbitrary power over whether one succeeds or not - it's easy to > switch gears and start acting on some non-PTW motivation. I'm pretty > sure that just the existance of the PTW rule helps keep such things from > going over the top ridiculous in some cases, even if players can still > get away with lots of minor mischief when they're determined. The same can be said for other multi-player card games - even Rummy. It's easy for one player to simply play to make another's game really difficult, by dumping cards that you might need to win the game, but is useless to one of your opponents. Still, I highly doubt that the championship rummy held at the old age home up the road from me will have a rule like "you must always get the largest run possible" or "you must always try to declare rummy as far as reasonably possible" or some other such nonsense. The point is that the 'play-to-win' tournament rule doesn't really help in those situations - at least, as I said, not in ways that other rules don't already cover. Firstly, because it usually involves one person arbitrarily or purposefully ruining another persons game for no reason (which means perhaps the other person has broken a rule in the first place) - which seems to go against the examples given of players attacking other players for VEKN ratings or tournament standings. "I don't like your face" seems to be another bad reason to attack other players. I'd be fine with expanding that list of examples to include "needlessly attacking certain players without undue cause or provocation", far more than I'd be happier with holding a double standard. > And > secondly, the existance of the PTW rule prevents anyone from ever > _planning_ to show up at VtES tournament with the intent of spreading > mischief instead of winning. If it didn't exist, you _might_ meet a > player who "did that". As it is, such people know they'd just > eventually get confronted and booted from the event. So why bother? While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least given the amount of debate going on here) than I'd ever imagine a person coming to a tournament and doing absolutely nothing - which, atm is the only negative scenario I can see possibly arising from dumping that section. Although, to be honest - I think the rules even cover that scenario - at least in part (although I might be taking it out of context). My reference being in the VEKN Judges Guide: 152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major Definition: Major Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as behavior that is disruptive to a player or players at the tournament, but does not cause delays or include any form of physical contact or significant emotional distress. Example: (C) A player refuses to play a game. > > Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is > > already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've > > noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the > > part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone). > > I'm not sure where you think it's covered. Please cite. It's in the same section - 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.). Attacking certain players cross-table on the basis of "I feel like it" seems to be unsportsmanlike to me, if these examples are to be followed. > And even if it is, it's not enough by itself. Sure. I agree. I think that the rest of the rules covers the other scenarios - at least, all the ones I can think of. That section of play to win does not seem to be helpful in any way whatsoever. I hope I didn't leave anything in mid-sentence. I've written this response in 3 different sittings.

The Name Forgotten wrote: > While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win > tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least What problems are created by the clarification of the aspect of sportsmanship that is play to win?

On Feb 18, 2:51 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Feb 18, 9:04 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please > > point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to > > finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos > > that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a > > large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that > > demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule. > > > I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart, > > certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable? > > Sure. Section 5.1. Cheating. > Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional > activities: > - Collusion to alter the results of a game > > If you are playing simply to get your buddies into the final table - > that seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of collusion. It's only collusion if all parties agree to it. If I show up and start playing to make my buddies win - even when they are loudly asking me to stop, then I'm just playing badly, not colluding with them. > It's also in the V:EKN Judge's Guide under 164 - Cheating - Collusion > > Definition: > > Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish > the results of a game. > Notice the requirement of multiple players agreeing; this does not cover one player acting independently. Another scenario that has happened before: Three players left, A->B- >C. Player B goes backwards and hurts Player A. A gets so pissed at this that he self-ousts, well before the game is 'clearly lost', just to spite B by giving C the VP. But not collusional. > Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to > win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as > possible. Where, exactly, do the rules say this? (Aside from the "play to win" section, which you are arguing we can do without.) The rulebook says "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points". Note this is not the same thing as "the most victory points that you possibly can". Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. -John Flournoy

On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go > for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only > if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are > under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0 game wins or 1 game win. Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3 prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0 win over a 3-2 win. But if you don't *know* you will get a game win, it is perfectly acceptable to settle for a plan that will get you a 3-2 win.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go >> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only >> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are >> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. > > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0 > game wins or 1 game win. No. If you are getting the GW, and have the choice of getting it with 2VPs or with 5VPs, you are under no compulsion to go for the 5VP GW. Play to win compels you to win. How you win is up to you. Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many VPs as you (reasonably) can. > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp Correct. > Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3 > prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to > oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0 > win over a 3-2 win. No. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing. > But if you don't *know* you will get a game win, it is perfectly > acceptable to settle for a plan that will get you a 3-2 win. That's true.

On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go > > for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only > > if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are > > under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. > > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0 > game wins or 1 game win. Regardless of what you think, this is not what the rules (both the game rules and the tournament rules) say. If you disagree, show me where they say otherwise. > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp Correct. > Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3 > prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to > oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0 > win over a 3-2 win. This is simply not accurate by the tournament rules or the rulebook rules. Rulebook: winning 3-2 is "the most victory points", so you have fulfilled the stated Object of the Game. Tournament rules: "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." Notice that it does not say "and you must get as many as possible once you have a game win." > But if you don't *know* you will get a game win, it is perfectly > acceptable to settle for a plan that will get you a 3-2 win. It is also acceptable if you do know you will get a game win, for both the default rules and the tournament rules. Again, if you think I am mistating the rules on this, please cite the rules I have overlooked, instead of saying what you simply think they are without supporting evidence. -John Flournoy

On Feb 19, 12:15 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 2:51 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 9:04 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please > > > point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to > > > finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos > > > that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a > > > large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that > > > demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule. > > > > I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart, > > > certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable? > > > Sure. Section 5.1. Cheating. > > Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional > > activities: > > - Collusion to alter the results of a game > > > If you are playing simply to get your buddies into the final table - > > that seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of collusion. > > It's only collusion if all parties agree to it. If I show up and start > playing to make my buddies win - even when they are loudly asking me > to stop, then I'm just playing badly, not colluding with them. Yes, but, as I've responded before, this could also be part of the collusion - in fact, there would be no way to tell other than by the way you are playing - which is exactly in the same manner as someone who is colluding. It's too close to distinguish, and any judge would have to point that out, at the very least, and enforce the ruling as if it was a collusion at worst. > > > It's also in the V:EKN Judge's Guide under 164 - Cheating - Collusion > > > Definition: > > > Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish > > the results of a game. > > Notice the requirement of multiple players agreeing; this does not > cover one player acting independently. However, the manifestation of this in play is identical - there would be no reasonable way to tell them apart. At the very least it would warrant a warning from the judge that continuing to help player B would be seen as a act of collusion. > Another scenario that has happened before: Three players left, A->B->C. Player B goes backwards and hurts Player A. A gets so pissed at > > this that he self-ousts, well before the game is 'clearly lost', just > to spite B by giving C the VP. But not collusional. Yes - as I said, such a scenario is possible - but where do you draw the line at 'clearly lost' - can A not make a case that with B going backwards, he stands no chance of getting a VP, and thus is free to do as he pleases? This is where the whole issue becomes problematic. Trying to point to the rules and say that he must play to maximise VP's is only likely to enrage him further, by making him more defensive of his position, start looking for excuses to make his actions look legit, and slow down play. I'd rather let the idiot self- oust, and ask him (after he's calmed down) how self-ousting helped his situation at all. Or, more likely, I'll try to explain to him that by self-ousting, all he is doing is succumbing to B's desires - i.e. B obviously wants him to get enraged, blow a fuse, and feel like he has no chance of getting anywhere - self-ousting proves nothing and certainly accomplishes nothing good - even player C who benefits in this transaction will likely lose respect for you. Very few people enjoy defeating a defenseless (or harmless) opponent. > > Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to > > win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as > > possible. > > Where, exactly, do the rules say this? (Aside from the "play to win" > section, which you are arguing we can do without.) That's exactly what I mean by my statement - I've never used that rule, or ever felt the need to. I find it difficult to place myself in a position where I could actually see myself saying to a player - you must play on and try to oust your prey because the rules say you must. > > Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go > for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only > if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are > under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. > Agreed. I never contended this point.

[ quoted text not captured ] As I said - it creates an overly-vague standard of reason with which to measure a rule against. In fact, the sheer number of debates where people have argued that they were justified to self-oust, and where others claim they were not, based on this rule (from both sides) shows that this ruling is prima facie problematic. Getting judges involved in determining one way or the other seems far too messy for my liking, and, as a judge, I'd know I'd want to stay clear from such an argument and just let things go, giving the benefit of the doubt to the highly emotional self-ouster. It just isn't a practical rule, and it's damn near impossible to rule and enforce. In the few cases where the player in the situation cannot be convinced to at least give it a go - without resorting to 'you must' rules and using plain common sense - it's highly likely that that player is probably too belligerent to play - in which case he's probably violated some sportsmanship rule.

LSJ wrote: > jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: >> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have >> a choice between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp > > Correct. Every time I see this, and I think about how it makes last-second spite self-ousting in the finals illegal, it brings a tear of joy to my eye. At least something is going right. It's too bad that there are so many players in this (and that other) thread that believe VTES and the play-to-win rule is about legislating their ability to self-oust instead of enjoying the good fight and going for the win no matter what their condition. 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/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:ad0c7d33-21b4-4f67...@b8g2000pre.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] OK. I replied to the concept of the Collusion clause of the sportsmanship rule as covering the same ground as PTW elsewhere. I hadn't seen the "Examples" section of the Judge's Guide so I didn't know what it meant. If that's what that clause mean, then my reaction is, why don't we just get rid of the "Collusion" reference in 5.1 because that reference is a subset of 4.8. You can't engage in that kind of collusion without violating PTW anyway so it doesn't need to exist (unless it encompasses other bad behaviors somehow not covered by PTW). On the other hand, PTW clearly covers bad behaviors not proscribed by 4.8, as both John Flournoy's and my response to your response to LSJ point out. Players don't need to collude to lay down for a friend in a tournament. > > I've always thought the "motivational magic fairy dust" was pretty much > > entirely in the PTW rule. Other rules, like sportsmanship, fill other highly > > important purposes. But little else in the rules addresses what players > > should be attempting to accomplish in a game - and multiplayer games > > absolutely need this, IMHO. Without it, how can you build your deck and > > make tactical decisions with some hope of understanding what your opponents > > are likely to do if you do 'X'. > > I think the motivation to win by following the rules is generally good > enough. Would you please stop and identify what "rules" you're talking about? Tournament rule 4.8 is the rule that fixes this. > There's not many people who go into tournaments with the > intention to lose (Responded to elsewhere in my previous post.) > > If what you're proposing is to maintain the concept of the Play to Win > > rule but remove the section that defines how PTW is defined, that doesn't > > work either, IMHO. Without that definition, players could make all kinds > > of absurd arguments about what "playing to win" actually means. > > No - "playing towards goals that are in conflict with the goals of the > game" and it's relevent examples are more than enough to get you were > you are going. No, they don't. Examples are just examples. They do not define. Without definition, the rule becomes meaningless as the "goals of the game" are not obvious from the rulebook itself. > You could even add a further example of 'playing solely > to earn other players victory points' to help shut down your previous > example - although I believe colluding is strong enough (or should be > strong enough) to stop people from doing that. Examples are just examples. They are helpful to understanding definitions but by themselves, they do not define. They can't. (Hint: if they could, the $100,000 Pyramid would have made a lousy game show!) > > > Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which > > > people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a > > > space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that, > > > > Maybe the reason you've never or met or played someone who did that is > > that PTW exists. > > Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to > win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as > possible. This isn't proof. In tournaments, PTW exists. Outside of tournaments, players have control over who they gather and play with and this is sufficient control. And, yes, I have met players who don't play to win by the rulebook rules in pickup games. Others have told me stories of similar incidents. The classic one is the guy who has a Malkavian deck and thinks it's cute to roleplay "Malkavian" and do basically random things. "HEY! We're just CRAAAaaaaaaaZZZZZYYY!!!" > > I don't think 99% of the players need to be told, > > basically, that they must "play to win". I'm sure the vast majority of > > VtES players do show up at tournaments with the general motivation of > > winning the tournament themselves. But, for one thing, in the heat of a > > tournament with emotions flowing - especially since one's opponents have > > so much arbitrary power over whether one succeeds or not - it's easy to > > switch gears and start acting on some non-PTW motivation. I'm pretty > > sure that just the existance of the PTW rule helps keep such things from > > going over the top ridiculous in some cases, even if players can still > > get away with lots of minor mischief when they're determined. > > The same can be said for other multi-player card games - even Rummy. > It's easy for one player to simply play to make another's game really > difficult, by dumping cards that you might need to win the game, but > is useless to one of your opponents. Still, I highly doubt that the > championship rummy held at the old age home up the road from me will > have a rule like "you must always get the largest run possible" or > "you must always try to declare rummy as far as reasonably possible" > or some other such nonsense. It's not the same game. It doesn't have the same dynamics. In VtES, opponents have a great deal of power over whether you'll be successful or not and often how they wield that power may not appear to them to have much impact on their own ability to win. I may have a Prince whose two votes will resolve a political action in a way that makes an enormous difference to my grandpredator and grandprey in a 5-player game but it doesn't make any difference to me at all (as far as I can tell with the information I have at hand at that moment). This is not necessarily true of other multiplayer games and 52-card Hoyle deck card games are usually good examples of that. People don't ally or gang up much in rummy and there's a lot of good reasons for that. It's not worth trying to make this analogy and prove anything by it, trust me. > The point is that the 'play-to-win' tournament rule doesn't really > help in those situations - at least, as I said, not in ways that other > rules don't already cover. Firstly, because it usually involves one > person arbitrarily or purposefully ruining another persons game for no > reason (which means perhaps the other person has broken a rule in the > first place) - which seems to go against the examples given of players > attacking other players for VEKN ratings or tournament standings. "I > don't like your face" seems to be another bad reason to attack other > players. I'd be fine with expanding that list of examples to include > "needlessly attacking certain players without undue cause or > provocation", far more than I'd be happier with holding a double > standard. How would expanding the list of examples improve any real problem with the Play To Win rule? I don't see the point. PTW addresses the definition of bad behavior in terms of playing to the wrong motivation perfectly - we don't need no stinkin' "list of examples" when it comes right down to it. The only relevant example is playing in pursuit of any motivation that conflicts with getting a game win or, failing that, maximizing your victory points. Perfect. It needs NO examples and that's its beauty! Now, the fact that it can be hard to tell when a player is actually violating it can be a real problem with enforcing the rule. But your "list of examples" addresses this weakness not one bit. If I'm not playing to win because I don't like your face, how is having this cited in the examples make it any easier for a judge to tell when I'm doing it? It doesn't matter why I'm doing it - only THAT I'm doing it. > > And > > secondly, the existance of the PTW rule prevents anyone from ever > > _planning_ to show up at VtES tournament with the intent of spreading > > mischief instead of winning. If it didn't exist, you _might_ meet a > > player who "did that". As it is, such people know they'd just > > eventually get confronted and booted from the event. So why bother? > > While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win > tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least > given the amount of debate going on here) than I'd ever imagine a > person coming to a tournament and doing absolutely nothing - I don't see Play-To-Win as actually causing any problems. If everyone follows the spirit of PTW, there are no problems. It's only when someone doesn't do that when problems arise. The way I see it, those problems are a matter of defining when someone crosses the line and deciding what to do about it if they do. PTW is very vague on how to navigate the grey areas. But the problems, IMHO, are far worse if you simply ignore them so this is certainly *NOT* what I'd want to do instead. Again, if you have a better way to solve problems caused by players playing to other motivations besides winning, we're all ears. But I haven't heard you say anything that addresses the grey-ness issue. Widening the list of examples won't fix that. ... > My reference being in the VEKN Judges Guide: One thing I need to point out to you, the VEKN Judges Guide is not the actual rules. While a definite resource for judges, you don't get your rules out of a judge's guide. It's not the place for formal rules to exist. > 152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major > > Definition: > > Major Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as behavior that is > disruptive to a player or players at the tournament, but does not > cause delays or include any form of physical contact or significant > emotional distress. > > Example: > > (C) A player refuses to play a game. It's not the same thing. Players may cause chaos in games without physical contact or (directly causing) significant emotional distress. It wasn't the purpose of that rule and that rule doesn't cover the problem. > > > Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is > > > already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've > > > noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the > > > part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone). > > > > I'm not sure where you think it's covered. Please cite. > > It's in the same section - > > 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.). > > Attacking certain players cross-table on the basis of "I feel like it" > seems to be unsportsmanlike to me, if these examples are to be > followed. Um, you're quoting directly from the guide to judging the PTW rule. I don't understand your point, here. > > And even if it is, it's not enough by itself. > > Sure. I agree. I think that the rest of the rules covers the other > scenarios - at least, all the ones I can think of. I don't believe you've shown that. PTW is the rule that covers the problems with players not playing to win. Fred

The Name Forgotten wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The Name Forgotten wrote: >>> While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win >>> tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least >> What problems are created by the clarification of the aspect of sportsmanship >> that is play to win? > > As I said - it creates an overly-vague standard of reason with which > to measure a rule against. A clarification removes vagueness. It adds no vagueness. > In fact, the sheer number of debates where > people have argued that they were justified to self-oust, and where > others claim they were not, based on this rule (from both sides) shows > that this ruling is prima facie problematic. The "rule" exists inherently in sportsmanship. If you have that, you'll have just as many arguments without the clarification, and probably more. Indeed, that's why the (redundant) clarification was added to the VEKN rules. > Getting judges involved > in determining one way or the other seems far too messy for my liking, > and, as a judge, I'd know I'd want to stay clear from such an argument > and just let things go, giving the benefit of the doubt to the highly > emotional self-ouster. > > It just isn't a practical rule, and it's damn near impossible to rule > and enforce. In the few cases where the player in the situation cannot > be convinced to at least give it a go - without resorting to 'you > must' rules and using plain common sense - it's highly likely that > that player is probably too belligerent to play - in which case he's > probably violated some sportsmanship rule. Indeed.

John Flournoy wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting > > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0 > > game wins or 1 game win. > > Regardless of what you think, this is not what the rules (both the > game rules and the tournament rules) say. If you disagree, show me > where they say otherwise. Well, LSJ has already told me I'm wrong. But if you want to know how I reached this conclusion, I will happily explain my logic below. I don't think the language of the rules is as clear as you suggest. > > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice > > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp > > Correct. > > > Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3 > > prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to > > oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0 > > win over a 3-2 win. > > This is simply not accurate by the tournament rules or the rulebook > rules. > > Rulebook: winning 3-2 is "the most victory points", so you have > fulfilled the stated Object of the Game. And yet, the "stated object of the game" is achieved, in a 5-player game, when the score is 3-0. And yet the game does not end at that point. It continues. This implies that there must be a secondary goal. And there is, per the tournament rules, and per the intuitive understanding of virtually all players. Even when you know you cannot earn a game win, one is expected to fight for as many victory points as you can. You seem to think it is self evident that this secondary goal applies only to the players who have already lost, and not to the player who has "already" won. I can only answer that this was not self evident to me. > Tournament rules: "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." > Notice that it does not say "and you must get as many as possible once > you have a game win." No. But once I have a game win, it is not reasonably possible for me to get another one in the same game. It is certainly not reasonably possible for me to "play to get a game win", in any meaningful sense, when I already have 3 victory points in a 5-player game. Since it is not reasonably possible for me to play for a second game win, I must play for as many victory points as I can. At least, that's how I understood that rule when I read it.

LSJ wrote: > jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go > >> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only > >> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are > >> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. > > > > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting > > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0 > > game wins or 1 game win. > > No. If you are getting the GW, and have the choice of getting it with 2VPs or > with 5VPs, you are under no compulsion to go for the 5VP GW. > > Play to win compels you to win. How you win is up to you. I understood that much. What I did not realize was that this would still apply in situations where it was no longer possible for me to "play to win" because I had, for all practical purposes, already achieved that goal. > Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many > VPs as you (reasonably) can. > > > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice > > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp > > Correct. > > > Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3 > > prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to > > oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0 > > win over a 3-2 win. > > No. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing. Okay. Let me run with that. It is the 3rd round of a 3-round tournament. I have 10 victory points and 2 game wins from the first 2 rounds, so I know I am guaranteed to get in the finals. 3rd round is a 5-player table. I quickly oust my prey, grand-prey and grand-grand prey. Only my original predator remains. I know he earned one game win earlier in the tournament, so he has a chance of getting into the finals. But I can also see his deck would be helpless against mine if we faced each other in the finals. So I just let him oust me. As a result, he ends with 1 Game Win and 6 victory points, thereby bumping out of the finals a player who scored 1 Game win and 5.5 victory points. Legal?

On Feb 18, 11:12 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > John Flournoy wrote: > > Rulebook: winning 3-2 is "the most victory points", so you have > > fulfilled the stated Object of the Game. > > And yet, the "stated object of the game" is achieved, in a 5-player > game, when the score is 3-0. And yet the game does not end at that > point. It continues. This implies that there must be a secondary > goal. > > And there is, per the tournament rules, and per the intuitive > understanding of virtually all players. Even when you know you cannot > earn a game win, one is expected to fight for as many victory points > as you can. > > You seem to think it is self evident that this secondary goal applies > only to the players who have already lost, and not to the player who > has "already" won. I can only answer that this was not self evident > to me. Fair enough. I'll note that in casual games (at least in the ones I regularly play in) the game does _not_ always continue after someone has gotten 3VP - often times if someone has insured a game win, we'll stop and see if anyone wants to play out the rest of it, or start a new game instead. More often than not, we opt to start a new game (in part to let the ousted people have something to do.) In a tournament setting, there's obvious value in playing it out (because the VPs of a non-game-winner still matter for the overall multi-round results.) -John Flournoy

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> You are free to win in the manner of your choosing. > > Okay. Let me run with that. > > It is the 3rd round of a 3-round tournament. I have 10 victory points > and 2 game wins from the first 2 rounds, so I know I am guaranteed to > get in the finals. > > 3rd round is a 5-player table. I quickly oust my prey, grand-prey and > grand-grand prey. Only my original predator remains. > > I know he earned one game win earlier in the tournament, so he has a > chance of getting into the finals. But I can also see his deck would > be helpless against mine if we faced each other in the finals. A lot of that set-up says nothing about game state, so is not germane to the question that follows. I'll trim it to the part that matters to the question: "I oust three preys in succession, leaving with 3VP." > So I just let him oust me. As a result, he ends with 1 Game Win and 6 > victory points, thereby bumping out of the finals a player who scored > 1 Game win and 5.5 victory points. > Legal? Yes. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.

On 19 Fev, 11:10, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > Yes. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - LSJ: Do Table Points and Victory Points matter? So, if John has 3 VP's and there is only Sylvia left to oust and he lets Sylvia oust him. Legal? I ask this to get a explination why TP's and VP's don't matter. Like this John might not go to the Final, or win it. So, Play to Win only apply to Table Win? This is very important. I'm not going to the discussion about how bad the rule is. I prefer to say that this level of abstraction and subjectivity should be more practical and detailed. Maybe the rule needs revision. I have no doubt it came up with the best intensions, but it brought more problems then solutions. Cheers, Tiago

[ quoted text not captured ] To deciding who goes to the final? Yes. To deciding how the player who already has a GW is restricted (or not) by PTW? No. > > So, if John has 3 VP's and there is only Sylvia left to oust and he > lets Sylvia oust him. Legal? That's the example given above. > I ask this to get a explination why TP's and VP's don't matter. > Like this John might not go to the Final, or win it. Because PTW means "play to win (the game)". > So, Play to Win only apply to Table Win? Game win. Yes. > I'm not going to the discussion about how bad the rule is. I prefer to > say that this level of abstraction and subjectivity should be more > practical and detailed. Maybe the rule needs revision. The details are already given in the rule. > I have no doubt it came up with the best intensions, but it brought > more problems then solutions. Saying so without describing the perceived problem doesn't help much.

On 19 Fev, 11:10, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "I oust three preys in succession, leaving with 3VP." > > > So I just let him oust me. As a result, he ends with 1 Game Win and 6 > > victory points, thereby bumping out of the finals a player who scored > > 1 Game win and 5.5 victory points. > > Legal? > > Yes. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - But in this case the is loosing in the manner of his choosing. Is there something I'm missing in this example?

[ quoted text not captured ] Getting the GW is not losing. Q: I have 3 VPs. Can I let the final other remaining player oust me? A: Yes. Since doing so is winning (getting the game win with 3VPs to 2VPs. You may be missing the twist in the set-up that the game win "he ends (the preliminary rounds of the tournament) with" came from an earlier round. All "he" got from this round (the game you won) is 2 VPs. But that 2 VPs is enough to put him over the other player (not sharing the final table with "you" and "he") who ended the preliminary rounds with 5.5 VPs.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Saying so without describing the perceived problem doesn't help much.- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - I'm sorry LSJ, my english is awfull while I'm doing this at work. So my questions were not clear. My bad, sorry. PTW only applies to the specific table where the situation insues? Can a player lose VPs / help someone else win VPs, thinking on the other tables results, even if he already has table win on this table? Or putting it in another way (in hope of being more clear): 1. Trying to get Table win, if possible, is obligatory at all times. Right? 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table? This will clear things, I hope. Sorry for being a pain in the but. Tiago

Brum wrote: > On 20 Fev, 12:14, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> So, if John has 3 VP's and there is only Sylvia left to oust and he >> > > lets Sylvia oust him. Legal? >> >> That's the example given above. >>> I ask this to get a explination why TP's and VP's don't matter. >>> Like this John might not go to the Final, or win it. >> Because PTW means "play to win (the game)". >> >>> So, Play to Win only apply to Table Win? >> Game win. Yes. > > I'm sorry LSJ, my english is awfull while I'm doing this at work. > > So my questions were not clear. My bad, sorry. > > PTW only applies to the specific table where the situation insues? Yes. PTW means "play to win the game at hand", with particulars as describe in the VEKN rules: get the GW if reasonably possible. If getting the GW is not reasonably possible, get as many VPs as reasonably possible. > Can a player lose VPs / help someone else win VPs, thinking on the > other tables results, even if he already has table win on this table? Yes, that's the example given above. To be clear: A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies the play to win rule. > Or putting it in another way (in hope of being more clear): > > 1. Trying to get Table win, if possible, is obligatory at all times. > Right? When the player has a reasonable chance at winning, yeah. A player in a lost position is not restricted to make only activities that lead to him or her winning, since there are no such activities, by definition. > 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to > give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table? Yes. Any decision at that point would be based on factors external to that table, since the question of "do I win this table" is already answered "yes". A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies the play to win rule.

[ quoted text not captured ] > the play to win rule.- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - Thank you for putting up with me. This simplifies things allot, for us here. Until reaching Table Win, a player must try to get as many VP's as possible. After reaching that Table Win, he can do whatever he likes, as long as he doesn't break any other rule. :) Thanks, Tiago

On Feb 20, 2:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to > > give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table? > > Yes. Any decision at that point would be based on factors external to that > table, since the question of "do I win this table" is already answered "yes". > > A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part > of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies > the play to win rule. First of, is there any real difference here if said player has taken as many victory points as possible? Or would such a player be allowed to use any factors to make decisions about how xe played? And a situation: Player A and B are the only two left on the table. Player A has 3 victory points (and thus a game win). Here, it's already been stated that A can throw the remaining victory points to B. Let's say that A and B are friends, would it still be legal to throw B the two victory points or would that be considered collusion/ unsportsmanlike/cheating in general? Is there any general way to draw the line in those cases, or are they purely up to the judges discretion? Another situation: Four players left on the table, and Player A is about to get ousted by D (very obvious, and B or C can't do anything about it). Since A can't reasonably get any more victory points, would xe be allowed to lunge at xer (or is that xis?) predator in order to give C a bigger chance in the tournament (or even an obviously huge chance of ousting both D and A in a row)? It is clear that attacking D does not change the situation for A (other than getting ousted by a different person). And would this be considered cheating in any way if A anc C were friends? In both examples, there is nothing that suggests that the friends had been deciding to act in that way beforehand. We got into a discussion last night about collusion and similar ways of cheating, and couldn't really decide on how hard a judge should look at stuff like this. In the end I suppose it might just be judgement calls , but I'd love some answers from LSJ (and other judges as well) in order to get some more perspective. Somewhat old thread, but since the issue here is the same as my question I figured I'd put it in here. If this is better or worse for newsreader people (or google people), please tell me of a better way of handling it next time.

henrik wrote: > On Feb 20, 2:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to >>> give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table? >> Yes. Any decision at that point would be based on factors external to that >> table, since the question of "do I win this table" is already answered "yes". >> >> A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part >> of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies >> the play to win rule. > > First of, is there any real difference here if said player has taken > as many victory points as possible? Or would such a player be allowed > to use any factors to make decisions about how xe played? No. Yes. > And a situation: > Player A and B are the only two left on the table. > Player A has 3 victory points (and thus a game win). > > Here, it's already been stated that A can throw the remaining victory > points to B. Yes: A, having won, is free to win in any manner xe chooses. Any activity or inactivity that leads to winning is playing to win. > Let's say that A and B are friends, would it still be legal to throw B > the two victory points or would that be considered collusion/ > unsportsmanlike/cheating in general? Legal, as per above. > Is there any general way to draw the line in those cases, or are they > purely up to the judges discretion? Moot. > Another situation: > Four players left on the table, and Player A is about to get ousted by > D (very obvious, and B or C can't do anything about it). > Since A can't reasonably get any more victory points, would xe be > allowed to lunge at xer (or is that xis?) predator in order to give C > a bigger chance in the tournament (or even an obviously huge chance of > ousting both D and A in a row)? Yes, assuming the judge agrees with the premise that A is in a lost position. > It is clear that attacking D does not change the situation for A > (other than getting ousted by a different person). > > And would this be considered cheating in any way if A anc C were > friends? Moot, since no other activity or inactivity produces a reasonable chance at more GWs or more VPs for A.

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with your understanding of play to win jay. However I think it could be to difficult to determine if a given play will result in more victory points for a given player. With that in mind I don't think it can be ruled that a player is not playing to win unless they self oust in a game. I would say the play to win rule should be updated to clearly say that self ousts are not allowed. I was in a situation where this made a big difference in the game. I needed a table win with 5 vp to qualify for nationals. I had already ousted my pray and was well on my way to take out my second one, but my grand pyray was at one pool and was likely going to die on his upkeep unless I did something to stop it which I could with a resque. Instead he ousts himself. This In the end kept me from ousting my second pray on my next turn, 12 pool, 2 vp, and a game win, not to mention, possbly a qualifying spot. Now I didn't make a big deal out of it. The player was and still is my friend, and no one else thouht I could get my pray that turn amyway. It was just quite anoying to have come away with only 1 vp as a result of someone self ousting. If for this resion alone I believe it should be made clear self ousting is never playing to win and as such is aginst the rules. And for those of you that don't think it's posable to get a half vp from a recked position, I would like to add this. In my previous game I was able to stay in the game till the last three minutes of the game with 4 pool and almost oust my pray by making deals with the rest of the table. Hade I just made one more deal I found out after the game I could have got that oust with some help. The point being you never know what will happen in the game and you may get that next turn which will make all the difference. Aaron Miller Prince W. Lafayette IN

On Feb 18, 11:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go > >> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only > >> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are > >> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further. > > > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting > > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0 > > game wins or 1 game win. > > No. If you are getting the GW, and have the choice of getting it with 2VPs or > with 5VPs, you are under no compulsion to go for the 5VP GW. > > Play to win compels you to win. How you win is up to you. > > Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many > VPs as you (reasonably) can. > > > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice > > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp > > Correct. Doesn't this disallow a player from self-ousting? In a game; I know I cannot get a GW. I know I cannot get a VP, however I know that if the game times out, I can get 0.5 VP. This is a truth that exists until I actually lose my last pool, so in effect this should make it impossible for any player to legally self-oust. Do I misunderstand something there? Archie

Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many >> VPs as you (reasonably) can. >> >>> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice >>> between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp >> Correct. > Doesn't this disallow a player from self-ousting? No. A player who cannot reasonably get more than zero VPs is free to get those zero VPs in any manner. > In a game; > I know I cannot get a GW. > I know I cannot get a VP, however I know that if the game times out, I > can get 0.5 VP. This is a truth that exists until I actually lose my > last pool, so in effect this should make it impossible for any player > to legally self-oust. > Do I misunderstand something there? Only the fact that it is not always reasonably possible to survive to the time limit. Indeed, I often see players ousted before time is called.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be played much? I haven't thought it through which is why I ask. Archie

Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was > dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable > to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be > played much? > > I haven't thought it through which is why I ask. The same thing that would happen if that word were dropped from "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- people would invent all sorts of crazy scenarios that would make a Rube Goldberg Machine look like a screwdriver in order to do anything they like (like, having two GWs already, throw a winnable game for an impossible win scenario that, when it fails, leaves a friend in a better position; or browbeat another player with calls of "don't be spiteful" into serving only as a puppet to aid a win.) (and, really? Composing a post and waiting for a response is easier/faster than thinking it through?)

On Mar 3, 2:54 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > > Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was > > dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable > > to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be > > played much? > > > I haven't thought it through which is why I ask. > > The same thing that would happen if that word were dropped from "beyond a > reasonable doubt" -- people would invent all sorts of crazy scenarios that would > make a Rube Goldberg Machine look like a screwdriver in order to do anything > they like (like, having two GWs already, throw a winnable game for an impossible > win scenario that, when it fails, leaves a friend in a better position; or > browbeat another player with calls of "don't be spiteful" into serving only as a > puppet to aid a win.) > Two GWs? Do you mean VPs? PTW is only valid for each individual game is it not? To remove the word reasonably does not mean you can play differently in a tournament does it? > (and, really? Composing a post and waiting for a response is easier/faster than > thinking it through?) My above questions is exactly why I wrote what I did, I want to know what others think. In my opinion, unless I am completely mistaken, if you remove reasonably then everyone has to play for a GW. Once a GW for a game cannot be reached, everyone has to play for maximizing VPs. So in effect, you cannot self-oust. Archie

Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > On Mar 3, 2:54 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Archibald Zimonyi wrote: >>> Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was >>> dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable >>> to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be >>> played much? >>> I haven't thought it through which is why I ask. >> The same thing that would happen if that word were dropped from "beyond a >> reasonable doubt" -- people would invent all sorts of crazy scenarios that would >> make a Rube Goldberg Machine look like a screwdriver in order to do anything >> they like (like, having two GWs already, throw a winnable game for an impossible >> win scenario that, when it fails, leaves a friend in a better position; or >> browbeat another player with calls of "don't be spiteful" into serving only as a >> puppet to aid a win.) >> > Two GWs? Do you mean VPs? PTW is only valid for each individual game > is it not? To remove the word reasonably does not mean you can play > differently in a tournament does it? I mean two GWs. Where PTW-reasonable would keep the player from taking a dive for a friend, PTW-any-even-unreasonable would allow the player to dive under the conjecture that something ... extreme ... would happen to allow him to win the game after the preposterous move, so that the preposterous move is a theoretical path to victory and is therefore PTW. >> (and, really? Composing a post and waiting for a response is easier/faster than >> thinking it through?) > My above questions is exactly why I wrote what I did, I want to know > what others think. > > In my opinion, unless I am completely mistaken, if you remove > reasonably then everyone has to play for a GW. Once a GW for a game > cannot be reached, everyone has to play for maximizing VPs. So in > effect, you cannot self-oust. No. In effect, you liberate the player from PTW and allow more self-ousting because there's a vanishingly small chance that the activity that seems to lead to certain ousting will, in fact, lead to victory.

[ quoted text not captured ] How does "gain as many VP as you can" lead to self-ousting? Can you provide an example. Archie

Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > How does "gain as many VP as you can" lead to self-ousting? > > Can you provide an example. Pick any unreasonable avenue to show how the activity which seems (to a reasonable observer) to be self-ousting may, when the planets align, lead to victory. "My prey may play Life Boon and give me all her pool." is a classic. The supply of contrived scenarios is limited only by players' imaginations (which they have demonstrated they have in abundance).

[ quoted text not captured ] "If I tap myself completely out every turn bleeding, I might get one of these bleeds past the wall deck in front of me. And sure, he's going to dunk most of my minions with his .44, but he might not dunk them all, and then I can keep bleeding non-stop, and that gets me more VPs potentially than if I sit here and don't go forward. Sure, my predator will be bleeding me out quickly when I'm tapped out, but there's a chance that I can get enough bleeds past my prey's wall before I'm ousted, I don't _know_ that he has enough wakes to catch all my actions - and the tiny chance at 1VP is better than the .5VP I'd get if I don't do this and stay untapped to block instead, so it's legal! " etc. > Archie -John Flournoy

On Mar 3, 9:21 am, Archibald Zimonyi <a...@aranzo.netg.se> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Here's a much more specific example: Three players, A -> B-> C-> Player A has one pool, and one minion with [obf] and one blood, and a single stealth card in hand. Player B has one minion with a .44 and four Raven Spies, one pool and Dragonbound in play. Player C has one minion in torpor, and one pool. A's turn starts. A can claim "I have to try to bleed B - I might oust him if I can top deck 4 more stealth cards back-to-back-to-back-to-back, in which case I'll kill them both. And that's more VPs than if I don't act, because if I don't act player B will let Dragonbound kill Player C, and that's not as many VPs as I can get." So he bleeds forward and dies and gives his VP to player C via what is effectively a legal-without-"reasonable" self-oust. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, I thought the above example would be voided by "as you can". If I self-oust I can gain no more VPs. Sure, there are other effects that prevent me from actually be ousted but I cannot take the action to get me in a position to actively self-oust. But ok, adding reasonable then one cannot hope for someone playing Life Boon. Archie

[ quoted text not captured ] The above sounds almost like a normal stealth&bleed strategy anyway so I hope you did not mean that this was playing reasonably. Archie

[ quoted text not captured ] Or B might just say "Hands for 1" to leave A's minion empty instead of in torpor, letting B pick up all three of the remaining VP's. (Not that this invalidates what you're saying, if anything it reinforces it...) - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] Does this mean that I cannot play like that with the reasonable play? I.e. I see no difference between one top decking and four, sure the chances are greater for one then four but still, it is not in my opinion reasonable to act like that (anymore I might add :) Also, self-ousting is not allowed if you HAVE to maximize VPs, so I would say doing nothing (and hoping for a time-out) with 0.5VP is more then "hoping" for things. Again, adding reasonable is still up to the player (or judge if one is called) and the sentence "maximize VPs" does not mean all VPs except the ones that give you the GW, it means as many as you can get. Self-ousting gives you zero. So your example sounds like not playing for maximum VPs. Archie

On Mar 3, 3:20 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > > On Feb 18, 11:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many > >> VPs as you (reasonably) can. > > >>> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice > >>> between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp > >> Correct. > > Doesn't this disallow a player from self-ousting? > > No. A player who cannot reasonably get more than zero VPs is free to get those > zero VPs in any manner. > Just to throw a spanner into the works here (mostly because I still think the PTW rule is very badly worded, but have been unable to convey this to LSJ as he just makes me repeat myself until infinity) - the PTW rule doesn't actually say this. It actually says: "when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible." As far as the section pertaining to VP's is concerned (the second half of the above) - it makes no mention of 'reasonably'. So, in short - if we follow this through - when the GW is not reasonably possible then we ignore that part of the ruling completely, and players are now under the PTW rule of: A player must be "playing to get as many Victory Points as possible." That being said, from LSJ's posts I do fully understand how PTW is meant to be played out in tournaments (in this case, judges are meant to assume that possible means reasonably possible) - I just don't think the ruling states or enforces that, and I'd have to run to LSJ's posts if I had to back this up.

[ quoted text not captured ] You might not see a difference, but the difference between one top- decking and four is in a lot of cases going to be a statistically very large difference. Let's say for example you have a little more than half your deck left (50 cards) and 10 more stealth cards in it. Odds of topdecking one stealth card: 20%. Odds of topdecking four stealth cards: .091% If your deck was down to say 20 cards and you knew 10 of them were stealth? Topdecking 1: 50%. Topdecking 4 in a row: 4.3% > Also, self-ousting is not allowed if you HAVE to maximize VPs, so I > would say doing nothing (and hoping for a time-out) with 0.5VP is more > then "hoping" for things. This is LSJ's whole point. If I _have_ to maximize VPs, then I can justify any no-matter-how-slight "hoping" attempt (if there's no 'reasonable' clause.) In the example I gave above; doing nothing gets you no more than .5 VPs. Trying to go forward might give you 3VPs, which is clearly a lot more than .5VPs, so by trying for 3VPs I am trying to get as many as possible - even if I have a .00000001 percent chance of getting 3VPs, that is still "possible" and thus I can claim I'm trying to maximize my VPs and thus I'm playing to win. > Again, adding reasonable is still up to the > player (or judge if one is called) and the sentence "maximize VPs" > does not mean all VPs except the ones that give you the GW, it means > as many as you can get. Self-ousting gives you zero. So your example > sounds like not playing for maximum VPs. Of course it's not reasonable - the whole point is that this is a specific example of how _removing_ the 'reasonable' part of the rule - as LSJ stated - will "liberate the player from PTW and allow more self- ousting because there's a vanishingly small chance that the activity that seems to lead to certain ousting will, in fact, lead to victory." Which is what you specifically asked for. > Archie -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Since you specifically wanted examples of how _not_ having to play reasonably effects things, no, I did not mean that this was playing reasonably. > Archie

[ quoted text not captured ] > > Archie- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Ok, assuming reasonable play again then, how would this example place itself: Two players left (A and B) from a five player table. A has 2vps and B has 1vp. After some heavy fighting the situation is as follows. Player A has 5 pool and zero ready vampires (all vampires are in torpor with no blood). He has one counter on an uninfluenced vampire in the uncontrolled region. Player B has 1 pool and one ready vampire with superior dominate and 1 blood. It is player B's turn and he has a Conditioning on hand. Is playing the Conditioning for the GW unreasonable play?` With the knowledge that Player A has only played with 2 cap vampires with inferior potence (which he would most likely bring out and smack down player B's last vampire), is playing the Conditioning for the GW unreasonable play? The reason I ask is that player A naturally sits with an Archon Investigation, and you know how many additional VPs player B gets then. Archie

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd think that was reasonable play, assuming you didn't _know_ that the player had the AI in his hand. Even if you know for certain that he has one in his deck to begin with (which is by no means guaranteed), there's still a good chance (assuming he's not decked or nearly so) that he hasn't drawn it yet, and if he hasn't drawn it yet you win. > Archie -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] > -John Flournoy- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Ok, thanks for all your examples. Let me ask this then. Since the wording "reasonable" still allows for certain play to be allowed (which is where people might want change), what would be the effect of reversing the word. So instead of taking reasonable actions (which allow for shady ones) you are not allowed to take unreasonable actions to achieve your goals (GWs, VPs)? Would this not disallow your examples of "crazy play" or would there still be such cases available in the wording? Archie

Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > Ok, thanks for all your examples. Let me ask this then. Since the > wording "reasonable" still allows for certain play to be allowed > (which is where people might want change), what would be the effect of > reversing the word. So instead of taking reasonable actions (which > allow for shady ones) you are not allowed to take unreasonable actions > to achieve your goals (GWs, VPs)? Would this not disallow your > examples of "crazy play" or would there still be such cases available > in the wording? Allowing only reasonable play to win is the same as disallowing unreasonable play to win. Also, cutting unused quoted material is reasonable.

On Feb 20, 8:14 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Brum wrote: > > On 20 Fev, 12:14, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Or putting it in another way (in hope of being more clear): > > > 1. Trying to get Table win, if possible, is obligatory at all times. > > Right? > > When the player has a reasonable chance at winning, yeah. > A player in a lost position is not restricted to make only activities that lead > to him or her winning, since there are no such activities, by definition. > > - Show quoted text - I understand what you are trying to get at with your answer, but I don’t believe it is ever possible for a player to truly know they are in a lost position. Could you or anyone give me a definite example of when a player is in a lost position and will for sure be ousted from the game and there is nothing anyone could reasonably do to stop it from happening? If not, then it seams to me that currently it is up to each player to decide when they are in a lost position and can then chouse to louse as they wish, then fine, just say so. However, if there is going to be a tournament rule about playing to win, I think it should reflect that by specifically stating what constitutes a lost position such as in withdrawing from the game, or not allowing self ousting as I believe this is nothing more then a form of pore sportsmanship, and is against the spirit of the game. After all, you never know what could happen when you allow the other players in the game to take there turns they may want to try and keep you in the game for some resin and once it gets back around to your predators turn things may be completely different. In the end I don’t believe the play to win rule should restrict a player’s choices in how they go about getting VP's and a GW, but it should prevent them from giving them to other players by transferring them selves out of the game. Aaron

aaronmiller38 wrote: > I understand what you are trying to get at with your answer, but I > don’t believe it is ever possible for a player to truly know they are > in a lost position. Well, yeah. I've said as much. Actually, it happens quite often, but the state usually doesn't last long. That doesn't change the answer for when "in a lost position" is a stated part of the case under study.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for the answer. I have been talking it over with some other princes and the point was made that there are times when the self oust is your best move for a game win. Say you have two VP, no one else has a VP yet and the game is close to timing out, but your pray is about to get his pray and grand pray. If you oust your self then your predator stands a chance of holding out and till the game times out. This path to victory must be made available to players and as much as I dislike it I must take the good with the bad.

On Mar 3, 4:00 pm, aaronmiller38 <aaronmille...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 8:14 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > When the player has a reasonable chance at winning, yeah. > > A player in a lost position is not restricted to make only activities that lead > > to him or her winning, since there are no such activities, by definition. > > I understand what you are trying to get at with your answer, but I > don’t believe it is ever possible for a player to truly know they are > in a lost position. From an absolutist perspective, no-one can ever tell anything for sure, especially when it concerns the future. But it is certainly possible to imagine a player so devoid of hope that all options seem equally hopeless, even "self-ousting". > Could you or anyone give me a definite example of when a player is in > a lost position and will for sure be ousted from the game and there is > nothing anyone could reasonably do to stop it from happening? Sure. 4 players left, it is my turn. My prey has Dragonbound in play, and 5 pool. I have 1 pool and 8 minions in torpor with no blood. I have 1 minion in play with 1 blood, and no way of rescuing a single minion from torpor. I have no way of ousting my prey this turn, or gaining pool this turn, or burning the Dragonbound this turn. My cross-table buddy has 3 pool or less. I think that should do it, but for added insurance ... my prey has 2 or more copies of Army of Rats in play, and I have no way of burning both with my single minion.

aaronmiller38 <aaronm...@gmail.com> wrote: >I have been talking it over with some other princes and the point was >made that there are times when the self oust is your best move for a >game win. Say you have two VP, no one else has a VP yet and the game >is close to timing out, but your pray is about to get his pray and >grand pray. If you oust your self then your predator stands a chance >of holding out and till the game times out. This path to victory must >be made available to players and as much as I dislike it I must take >the good with the bad. Up to a point. What you (the general you) will generally fail at is trying to stop people doing things based on their motivation, or based on what they say. "You can't make that deal - it's a VP split deal!" is the classic thing that a lot of people have wanted to enforce, but it's hard. The good play is still a good play, so people just do it in another way. If there are things you don't like about the game, it is always possible to stop and think about how you could change the game so that it's not an avenue a player would want to take in more circumstances. (You'll be unlikely to stop it in every conceivable situation.) Say that you found the above situation to be distasteful, and harmful to the game. You might provide a stronger disincentive against it. e.g. you might decide to enact a rule as follows: "Players who are ousted lose half a victory point (but never go below zero VP)." So that then means that the player in the above situation wouldn't want to self-oust, because he'd go to 1.5 VP and lose all chance of a game win (which requires a minimum of two). Or you could tally up "being ousted" as one of the things you use to determine who makes the finals, like GWs and VPs. Perhaps a player who has 1 GW and 5 VP over two rounds (3VP one round, 2 VP another round) beats the player with 1GW and 5VP who split it up 5VP, 0VP. So there'd be more incentive to play decks that don't get ousted. That might be a bad thing, slowing the game down, but it would also discourage self-ousting. That's not to say that situations like the above are bad, or good, or just something that happens. But you CAN potentially change the rules, so that you can move out whatever you think is bad. Some of the counter-intuitive good moves might be sacrificed in the process, but then it's fine - the reasonable player knows that move is bad for them, so they don't even want to make it. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.