Hi all.
In one of our weekly gamenights we decided to play 3 rounds with the same
deck
in a semi-tourney way. Now we played 2 prelims and one "final".
As I swept in the first round I thought: hell I will not need more VP, but
was
a bit afraid by my predators deck, heavy combat (o VP at that moment). My
deck
would not be very good against it, but my prey had the anti deck, heavy
prevention (all hail seating order).
So to increase the chances of not facing the combat deck in the "finals" I
declared withdrawel on my first turn as there were no weenie deck at the
table. So I got one VP (kept mine) and decreased the pool of VPs at the
table.
But is this legal? I dunno, though it is kind of unsportsmanlike...
Any ideas?
Tim
not legal
you need (by others things) to have no card left in your library
to ask for withdraw
that looks difficult in the 1st turn
"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@MailAndNews.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3B17...@MailAndNews.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
>===== Original Message From "Sylvain Gogel" <syl...@cognition.fr> =====>not legal
>you need (by others things) to have no card left in your library
>to ask for withdraw
>
>that looks difficult in the 1st turn
Damn, I knew that...somewhere in the back of my mind. Goes to show how many
times my playgroup actually have seen someone withdraw from a game. I
believe
I have only done that one or 2 times over the last 6 years. Sheesh. But ehm,
just for my amusements sake, I gather that the terms 'Concede' and
'Withdraw'
effectively are the same thing?? BTW I recall some 60 card deck with Zoe and
Sarah Brando with 1 Telepathic counter, 1 Sudden reversal and a telepathic
Misdirection and 57 Infernal Pursuits, that potentially could withdraw on
turn
2.
Anyway thanks Sylvain!
Tim
[ quoted text not captured ]
--
"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B17...@MailAndNews.com...
>===== Original Message From "Sylvain Gogel" <syl...@cognition.fr> =====
>not legal
>you need (by others things) to have no card left in your library
>to ask for withdraw
>
>that looks difficult in the 1st turn
Damn, I knew that...somewhere in the back of my mind. Goes to show how many
times my playgroup actually have seen someone withdraw from a game. I
believe
I have only done that one or 2 times over the last 6 years. Sheesh. But ehm,
just for my amusements sake, I gather that the terms 'Concede' and
'Withdraw'
effectively are the same thing?? BTW I recall some 60 card deck with Zoe and
Sarah Brando with 1 Telepathic counter, 1 Sudden reversal and a telepathic
Misdirection and 57 Infernal Pursuits, that potentially could withdraw on
turn
2.
Anyway thanks Sylvain!
Or a deck with 53 The Covens, 1 Information Highway, 5 Telepthic Counters
and a crypt of 12 Isabel Leon as has been suggested before.
--
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message
news:9f5k3i$p9f$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Forgot to add that this would do it on turn 1.
--
"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B17...@MailAndNews.com...
>===== Original Message From "Sylvain Gogel" <syl...@cognition.fr> =====
>not legal
>you need (by others things) to have no card left in your library
>to ask for withdraw
>
>that looks difficult in the 1st turn
Damn, I knew that...somewhere in the back of my mind. Goes to show how many
times my playgroup actually have seen someone withdraw from a game. I
believe
I have only done that one or 2 times over the last 6 years. Sheesh. But ehm,
just for my amusements sake, I gather that the terms 'Concede' and
'Withdraw'
effectively are the same thing?? BTW I recall some 60 card deck with Zoe and
Sarah Brando with 1 Telepathic counter, 1 Sudden reversal and a telepathic
Misdirection and 57 Infernal Pursuits, that potentially could withdraw on
turn
2.
Telepathic Misdirection isn't advisdable since it costs a blood (withdraw
not possible then if it's played) so make it My Enemy's Enemy instead.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi Tim,
<snip>
>not legal
>you need (by others things) to have no card left in your library
>to ask for withdraw
>
>that looks difficult in the 1st turn
Not only that, but this is (probably) a violation of the 'you may only act
on in-game considerations' rule.
Damn, I knew that...somewhere in the back of my mind. Goes to show how many
times my playgroup actually have seen someone withdraw from a game. I
believe
I have only done that one or 2 times over the last 6 years. Sheesh. But ehm,
just for my amusements sake, I gather that the terms 'Concede' and
'Withdraw'
effectively are the same thing??
I know someone corrected me on using 'concede'. I think concede is s/t like
having to go home from a tourney because your boss keeps buggin you about a
repport he wants first thing monday morning. And withdrawing is the word
your looking for in this context. Or is it the other way around????
BTW I recall some 60 card deck with Zoe and
Sarah Brando with 1 Telepathic counter, 1 Sudden reversal and a telepathic
Misdirection and 57 Infernal Pursuits, that potentially could withdraw on
turn
2.
A while ago, I posted a deck like this: 60 times The Coven. This deck is
Guaranteed to play all of its cards in the first turn.
"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B17...@MailAndNews.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Besides the "can't withdraw with a library left" issue, the play you made to
better your chances in the final was legal. However, on June 1st, it will
no longer be. The new tournament rules will prohibit players from making
decisions in their current game based on concerns outside of thier current
round. That means that you can't oust yourself or oust cross-table the deck
you don't want to see in the finals.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
In message <3B17...@MailAndNews.com>, Tim Eijpe
<tim....@MailAndNews.com> writes
>BTW I recall some 60 card deck with Zoe and
>Sarah Brando with 1 Telepathic counter, 1 Sudden reversal and a telepathic
>Misdirection and 57 Infernal Pursuits, that potentially could withdraw on
>turn
>2.
Coven.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
"You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F
an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6
Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D
> better your chances in the final was legal. However, on June 1st, it will
> no longer be. The new tournament rules will prohibit players from making
> decisions in their current game based on concerns outside of thier current
> round. That means that you can't oust yourself or oust cross-table the
deck
> you don't want to see in the finals.
I still think this is very wrong for reasons I detailed previously.
Sorrow
---
"Happiness sucks" -me
[snip]
Hi Jeroen,
I said it was evil, didn't know if it was legal:)
Probably would fall to collusion in a real tournament. Though while I *WAS*
acting in my best interest and goal in increasing my VP potential. 1 VP is
more than 0, right?!
Tim
In message <9f5k5a$pbm$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult
<rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
>> Or a deck with 53 The Covens, 1 Information Highway, 5 Telepthic Counters
>> and a crypt of 12 Isabel Leon as has been suggested before.>
>Forgot to add that this would do it on turn 1.
No, it wouldn't.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[snip]
>=>
>Besides the "can't withdraw with a library left" issue, the play you made to>better your chances in the final was legal. However, on June 1st, it will
>no longer be. The new tournament rules will prohibit players from making
>decisions in their current game based on concerns outside of thier current
>round. That means that you can't oust yourself or oust cross-table the deck
>you don't want to see in the finals.
Hmmn I can see that, but as I already wrote in another reply, I also acted
IMO
in my best interest. Actually preventing the combat deck getting to the
finals
would be considered collusion, you are absolutely right, but the basic
ingame
decision was: it is better to get one VP than get 0, even if it is my own.
Now
I realize this does walk the boarderline of collusion, still my idea was to
increase my potential of possible gain in VPs. Would this still be
considered
collusion under these reasoning?
Tim
[ quoted text not captured ]
I find it still very right for the reasons detailed in response previously.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
[ quoted text not captured ]
Getting 1 VP is indeed better than getting 0. If those were the choices
(independent of which deck gets into the finals), then there's no need
to worry about collusion (nor to introduce your thoughts on the matter
of which deck gets blocked from the finals).
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > > better your chances in the final was legal. However, on June 1st, it
will
> > > no longer be. The new tournament rules will prohibit players from
making
> > > decisions in their current game based on concerns outside of thier
current
> > > round. That means that you can't oust yourself or oust cross-table the
> > > deck you don't want to see in the finals.
> > I still think this is very wrong for reasons I detailed previously.
> I find it still very right for the reasons detailed in response
previously.
I guess only time will tell which one of us is right. Though, I'm pretty
sure
the lines will be blurred for in game vs. out of game considerations. I
remember once I needed to oust my predator in order to make it so that I
could even remain in the game (actually, I needed to do that on several
occasions) and by doing that made it so that player either didn't (or just
barely) make it to the finals. That was an in game consideration that could
very well be argued by the other player to have been made with out of
game considerations.
I think this rule is going to cause more problems that it solves.
Sorrow
---
"I'll be watching the news. If anything is vandalized or explodes
or catches on fire, 'X' is going to equal me kicking your ass!"
- Red Forman
Okey I have a related question. If I have 3 pool and an Archon Investigation
in hand...am I allowed to play it and thus oust myself to burn a vamp of my
predator (or whoever) who was bleeding me? I'd be ousted in both cases so
playing the AI would only be done to be mean and possible ruin another
player's chances of gaining VP. Is this then considered collusion? Pretend I
did it because I dind't want my predator to reach the Final which he would
most likely had if I hadnät burned his only vampire left that was able to
bleed for 10 witha Daring the Dawn :)
Roger Carhult wrote:
>
> Okey I have a related question. If I have 3 pool and an Archon Investigation
> in hand...am I allowed to play it and thus oust myself to burn a vamp of my
> predator (or whoever) who was bleeding me? I'd be ousted in both cases so
Sure, if the bleed amount was 4 or more. Losing is losing - it's not like
one of the alternatives is more beneficial to you (in the current game)
than another.
[ quoted text not captured ]
--
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B17F414...@white-wolf.com...
> Roger Carhult wrote:
> >
> > Okey I have a related question. If I have 3 pool and an Archon
Investigation
> > in hand...am I allowed to play it and thus oust myself to burn a vamp of
my
> > predator (or whoever) who was bleeding me? I'd be ousted in both cases
so
>
> Sure, if the bleed amount was 4 or more. Losing is losing - it's not like
> one of the alternatives is more beneficial to you (in the current game)
> than another.
No but then you'd think that there was no reason for me to burn another
guy's vampire just out of spite. If it affects the outcome of the game I am
in a way helping someone for no benefit of my own. Or I could do it because
of out of game considerations, like I don't want to see him in the final???
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote> > Sure, if the bleed amount was 4 or more. Losing is losing - it's not
like
> > one of the alternatives is more beneficial to you (in the current game)
> > than another.
>
> No but then you'd think that there was no reason for me to burn another
> guy's vampire just out of spite. If it affects the outcome of the game I
am
> in a way helping someone for no benefit of my own. Or I could do it
because
> of out of game considerations, like I don't want to see him in the
final???
Retaliation against the methuselah who is ousting you
is definitely an in-game consideration.
One of my favorites, actually.
- Jason Bell
--
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:2xUR6.72461$i56.21...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm ambivalent about that. I can understand it but retaliation in this case
really has no point and it's easier to conclude it was done for other
reasons. My point is that against any smart player it's nearly impossible to
prove collusion even if it existed. You can always blame it on all kinds of
things, like the case above where you'd say it was for retaliation when it
maybe really was only to prevent him from goingto the final or even worse,
to help your friend to gain a VP just because he's your friend.
Personally I rarely retaliate like that evne in friendly games (but it
depends), because I think that if I get ousted I deserve to be. He just did
his job and I have nothing to gain by playing the AI and ruin the game for
him just because he was better than me.
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
> Retaliation against the methuselah who is ousting you
> is definitely an in-game consideration.
>
> One of my favorites, actually.
I'm not sure about this...
If you will be ousted regardless of what you do, retaliating at that point
seems petty and unsportsmanlike. I guess this depends on the scenario, but
there is a fine line between trying to win and trying to cause someone else
to lose.
The situation Roger Carhult mentioned regarding the playing of Archon
Investigation to self-oust rather than taking a bleed which will also oust,
while legal, is also somewhat obnoxious IMHO.
I think it's natural to lash out like that, but it doesn't serve anyone. As
soon as you are ousted you should be offering your hand to your predator and
prey, not making sure your predator has a rougher ride finishing the game.
I had a problem a few months back with one player whose style of play was
not to try to win but to constantly attack me from wherever he sat with
cards like Night Moves, rushes, you name it. For him, the game was not 'Oust
your prey' or 'Win at Jyhad' but 'Attack Wes'. I don't mind this if it's
logical and serves the greater goal (though this is sometimes difficult to
determine)... in this case it clearly wasn't--he admitted it. That's old
news however... He has since improved in this capacity and almost made it to
the finals when we were in Toronto in May.
I don't know how much any of you consider trying to manipulate the
tournament so that certain decks make it or don't make it to the finals
table... At the two tournaments I have attended this was not something that
I personally ever considered. It was far more relevant to me to get *to* the
finals. To the best of my knowledge, nobody ever tried to prevent another
player from getting to the finals. I can see an advantage to doing this but
it seems a bit shady... but maybe that's just me.
Even writing this it seems to me that certain groups have different
standards as far as keeping deals and sportsmanlike behaviour etc. While I
understand that a certain amount of Machiavellian behaviour is required (and
fun!) in Jyhad, I've also seen behaviour that is unnecessarily ruthless and
insulting to other players. If I can't call the people I'm playinig with
friends after a Jyhad match, I'm not sure that they're the kind of players I
want to play with... know what I mean? This is rare though and I'm talking
about fairly extreme cases.
Cheers,
WES
Wes wrote:
>
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
>
> > Retaliation against the methuselah who is ousting you
> > is definitely an in-game consideration.
> >
> > One of my favorites, actually.
>
> I'm not sure about this...
>
> If you will be ousted regardless of what you do, retaliating at that point
> seems petty and unsportsmanlike. I guess this depends on the scenario, but
> there is a fine line between trying to win and trying to cause someone else
> to lose.
Not playing AI helps some player(s) and hurts others. Playing AI helps some
player(s) and hurts others. Since it doesn't hurt your own position in either
case (you still have a guaranteed loss), it isn't unsportsmalike.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>
> Not playing AI helps some player(s) and hurts others. Playing AI helps
some
> player(s) and hurts others. Since it doesn't hurt your own position in
either
> case (you still have a guaranteed loss), it isn't unsportsmalike.
Ehh... I have to disagree with you on this one Scott.
Since in either case you are going to be ousted, it seems to me that taking
*no* actions would be the more noble.
But that's just me... perhaps I shouldn't try being a judge at any
tournaments, n'est-ce pas?
Cheers,
WES
--
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B18438A...@white-wolf.com...
> Wes wrote:
> >
> > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
> >
> > > Retaliation against the methuselah who is ousting you
> > > is definitely an in-game consideration.
> > >
> > > One of my favorites, actually.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this...
> >
> > If you will be ousted regardless of what you do, retaliating at that
point
> > seems petty and unsportsmanlike. I guess this depends on the scenario,
but
> > there is a fine line between trying to win and trying to cause someone
else
> > to lose.
>
> Not playing AI helps some player(s) and hurts others. Playing AI helps
some
> player(s) and hurts others. Since it doesn't hurt your own position in
either
> case (you still have a guaranteed loss), it isn't unsportsmalike.
If you're a sore(?) loser and cannot accept a defeat without a revenge where
you gain absolutely nothing and burn a vampire just out of spite, thow can
it not be unsportsmanlike? Maybe not unsportsmanlike according to the VEKN
rules, but then maybe it should be.
"Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> >
> > Not playing AI helps some player(s) and hurts others. Playing AI helps
> some
> > player(s) and hurts others. Since it doesn't hurt your own position in
> either
> > case (you still have a guaranteed loss), it isn't unsportsmalike.
>
>
>
> Ehh... I have to disagree with you on this one Scott.
>
> Since in either case you are going to be ousted, it seems to me that
taking
> *no* actions would be the more noble.
Why is it more noble to lie down for your predator, making his job
against your prey easier? I believe that if the math shows I'm to
be ousted with no recourse, I work to make the job tougher, not
easier.
If I follow your argument correctly (or intentionally misconstrue
your argument for my own purposes), I, as a good sport with
1 pool, should always let the first minion oust me if it is clear
that I cannot block the last minion. If so, I am a poor sport
indeed, as I block with everything I have, sending as many
opposing minions to torpor or otherwise mistreating them
until my last minion has blocked his second to last.
The most frustrated I've been playing in my group is when
a player just quits in such a position, influencing himself to death
or otherwise not trying to stay and fight. To me, that's much more
about not being a sport than the situation with the Archon
Investigation.
But then again, it's been a loooooong time since anyone has
accused me of not being sufficiently competitive.
- Jason Bell
--
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:SMK0eFSd...@obeah.demon.co.uk...
> In message <9f5k5a$pbm$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult
> <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
> >> Or a deck with 53 The Covens, 1 Information Highway, 5 Telepthic
Counters
> >> and a crypt of 12 Isabel Leon as has been suggested before.
> >
> >Forgot to add that this would do it on turn 1.
>
> No, it wouldn't.
>
> --
> James Coupe PGP Key:
0x5D623D5D
The declaral would be done in one turn? It would. But the actual withdraw
would be done on the 2nd. But I used the same maths Tim did, because his
would be in 3 turns then (since his minion can't fight the first round it's
brought out).
Roger Carhult wrote:
> "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message> > Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
> > >> Or a deck with 53 The Covens, 1 Information Highway, 5 Telepthic Counters
> > >> and a crypt of 12 Isabel Leon as has been suggested before.
> > >
> > >Forgot to add that this would do it on turn 1.
> >
> > No, it wouldn't.
>> The declaral would be done in one turn? It would. But the actual withdraw
> would be done on the 2nd. But I used the same maths Tim did, because his
> would be in 3 turns then (since his minion can't fight the first round it's
> brought out).
You'd have to spend your first turn playing all the master cards and then
bringing out Isabel. On your next turn (your 2nd), you could announce your
intention to withdraw. If you meet the conditions, then on your next untap
phase (the untap phase of your 3rd turn), you withdraw. [9.2]
[ quoted text not captured ]
--
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:te2S6.72629$i56.22...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> > >
> > > Not playing AI helps some player(s) and hurts others. Playing AI helps
> > some
> > > player(s) and hurts others. Since it doesn't hurt your own position in
> > either
> > > case (you still have a guaranteed loss), it isn't unsportsmalike.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ehh... I have to disagree with you on this one Scott.
> >
> > Since in either case you are going to be ousted, it seems to me that
> taking
> > *no* actions would be the more noble.
>
> Why is it more noble to lie down for your predator, making his job
> against your prey easier? I believe that if the math shows I'm to
> be ousted with no recourse, I work to make the job tougher, not
> easier.
>
> If I follow your argument correctly (or intentionally misconstrue
> your argument for my own purposes), I, as a good sport with
> 1 pool, should always let the first minion oust me if it is clear
> that I cannot block the last minion. If so, I am a poor sport
> indeed, as I block with everything I have, sending as many
> opposing minions to torpor or otherwise mistreating them
> until my last minion has blocked his second to last.
No this isn't the same thing, because it's not clear to your predator he
will be able to oust you. If you send some vampires in torpor he might be
scared and want to rescue them instead of trying to oust you. Because if you
have that wake he'll be screwed and his minion could get diablerized or
he'll have no minions against his predator to block with etc. This has
happened to me in numerous of games, both as being the predator and as prey.
This is MUCH different than getting the final bleed where you ARE ousted and
playing AI just out of spite.
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote
> > If I follow your argument correctly (or intentionally misconstrue
> > your argument for my own purposes), I, as a good sport with
> > 1 pool, should always let the first minion oust me if it is clear
> > that I cannot block the last minion. If so, I am a poor sport
> > indeed, as I block with everything I have, sending as many
> > opposing minions to torpor or otherwise mistreating them
> > until my last minion has blocked his second to last.
>
> No this isn't the same thing, because it's not clear to your predator he
> will be able to oust you. If you send some vampires in torpor he might be
> scared and want to rescue them instead of trying to oust you. Because if
you
> have that wake he'll be screwed and his minion could get diablerized or
> he'll have no minions against his predator to block with etc. This has
> happened to me in numerous of games, both as being the predator and as
prey.
> This is MUCH different than getting the final bleed where you ARE ousted
and
> playing AI just out of spite.
Alright, to make it more clear, if I have one pool and two minions while
my opponent has eight minions, am I still a poor sport to block with the
two that I have? Use whatever numbers you need for the example to
address my point. If I am doomed, I'm going to make my predator pay
as dearly for my life as I can, not as a favor to my own prey, but
as my perceived responsibility as a competitor.
- Jason Bell
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> You'd have to spend your first turn playing all the master cards and then
> bringing out Isabel. On your next turn (your 2nd), you could announce your
> intention to withdraw. If you meet the conditions, then on your next untap
> phase (the untap phase of your 3rd turn), you withdraw. [9.2]
Related question about The Coven.
Does control change hands regardless of whether you use the
ability or not? It is not clear to me from the card text as
to whether the ability triggers the control change or whether
it works like Millicent.
- Jason Bell
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:24:18 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
card text in question:
"Unique Master. Gain a master phase action and put this card into
play. Tap to move two blood from the blood bank to a ready vampire you
control. At the end of your turn, your predator takes control of The
Coven."
A literal reading would mean that
(a) you may tap the card to move two blood from the blood bank, etc.
*AND*
(b) at the end of your turn, your predator takes control, etc.
since (b) has no text specifying conditional with regards to (a), then
whether or not you tap The Coven, your predator will take control of
it.
Unlike, for example, Anarch Troublemaker, which reads:
"Unique Master. During your untap phase, you may tap up to two
vampires your prey controls or burn a piece of equipment belonging to
a minion your prey controls. If this is done, your prey takes control
of the Troublemaker. Burn Troublemaker if his or her controller is
ousted from the game."
...and uses the "If this is done" wording.
-- Derek
Thug of Atlanta
--
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4poiht4po5nvtl2h4...@4ax.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm haven't thought of that. We've always played it as if it was
conditional.
> Alright, to make it more clear, if I have one pool and two minions while
> my opponent has eight minions, am I still a poor sport to block with the
> two that I have? Use whatever numbers you need for the example to
> address my point. If I am doomed, I'm going to make my predator pay
> as dearly for my life as I can, not as a favor to my own prey, but
> as my perceived responsibility as a competitor.
>
> - Jason Bell
No you're not a poor sport if you do this for othher reasons than out of
spite. For example you could vope to cycle cards in the combat that will
help you, maybe get wakes/telepathic counters or something. If you vampires
are untapped you should do you best to stay in play else it would be unfair
to grandpredator IMO. However AI is a particular case because you've already
tried everything and the oust is already a complete fact, which it isn't in
your example (however close to oust it may be, you're still not ousted).
--
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message
news:9fc1vq$krj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In addition to what I've said there's also another difference. The example I
put forth with the AI was that the AI would make your predator ousted
helping a friend to get a VP or stopping predator to reach the final etc. In
your example, if someone has 8 minions, one or two in torpor isn't too
likely to make a major difference. If it was, I think the predator might be
more careful if he knows you're a combat deck. Naturally the predator
assumes you are going to block of course, and he'll bleed you with his most
disposable vampires first or wait till he feels more safe. If he himself has
say 1-2 pool left and needs all his minions to be ready to stand a chance of
surviving even with the 6 pool he gets from you, thenyou could threaten him
to not bleed you by saying "if you bleed me I'll block and hurt you as mucha
s I can". Then predator would probably not do it if he feels he can't afford
to go to torpor. Thus you're saved from being ousted another turn (or
perhaps more) and you've been acting for your own benefit. Again, not the
case with AI.
Roger
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote
Your philosophy seems to preclude retaliation in most cases,
once something is done, at least when there is no chance
of that happening again (in this case, ousted is ousted,
and we all agree that no retaliation will make you more
ousted or less ousted).
I once played a game where I had to diablerize my predator's
vampire to stabilize my board position, and my grandprey's
voters burned my diablerist. I retaliated by burning down
his hunting ground, stealing one of his intercept retainers,
and assuring my prey that he should not be afraid to tap
out to bleed the guy.
I don't think I was being a poor sport, just demonstrating that
torching my vampires is not free (even though it was clear both
that I would do no more diablerizing that game and that my
retaliation would not make any future blood hunts fail).
In much this same sense, I don't think that the
ousted player was a poor sport by using AI to show that
ousting him was not free.
In the end, we may just be talking about different outlooks
in the game. I agree that what's done is done, but I will
always do what I can within the game to ensure that doing
it to me will be as expensive as I can make it.
I definitely would use the AI on my way out of the game,
probably every time, unless there were some other consideration,
like if I attributed my ouster more to my prey's upstream
interference than the final downstream bleed.
- Jason Bell
Roger Carhult wrote:
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Except that playing AI saves you a pool - you lose only 3 instead of 4 or more pool.
Even if you have only three pool to lose, this still makes a difference for
someone saving you with a Life Boon. So even in the AI case, playing AI makes it
less likely that you'll be ousted (because of the very small but non-zero chance
that someone is holding a Life Boon and of the increase in playability of the
Life Boon that your play of AI gives).
To give (tey another) example, if you have one pool and are being bled for 1 by
a Toreador with Aching beauty, are you bound not to block wince blocking would
deprive your predator of the Edge? (just like playing AI would deprive your
predator of a minion)? Is this "more noble"? I say no - block or don't block at
your option. It's your loss; lose in the manner you wish.
[ quoted text not captured ]
If collusion rules are to prevent you from doing something subjective,
whats the point? There is nothing to safe guard a player from being
"unsportman like" when in another city trying to screw over someone
else.
IE: next month I go to Ohio for Origins, the head judge there sees
that I am AI to burn my predators vampire as I am ousted. Since my
predator is from Ohio, and so are the judges it is in their minds to
agree with the guy they know...they have to see him next week. Since
the VEKN rules cannot provide for every instance they leave it up to
the judge. Sorry to lack faith in human logic(and pick on anyone from
Ohio) but there are no king solomans here.
Saying it's not advantagous for me to out my predator...someone across
table or whatever is foolish. Since your ultimate objective is to get
victory points, if you see someone cross table playing a deck that
is/could possibly screw you up later, it is your obligation to destroy
them, help their predator destroy them or what ever. And since
destroying everyone else, even backwards gains you 1 victory point for
last man standing...well 1 is still more then none isn't it? By not
AI my predators vampire when I have the chance always(even when I lose
because of it) I am in effect, agreeing to help him win. By letting
him keep his minions it is not benifitial to the player of the AI.
Or we can take LSJ's example. What if you justify your actions by
saying "maybe someone will save me with life boon!" What if, to that
remark, everyone says they don't have any. Then you are still playing
your AI with no hope of winning. In a game based on vampires, trying
to screw your oponent out of winning is just as good as trying to
contruct your own resources to win.
Fact is, if you are bleeding for more then 3...you deserve to be AIed
every time. Suck it up and take it on the chin...don't try to tell
the other player isn't not fair you big babies.
How about this:
If it is a 5 player game, and I have 2 VP for ousting 2 of my preys.
And now there are 3 of us left. Is it not up to me to make sure that
my predator does not sweep me and my prey? If he does he ends up with
3 VP, and if I am going to be taken out by my predator (which leaves
him with 1 VP and my prey with 0) shouldn't I AI his only minion
bleeing me, to make it easier for my prey to oust him? If my
objective is to end up with the most VP that ties me for the highest,
instead of losing to 3 for a sweep. So there I am, trying to fix the
VP at a table, but is that unfair? I put pressure on my predator even
by ousting myself, to make sure he doesn't end up with more then me.
"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ab27d37.01060...@posting.google.com...
[clip]
> IE: next month I go to Ohio for Origins, the head judge there sees
> that I am AI to burn my predators vampire as I am ousted. Since my
> predator is from Ohio, and so are the judges it is in their minds to
> agree with the guy they know...they have to see him next week. Since
> the VEKN rules cannot provide for every instance they leave it up to
> the judge. Sorry to lack faith in human logic(and pick on anyone from
> Ohio) but there are no king solomans here.
There were lots of opinions flying around and even some suggestions for
trying to rationalize the official opinion but LSJ did put out the official
interpretation of the tournament rules. The judge at Origins will hopefully
interpret the tournament rules as they were intended to read.
A player in a lost position can do whatever they'd like...helping or hurting
their predator, prey, or any other player as they see fit. Play the AI if
you wish!
[clip]
> How about this:
> If it is a 5 player game, and I have 2 VP for ousting 2 of my preys.
> And now there are 3 of us left. Is it not up to me to make sure that
> my predator does not sweep me and my prey? If he does he ends up with
> 3 VP, and if I am going to be taken out by my predator (which leaves
> him with 1 VP and my prey with 0) shouldn't I AI his only minion
> bleeing me, to make it easier for my prey to oust him?
Should or shouldn't are not relevant here. Do whatever you'd like.
> If my
> objective is to end up with the most VP that ties me for the highest,
> instead of losing to 3 for a sweep. So there I am, trying to fix the
> VP at a table, but is that unfair? I put pressure on my predator even
> by ousting myself, to make sure he doesn't end up with more then me.
It's not unfair to do something to improve your standing at the current
table.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
> It's not unfair to do something to improve your standing at the current
> table.
But it *is* unfair to improve your standing within the tournament. That is
so backwards. You go into the tournament knowong you are playing 2
or 3 rounds with the ultimate goal to make it into the final. Even if you
take the most victory points in each of the 3 rounds, if you fail to do so
in the final, you still lose. So I don't see how, if each round affects the
other (and they do with regards to the final and even in the final itself)
how you can't take more than the current round into considration when
taking your actions or determining your strategy...
Sorrow
---
no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force
no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust
no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders
now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes
now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > It's not unfair to do something to improve your standing at the current
> > table.
>
> But it *is* unfair to improve your standing within the tournament. That is
No. You're welcome to improve your standing within the tournament, but
only by playing the *game* well. The tournament is supposed to test the
players' skill at the *game*.
> so backwards. You go into the tournament knowong you are playing 2
> or 3 rounds with the ultimate goal to make it into the final. Even if you
Or: with the ultimate goal of improving your rating.
Or whatever other goal you have (competition among your friends, whatever).
But the goal you bring to the table doesn't alter the goal of the game.
And sacrificing the goal of the game for some other (exterior) goal isn't
allowed.
> take the most victory points in each of the 3 rounds, if you fail to do so
> in the final, you still lose. So I don't see how, if each round affects the
> other (and they do with regards to the final and even in the final itself)
> how you can't take more than the current round into considration when
> taking your actions or determining your strategy...
The same way it's never been allowed to "sack" someone just for having a
sky-high rating. The line has to be drawn somewhere - and drawing it at
the place specified in the rules seems to be a logical choice.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
> Sorrow wrote:
> >
> > > It's not unfair to do something to improve your standing at the current
> > > table.
> >
> > But it *is* unfair to improve your standing within the tournament.
>> No. You're welcome to improve your standing within the tournament, but
> only by playing the *game* well.
Ha!
"You're welcome to apply tournament considerations as long as they're a
subset of game considerations, which are the only valid considerations."
Implied by this is the statement:
"Since the current game is your only consideration, don't even think about
trying to win the tournament."
What a great rule! You payed your money to get a shot at the prize - but
don't think about trying to get it using the rules you are given, because
that would be cheating.
> The tournament is supposed to test the players' skill at the *game*.
If a tournament is supposed to guage your skill at the game, and playing
the game well is at odds with winning the tournament, doesn't that mean
the tournament is poorly designed? Why not just accept that a tournament
guages tournament skill, not game skill?
> > That is so backwards. You go into the tournament knowong you are> > playing 2 or 3 rounds with the ultimate goal to make it into the
> > final.
>> Or: with the ultimate goal of improving your rating. Or whatever other
> goal you have (competition among your friends, whatever).
>
> But the goal you bring to the table doesn't alter the goal of the
> game. And sacrificing the goal of the game for some other (exterior)
> goal isn't allowed.
Then why does VEKN provide these exterior objectives, such as rating and
prize support? Why have a tournament system where the objective of
playing is different from winning the tournament? Why have a rating
system where the objective of playing is different from raising your
rating?
> > Even if you> > take the most victory points in each of the 3 rounds, if you fail to do so
> > in the final, you still lose. So I don't see how, if each round affects the
> > other (and they do with regards to the final and even in the final itself)
> > how you can't take more than the current round into considration when
> > taking your actions or determining your strategy...
>
> The same way it's never been allowed to "sack" someone just for having
> a sky-high rating.
If doing well in the ratings system is at odds with playing the best game,
then the ratings system is flawed...
> The line has to be drawn somewhere - and drawing it at the place
> specified in the rules seems to be a logical choice.
Which line are you trying to draw? It seems you are trying to specify
which considerations are valid and which are not. Obviously not every
consideration should be valid, but why is "winning the tournament"
considered invalid when you're playing in a tournament?
: "Players must act only on in-game considerations."
: (VEKN Tournament Rules 5.2)
Is the round time-limit an in-game or out-of-game consideration? What
about a notorious player's style? What about regional metagame? What
about knowing what's in another player's deck from a previous round?
What about a player breaking a deal in the last round? Are we supposed to
pretend we don't have this information?
"davey!" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010607...@harper.uchicago.edu...
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote:
[clip]
> What a great rule! You payed your money to get a shot at the prize - but
> don't think about trying to get it using the rules you are given, because
> that would be cheating.
If you try to get the prize by using the rules then you aren't cheating.
> > The tournament is supposed to test the players' skill at the *game*.
>
> If a tournament is supposed to guage your skill at the game, and playing
> the game well is at odds with winning the tournament, doesn't that mean
> the tournament is poorly designed?
Yes. The old system of tournament wins was at odds with the goals stated in the
rulebook. Now the tournament winner is the person who is best at the game and
not the best at tournament skill. Furthermore, the player with the highest
rating is the player who is best at the game and not the player who is best at
"high ratings play", the Championship qualifiers are the players who are best at
the game and not the best at the game of "championship qualifying", etc.
>Why not just accept that a tournament
> guages tournament skill, not game skill?
As we said, you have to draw the line somewhere. If we allow that then it seems
arbitrary to not allow players to play the other "games" within the game that I
listed above.
> > > That is so backwards. You go into the tournament knowong you are
> > > playing 2 or 3 rounds with the ultimate goal to make it into the
> > > final.
> >
> > Or: with the ultimate goal of improving your rating. Or whatever other
> > goal you have (competition among your friends, whatever).
> >
> > But the goal you bring to the table doesn't alter the goal of the
> > game. And sacrificing the goal of the game for some other (exterior)
> > goal isn't allowed.
>
> Then why does VEKN provide these exterior objectives, such as rating and
> prize support? Why have a tournament system where the objective of
> playing is different from winning the tournament? Why have a rating
> system where the objective of playing is different from raising your
> rating?
Hopefully we've done something to improve that situation. If not, more changes
could be considered.
[clip]
> > The line has to be drawn somewhere - and drawing it at the place
> > specified in the rules seems to be a logical choice.
>
> Which line are you trying to draw? It seems you are trying to specify
> which considerations are valid and which are not.
Right.
> Obviously not every
> consideration should be valid,
Agreed.
> but why is "winning the tournament"
> considered invalid when you're playing in a tournament?
If the outside consideration of "winning the tournament" weren't at odds with
the goal of the game in the rulebook I'd agree with you. Even though the
tournament is, in a sense, a game of its own with its own rules (time limits,
etc.), it shouldn't be contrary to the game's rules in the most critical of
ways--how the game is won. When the two goals are at odds I am far more
comfortable changing the tournament rules than the game's rules.
> : "Players must act only on in-game considerations."
> : (VEKN Tournament Rules 5.2)
I hope this will be reworded a bit in the next revision. It seems to be causing
confusion. It is simply the positive way of stating that players cannot act on
out of game considerations (preferably read as "out of game goals").
> Is the round time-limit an in-game or out-of-game consideration? What
> about a notorious player's style? What about regional metagame? What
> about knowing what's in another player's deck from a previous round?
> What about a player breaking a deal in the last round? Are we supposed to
> pretend we don't have this information?
Someone else mentioned the difference between outside knowledge and outside
goals. I rather liked that distinction. You may use your knowledge of the
things listed above in your efforts to achieve the goals of the current game.
If your knowledge of a deal-breaker turns into a goal of its own (destroy so and
so because he broke a deal with me last round) then you've overstepped.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > > > That is so backwards. You go into the tournament knowong you are
> > > > playing 2 or 3 rounds with the ultimate goal to make it into the
> > > > final.
> > >
> > > Or: with the ultimate goal of improving your rating. Or whatever other
> > > goal you have (competition among your friends, whatever).
> > >
> > > But the goal you bring to the table doesn't alter the goal of the
> > > game. And sacrificing the goal of the game for some other (exterior)
> > > goal isn't allowed.
Excuse me for being a little stupid. But am I missing the part of the
rulebook that states that the goal of the game is to gain the most VP?
It seems to me that you have confused yourself. The goal of the game
is:
"Object of the Game
Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methuselahs"
Under that we see:
"the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of
the game"
But the rule book describes influence as: "Influence is represented by
pool counters...the main currency of the game"
So are you advocating that the tournament rules are supersceding the
rulebook?
"Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of
gaining the most victory points in the current game." (this tournament
rules conflicts both the above statments)
What I mean is, if you say the object of the tournament is to prove
your skill as a player of VTES, not a player of tournaments...and you
protest that you want to stop cheating, collusion, and so on...why not
eliminate a "final round" all together? Then there is nothing for a
player to aspire to. Nothing to gain by losing a game. Kinda hard to
help your friend get somewhere they shouldn't be by cheating...if
there is no where to go?(ie a final round)
If you were just to have 4 rounds, and base everything by the TWO
goals stated in the rule book(not the tournamet whatevers) of
destroying anything possible controller by a rival Methuselah(not
necessary your prey) and gaining VP you would have a much closer game
to what you are trying to make. You wouldn't have to worry about
justifying peoples actions...or someone running 'too much' vengence in
a game. I mean, the rule book says your objective is to kill anything
that costs pool right?
Count VP or whatever from the 4 rounds and call it quits. Why does
there have to be a final anyway? To let the "best" players of the
game duke it out? Get rid of prizes and rankings. See who your
'best' players are then. That way there are no lines to draw either.
:p
> > Then why does VEKN provide these exterior objectives, such as rating and
> > prize support? Why have a tournament system where the objective of
> > playing is different from winning the tournament? Why have a rating
> > system where the objective of playing is different from raising your
> > rating?
>
> Hopefully we've done something to improve that situation. If not, more changes
> could be considered.
>
> [clip]
> > > The line has to be drawn somewhere - and drawing it at the place
> > > specified in the rules seems to be a logical choice.
> >
> > Which line are you trying to draw? It seems you are trying to specify
> > which considerations are valid and which are not.
>
> Right.
>
> > Obviously not every
> > consideration should be valid,
>
> Agreed.
>
> > but why is "winning the tournament"
> > considered invalid when you're playing in a tournament?
>
> If the outside consideration of "winning the tournament" weren't at odds with
> the goal of the game in the rulebook I'd agree with you. Even though the
> tournament is, in a sense, a game of its own with its own rules (time limits,
> etc.), it shouldn't be contrary to the game's rules in the most critical of
> ways--how the game is won. When the two goals are at odds I am far more
> comfortable changing the tournament rules than the game's rules.
And notice, that you are considered the 'winner' even if you don't
have the MOST victory points. So how can getting enough points to be
the 'winner'(under the rulebook rules) and then keeping someone else
you don't like from gaining them be considered cheating? The rule is
clear, you have the most, not every damn point possible. If its 5
player and I have 2 VP it is not losing for me to make sure that the
guy who's deck hoses mine, does not have the chance to get to the
finals, is it? You might think it's wrong. But don't pretend like
tournaments are following all these principles of absolute truth.
People play them to win the whole thing. Not one game. Thinking
otherwise is totally oblivious to why the players want to do it in the
first place. Trying to penalize them for trying to win, thats just
crazy.
Not to sound mean or anything, it just seems like you guys are
deciding why people are playing tournaments for them. Then giving
them 'options' that are all the same, bleed left or go home....
> Excuse me for being a little stupid.
OK
But am I missing the part of the
> rulebook that states that the goal of the game is to gain the most VP?
> It seems to me that you have confused yourself. The goal of the game
> is:
> "Object of the Game
> Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methuselahs"
>
> Under that we see:
> "the winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of
> the game"
>
> But the rule book describes influence as: "Influence is represented by
> pool counters...the main currency of the game"
You're forgetting one thing: the object of a game (any game) is to win. ie,
Get the most VP's.
> So are you advocating that the tournament rules are supersceding the
> rulebook?
They did. The new rule should change that.
> "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of
> gaining the most victory points in the current game." (this tournament
> rules conflicts both the above statments)
>
<snip>
> If you were just to have 4 rounds, and base everything by the TWO
> goals stated in the rule book(not the tournamet whatevers) of
> destroying anything possible controller by a rival Methuselah(not
> necessary your prey) and gaining VP you would have a much closer game
> to what you are trying to make.
I think I found the real problem: you don't like the predator - prey thingy.
IMO, This is the best thing Garfield could've done. Otherwise everyone would
gang up on the weakest guy on the table instead of concentrating on his
prey.
You wouldn't have to worry about
> justifying peoples actions...or someone running 'too much' vengence in
> a game. I mean, the rule book says your objective is to kill anything
> that costs pool right?
No, you have to get rid of all possible influence your prey has = his pool.
Not cards that cost pool.
>
> Count VP or whatever from the 4 rounds and call it quits. Why does
> there have to be a final anyway? To let the "best" players of the
> game duke it out? Get rid of prizes and rankings. See who your
> 'best' players are then. That way there are no lines to draw either.
> :p
>
<...>
Jeroen