RFC: A problematic situation with the new tournament rules regarding deals

Please make some comments on the following situation. In a tournament game there are three Players left (names are fictional): Erol, Johannes and Andreas. Erol has allready ousted his two preys, he is now the predator of Johannes who is the predator of Andreas. Johannes is in a bad shape (only 2 pool) but can kill the remaining two minions of Erol with his Shambling Hordes. If he does this Andreas will win the game. Now Erol is offering a deal to Johannes: "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him together. In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 pool and tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long as they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no untapped minion he will not stay 1 round against Erol´s 3 S&B minions. Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very unfair situation for Andreas because the rules don´t allow him to gain any VPs. In my opinion the current incarnation of the rules regarding deals is faulty and should be replaced by a more simple solution. Either don´t have VP deals at all or don´t regulate them at all (as before). I prefer the latter for many reasons allready stated. You? Johannes btw: this situation has really happened.

Johannes Walch wrote: > Please make some comments on the following situation. > > In a tournament game there are three Players left (names are fictional): > Erol, Johannes and Andreas. Better names are A B and C -- makes it easier to keep track of seating order. > Erol has allready ousted his two preys, he is now the predator of > Johannes who is the predator of Andreas. Johannes is in a bad shape > (only 2 pool) but can kill the remaining two minions of Erol with his > Shambling Hordes. If he does this Andreas will win the game. Now Erol is > offering a deal to Johannes: > > "If you [Johannes] dont kill my [Erol] minions I [Erol] back-bleed Andreas and we oust him > together. In the moment before he dies you [Johannes] get yourself to 1 pool and > tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." > > It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long as > they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no untapped minion he > will not stay 1 round against Erol´s 3 S&B minions. > > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 > for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal > when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) > Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very unfair > situation for Andreas because the rules don´t allow him to gain any VPs. Johannes doesn't have to accept the deal. The rules never force a deal. > In my opinion the current incarnation of the rules regarding deals is > faulty and should be replaced by a more simple solution. Either don´t > have VP deals at all or don´t regulate them at all (as before). I > prefer the latter for many reasons allready stated. You? "Don't have VP deals" isn't viable, since it is easily circumvented with exampled like the one you present above. Unregulation isn't a solution, since it doesn't solve anything. Simpler solutions are welcome, of course.

LSJ schrieb: > Johannes Walch wrote: >> Please make some comments on the following situation. >> >> In a tournament game there are three Players left (names are fictional): >> Erol, Johannes and Andreas. > > Better names are A B and C -- makes it easier to keep track of seating > order. I was always confused with A B and C but sure no problem. Will do it in the future. >> Erol has allready ousted his two preys, he is now the predator of >> Johannes who is the predator of Andreas. Johannes is in a bad shape >> (only 2 pool) but can kill the remaining two minions of Erol with his >> Shambling Hordes. If he does this Andreas will win the game. Now Erol >> is offering a deal to Johannes: >> >> "If you [Johannes] dont kill my [Erol] minions I [Erol] back-bleed >> Andreas and we oust him together. In the moment before he dies you >> [Johannes] get yourself to 1 pool and tap all your minions. You get 1 >> VP and I win the game." >> >> It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long >> as they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no untapped >> minion he will not stay 1 round against Erol´s 3 S&B minions. >> >> Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and >> 2 for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their >> deal when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the >> (worse) Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very >> unfair situation for Andreas because the rules don´t allow him to >> gain any VPs. > > Johannes doesn't have to accept the deal. > The rules never force a deal. That is why I said "practically". Of course Johannes isn´t forced to accept the deal. It is simply the only possibility to win one or more VPs in this situation and if he wants to win the tournament (I assume that most participants do) it is his best option to accept the deal. >> In my opinion the current incarnation of the rules regarding deals is >> faulty and should be replaced by a more simple solution. Either don´t >> have VP deals at all or don´t regulate them at all (as before). I >> prefer the latter for many reasons allready stated. You? > > "Don't have VP deals" isn't viable, since it is easily circumvented with > exampled like the one you present above. Huh? Why is it circumvented? Erol can not propose the deal so there is no deal. Johannes rushes Erol to survive, Andreas wins. Of course there can be some "under the table" deal, but that is forbidden by the rules anyway. And we all follow the rules, don´t we? > Unregulation isn't a solution, since it doesn't solve anything. It would solve the situation I presented since Andreas can offer a counter-deal and everbody has the chance to reach a benificiary agreement for himself. Not just some of the players. > Simpler solutions are welcome, of course. I can´t see the problem clearly. For me, in order to present another simple solution could you please repeat the specific problems with the Unregulation (situation as before 2007). Just a short list would be appreciated. Johannes

Johannes Walch wrote: > LSJ schrieb: >> "Don't have VP deals" isn't viable, since it is easily circumvented >> with exampled like the one you present above. > > Huh? Why is it circumvented? Erol can not propose the deal so there is > no deal. Johannes rushes Erol to survive, Andreas wins. Of course there > can be some "under the table" deal, but that is forbidden by the rules > anyway. And we all follow the rules, don´t we? Circumvented by making deals for tapping out and pool loss and other things that lead to VPs without dealing for the VPs directly.

On 21 Mai, 16:06, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Please make some comments on the following situation. [...] > Now Erol is > offering a deal to Johannes: > > "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him > together. In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 pool and > tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." > [...] > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 > for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal > when Erol is ousted. What happens, if Andreas threatens: "If you make the deal, i have no chance to get a VP. I will immediately oust myself. Than Johannes has +6 Pool, +1 VP, has all his Shambling Hordes to rush you. And he is not allowed to honour his deal with you." At that point, Erol has a problem and will not make the deal. Frank I personaly only have one problem with the new tournament rules. That is, that one of the most stupid deals, Prey-Predator deals, can still be honoured, if the prey already has a GW. If the logic of the new rules was, to make VP Deals more or less unpossible, why the deal who is absolutely against the "kill your prey" principle is an exemption?

If someone has a link to the tournament rules referred to in this question, please post it. thanks

cnislev wrote: > If someone has a link to the tournament rules referred to in this > question, please post it. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec4.8 and see http://preview.tinyurl.com/27qshz

x5m...@gmx.de schrieb: > On 21 Mai, 16:06, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: >> Please make some comments on the following situation. > [...] >> Now Erol is >> offering a deal to Johannes: >> >> "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him >> together. In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 pool and >> tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." >> > [...] >> Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 >> for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal >> when Erol is ousted. > > What happens, if Andreas threatens: "If you make the deal, i have no > chance to get a VP. I will immediately oust myself. Than Johannes has > +6 Pool, +1 VP, has all his Shambling Hordes to rush you. And he is > not allowed to honour his deal with you." At that point, Erol has a > problem and will not make the deal. The problem is that a player cannot oust himself immediately. Andreas would have taken 2-3 turns to oust himself (he had something around 15 pool, 1-2 blood dolls and no vampire in the uncontrolled). Enough time for them to set up their situation. In this case also effectively helping them since Erol does not have to back-bleed. Johannes

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, I see. Very true. But then again you cannot prevent a player from playing "stupid" in the 2 player situation, can you? So Andreas could strike a deal with Johannes. He would then have to break the deal, but unfortunately he is playing too stupid (like tapping out with everybody to no good end). He could even propose it in a border-linish way: "I give you two VP and you give me one. Of course I have to break, but I tend to be very weak in end-game situations so you will probably win anyway". Still I cannot see the *specific* problems with the unregulated situation (other than a general unhapiness of some players), I would really appreciate a hint there. Johannes

On May 21, 10:06 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Please make some comments on the following situation. > Let's see if I have this right. We have... A -- Dem stealth beed, 2VP B -- Shambling Hordes, 2 pool C -- Unknown It's B's turn. He can smash A's minions. We're meant to feel bad for C because B can offer A a roll-over deal of sorts, and C can't. This is a travesty of justice. The no roll-over rule should be scrapped. Did I miss anything? My Comments: It not clear why B is offering a split deal at all. Why not just smash A, and use the no-predator-time to go after C. Go for 2-3 VP instead of 1. Does C have combat defense? Does B have deck that can't oust his prey? Let's say, C has combat defense. B needs A to back-oust his prey for him. Why does it have to be split deal? Why can't B tell A to back- oust C or get smashed? But wait, if A does back-oust C, won't B untap and smash A during his turn? And why does C have to be silent in all this? You act like a roll-over deal is the only kind of deal there is. C can offer to rescue A's minions if he declines B's offer. C can offer to tap out bleeding A if B does the smashing... In all cases, I don't see where letting players make roll-over deals, even in your hand-picked scenario, makes the world a better place for V:tes players. Disalowing the endgame split forces the players to consider the table dynamics, the end game table state, and relative capabilities of the players and their decks. It's called playing the game. -Ben Swainbank

On May 21, 7:06 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > If he does this Andreas will win the game. Now Erol is offering a deal > to Johannes: > > "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him > together. In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 pool and > tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." > > It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long as > they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no untapped minion he > will not stay 1 round against Erol´s 3 S&B minions. > > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 > for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal > when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) > Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very unfair > situation for Andreas because the rules don´t allow him to gain any VPs. I must be missing some nuance in the rules here. If there's a real tangible likelihood of Erol and Johannes making this deal, then doesn't Andreas' likelihood of getting a VP approximate 0? In the situation that you described, it seems hopeless for Andreas to stand against the other two players. Couldn't he then make any deal he likes with Johannes?

On May 21, 11:59 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > But then again you cannot prevent a player from playing "stupid" in the > 2 player situation, can you? > There is no rule against *being* stupid. There are rules against deliberately throwing games. Unenforcable? Keep in mind when offering such deals: 1) You must trust your deal-mate to be honorable enough to keep the end-game deal. 2) You must trust your deal-mate to be dishonorable enough to cheat at the game to do so. 3) You must make this "nudge-wink" illegal deal in front of a third player, whom you are actively conspiring against. 4) The Judge does not have "prove" anything. The Judge is obligated to apply his judgement, and apply penalties as appropriate. -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Disalowing the endgame split forces the players to consider the table > dynamics, the end game table state, and relative capabilities of the > players and their decks. It's called playing the game. Seriously. A couple things I'll add: While we don't have any information about how Player A got his 2 VP, my gut reaction is that he should have thought things through before putting himself in a situation where is prey (Player B) could back oust him. Speaking of the 2 VP, I'm really not feeling badly for Player C, since he let his prey get 2 VP. Yeah, Player C gets the shaft in the endgame deal-making situation, but it seems to me that Player C lost fair and square. - Ben Peal

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Disalowing the endgame split forces the players to consider the table > dynamics, the end game table state, and relative capabilities of the > players and their decks. It's called playing the game. Seriously. A couple things I'll add: [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 16:06:05 +0200, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 > for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal > when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) > Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very unfair > situation for Andreas because the rules don´t allow him to gain any > VPs. In my opinion the problem is that players can practically kill themselves to have no chance in the endgame, thus violating the spirit of the rules without breaking the letter. Possible fix 1: If a deal results in a 2-player game, then it can only be enacted in a way that both players actually try to win the game, and secure at least a reasonable chance for the endgame (as appropriate to the situation - but definitely not taking any specific actions solely to diminish their chances to win in the endgame). Possible fix 2: Players in a "lost" position (e.g. with no reasonable chance to score any more VPs) don't count towards the number of players when determining whether the game is 2-player or 3+-player. Thus, if one of the players in a 3-way have no chance to win, then no VP-deals can be made. Possible fix 2+1: As #2 above, except that the consequences of the deal are also considered (e.g. if the deal puts someone in a lost position, they don't count). Thus, if one of the players in a 3-way would be hosed by the deal so that he will no longer have any chance to win, then the deal cannot be made (as if the table was already a 2-player table). Not sure any of these work or are enforceable in practice, but at least they are simple. :) -- Regards, Daneel

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:f2s90f$vh6$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Please make some comments on the following situation. > > In a tournament game there are three Players left (names are fictional): > Erol, Johannes and Andreas. > > Erol has allready ousted his two preys, he is now the predator of Johannes who is the predator of Andreas. Johannes is in a bad > shape (only 2 pool) but can kill the remaining two minions of Erol with his Shambling Hordes. If he does this Andreas will win the > game. Now Erol is offering a deal to Johannes: > > "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him together. In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 > pool and tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." > > It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long as they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no > untapped minion he will not stay 1 round against Erol´s 3 S&B minions. OK. So what _is_ the actual problem, here? I suppose the VP deal is counter to the spirit of the play-to-win rules but there is a limit to how perfect they can be. The only one who is disadvantaged by this is Andreas. And Erol does _not_ win the game, BTW. The game would wind up a 2-2-1 split with no game win, if I understood the above discription. > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to > keep their deal when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. > I consider it a very unfair situation for Andreas because the rules don´t allow him to gain any VPs. I'm not sure how anything can be charactized as "unfair" in multiplayer games. Is it fair that Erol has been working on ousting Johannes and wasn't given the chance because his predator and grand-predator collapsed to Andreas too quickly? What hell is the definition of "fair" except playing by the spirit and letter of the rules. If this leads to a relative advantage for Erol in this situation, so be it. If you can suggest a different set of rules to regulate these matters, fine - but you have to show how your rules would be superior to the existing rules. > In my opinion the current incarnation of the rules regarding deals is faulty and should be replaced by a more simple solution. > Either don´t have VP deals at all or don´t regulate them at all (as before). I prefer the latter for many reasons allready stated. > You? This is where you're losing me. As others have pointed out, "Don't have VP deals at all" sounds 'simple' but there would need to be a whole set of protocols around it to prevent it from becoming a sham. And the protocols you would have to set up would be anything but 'simple'. Don't regulate them at all has it's problems, as well. I'm not saying there aren't pros and cons to both sides, but I don't see how your example above is any worse than the stuff that happened when VP deals were unregulated. (Well, 'unregulated' is a bad description. They were regulated; they were just rather liberal when a player could show he had no hope of gaining a game win.) > btw: this situation has really happened. We guessed. Fred

"crispyfloss" <crisp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179765248.2...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... On May 21, 7:06 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > > If he does this Andreas will win the game. Now Erol is offering a deal > > to Johannes: > > > > "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him > > together. In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 pool and > > tap all your minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." > > > > It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long as > > they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no untapped minion he > > will not stay 1 round against Erol愀 3 S&B minions. > > > > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 > > for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal > > when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) > > Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very unfair > > situation for Andreas because the rules don愒 allow him to gain any VPs. > > I must be missing some nuance in the rules here. If there's a real > tangible likelihood of Erol and Johannes making this deal, then > doesn't Andreas' likelihood of getting a VP approximate 0? In the > situation that you described, it seems hopeless for Andreas to stand > against the other two players. Couldn't he then make any deal he > likes with Johannes? The problem is that any deal that doesn't setup the oust prior to the table collapsing to two players becomes _by rules_ unenforcable. In fact, it would be against the rules for Andreas to honor it. The trick in the previous poster's example is that the Johannes sets himself up for the oust before the table collapses. Fred

Ben Swainbank schrieb: > On May 21, 10:06 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: >> Please make some comments on the following situation. >> > > Let's see if I have this right. We have... > > A -- Dem stealth beed, 2VP > B -- Shambling Hordes, 2 pool > C -- Unknown > > > It's B's turn. He can smash A's minions. We're meant to feel bad for C > because B can offer A a roll-over deal of sorts, and C can't. No. A is offering the deal to B! Because he knows that B can kill his S&B minions. And C can´t do the counter deal. > This is a travesty of justice. The no roll-over rule should be > scrapped. > > Did I miss anything? Yes you did. See above. > My Comments: > > It not clear why B is offering a split deal at all. Why not just smash > A, and use the no-predator-time to go after C. Go for 2-3 VP instead > of 1. Does C have combat defense? Does B have deck that can't oust his > prey? C is a Ahrimanes Wall Deck. So B would never oust C alone, because C is allready set up quite well. > Let's say, C has combat defense. B needs A to back-oust his prey for > him. Why does it have to be split deal? Why can't B tell A to back- > oust C or get smashed? But wait, if A does back-oust C, won't B untap > and smash A during his turn? > > And why does C have to be silent in all this? You act like a roll-over > deal is the only kind of deal there is. C can offer to rescue A's > minions if he declines B's offer. C can offer to tap out bleeding A if > B does the smashing... > > In all cases, I don't see where letting players make roll-over deals, > even in your hand-picked scenario, makes the world a better place for > V:tes players. Your points are kinda moot because we had the misunderstanding of who is offering the deal. It is not a roll-over deal, it is a "you-get-a-point-instead-of-zero" deal. Johannes

ben...@gmail.com schrieb: > Ben Swainbank wrote: >> Disalowing the endgame split forces the players to consider the table >> dynamics, the end game table state, and relative capabilities of the >> players and their decks. It's called playing the game. > > Seriously. A couple things I'll add: > > While we don't have any information about how Player A got his 2 VP, > my gut reaction is that he should have thought things through before > putting himself in a situation where is prey (Player B) could back > oust him. Well Player A got his 2 VP because he is a S&B deck. C was busy not having 10 Shamblings in his back, so A could roll over the remaining two players. > Speaking of the 2 VP, I'm really not feeling badly for Player C, > since he let his prey get 2 VP. Yeah, Player C gets the shaft in the > endgame deal-making situation, but it seems to me that Player C lost > fair and square. Why is it "fair and square" that C cannot offer a counter-deal? "He gets the shaft" is not because of the game situation but because of the rules, I might add. The deal he could offer to B is better than the one A could offer to B. Johannes

On May 21, 1:03 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > The problem is that any deal that doesn't setup the oust prior to the table > collapsing to two players becomes _by rules_ unenforcable. In fact, it would > be against the rules for Andreas to honor it. The trick in the previous > poster's example is that the Johannes sets himself up for the oust before the > table collapses. Got it. Although, I thought the problem was supposed to be that he couldn't even propose a deal because of play-to-win. You're saying that he can propose it (and honor it until heads-up action), so is the real problem then that he can't craft a deal that will have the appropriate mechanics to ensure that he will be ousted when he can, by rules, no longer honor it? Or is there some other impediment?

I wrote in message news:6Um4i.394743$6P2.2...@newsfe16.phx... > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message > news:f2s90f$vh6$1...@news01.versatel.de... >> Please make some comments on the following situation. >> >> In a tournament game there are three Players left (names are fictional): >> Erol, Johannes and Andreas. >> >> Erol has allready ousted his two preys, he is now the predator of Johannes >> who is the predator of Andreas. Johannes is in a bad shape (only 2 pool) >> but can kill the remaining two minions of Erol with his Shambling Hordes. >> If he does this Andreas will win the game. Now Erol is offering a deal to >> Johannes: >> >> "If you dont kill my minions I back-bleed Andreas and we oust him together. >> In the moment before he dies you get yourself to 1 pool and tap all your >> minions. You get 1 VP and I win the game." >> >> It is a valid deal since Johannes can honor his loosing deal as long as >> they are 3 and with 7 (1+6 for the oust) pool and no untapped minion he >> will not stay 1 round against Erol愀 3 S&B minions. > > OK. So what _is_ the actual problem, here? I suppose the VP deal > is counter to the spirit of the play-to-win rules but there is a limit to > how perfect they can be. The only one who is disadvantaged by this is > Andreas. And Erol does _not_ win the game, BTW. The game would > wind up a 2-2-1 split with no game win, if I understood the above > discription. Bleh. My mistake trying to follow who was who's predator and who is offering what deal. Yes, Erol gets a 4 VP game win by offering Johannes 1 VP. Thus, my counter-example of other multiplayer game unfairness would be different, but I gurantee that there would be another way to look at fairness in such a game. There always is. VtES almost never rewards players perfectly for their skill at the mechanics of ousting and avoiding ousting. My point is that it's not worth just waving your hand over a situation like that this and insisting it's "unfair". You have to point at a very specific practical problem caused by the current rules and how a different set of rules might alleviate it. And be able to defend your claim against potential counter- claims that your proposal isn't worse in some other way. Fred

On May 21, 11:14 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2007 16:06:05 +0200, Johannes Walch wrote: > > Problem is Andreas cannot offer a counter-deal (e.g 1 for Andreas and 2 > > for Johannes) to Johannes because they are not allow to keep their deal > > when Erol is ousted. Also Johannes practically has to accept the (worse) > > Deal because that is maximizing his VPs. I consider it a very unfair > > situation for Andreas because the rules don't allow him to gain any > > VPs. > > In my opinion the problem is that players can practically kill themselves > to have no chance in the endgame, thus violating the spirit of the rules > without breaking the letter. I agree that this is a problem, but I think in reality it's only a minor one. In the example cited, Johannes puts himself at 1 pool BEFORE ousting his prey. Many players in Erol's situation would simply break the deal and oust Johannes, followed by his new prey Andreas. In addition, Andreas could spite Johannes and back oust him as well. I think this situation comes up sufficiently rarely, and with great enough risk to the player's making the deal, that it's not a big problem. While the new rules certainly don't stop all table split deals, I think they do help. In my opinion, the biggest drawback of the new rules is that they weaken the negotiating position of players who choose to keep all their deals. People (like me) who never break deals, benefitted under the old rules by being able to make crazy offers for endgame situations that would be kept. Now, people who choose to never break deals only have that benefit through mid-game, and not end-game. Nonetheless, I'm willing to accept the change because of the clear benefits it provides to creating a game that's much more "kill your prey to win" and less table splits. Ira

"crispyfloss" <crisp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1179783840....@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No, I think you've got it. Other deals could be proposed but by the most recent tournament rules, anything that takes place after a table collapse to two players must be strictly self-interest-motivated in spite of any deals that had been struck in the past. At least, this is what I understand about it. My only caution is that my comprehension of either the most recent tournament rules and/or Johannes's example might still be flawed, in which case someone may come along by and by to point out something I missed. Fred

In message <1179759427.1...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, x5m...@gmx.de writes: >I personaly only have one problem with the new tournament rules. That >is, that one of the most stupid deals, Prey-Predator deals, can still >be honoured, if the prey already has a GW. If the logic of the new >rules was, to make VP Deals more or less unpossible, why the deal who >is absolutely against the "kill your prey" principle is an exemption? It's not. At least, not in the way you present it. The previous rules allowed many rollover deals. The current rules prevent many of them, using a fairly simple ruling that is easy to apply. I very much doubt it was the intention to specifically leave certain types of rollover deals as playable. Rather, the simple change to the rules (that is enforcable) was found, and a suitable change that excludes all rollover deals has not been found. This is a better situation than before. It's not perfect. If you have a better suggestion, please feel free to detail it, how it would work, and what up and downsides you think it would have. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > In my opinion, the biggest drawback of the new rules is that they > weaken the negotiating position of players who choose to keep all > their deals. People (like me) who never break deals, benefitted under > the old rules by being able to make crazy offers for endgame > situations that would be kept. Now, people who choose to never break > deals only have that benefit through mid-game, and not end-game. > Nonetheless, I'm willing to accept the change because of the clear > benefits it provides to creating a game that's much more "kill your > prey to win" and less table splits. So, by that logic, you are going to become a player who sometimes breaks his deals? WELCOME TO THE CLUB! ;) 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

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Pwq4i.16809$3G3....@newsfe06.phx... > ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> In my opinion, the biggest drawback of the new rules is that they >> weaken the negotiating position of players who choose to keep all >> their deals. People (like me) who never break deals, benefitted under >> the old rules by being able to make crazy offers for endgame >> situations that would be kept. Now, people who choose to never break >> deals only have that benefit through mid-game, and not end-game. >> Nonetheless, I'm willing to accept the change because of the clear >> benefits it provides to creating a game that's much more "kill your >> prey to win" and less table splits. > > So, by that logic, you are going to become a player who sometimes breaks > his deals? > > WELCOME TO THE CLUB! ;) > Ira would never belong to a club that had you & me as members, Kevin. :) - Pat

On May 22, 11:12 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion, the biggest drawback of the new rules is that they > weaken the negotiating position of players who choose to keep all > their deals. People (like me) who never break deals, benefitted under > the old rules by being able to make crazy offers for endgame > situations that would be kept. Yes... and no. I don't break deals either but I find that for roughly speaking every time I could have got a VP (or more) by breaking a deal, I've been given a VP by someone else because they knew I would keep my end of the deal. I still think you should keep deals :-) I think the new rule is just a lot simpler and much easier to understand and enforce than the old one. So player C loses out in the above example, well that's unlucky, but maybe next time he'll draw more cross table cards and block / rush A's minions earlier or something. It's a multi-player game and there are always times when two players team up in some fashion against another... that's just kind of the way it goes. Simon

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <1179759427.1...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > x5m...@gmx.de writes: >> I personaly only have one problem with the new tournament rules. That >> is, that one of the most stupid deals, Prey-Predator deals, can still >> be honoured, if the prey already has a GW. If the logic of the new >> rules was, to make VP Deals more or less unpossible, why the deal who >> is absolutely against the "kill your prey" principle is an exemption? > > It's not. At least, not in the way you present it. > > The previous rules allowed many rollover deals. The current rules > prevent many of them, using a fairly simple ruling that is easy to > apply. I very much doubt it was the intention to specifically leave > certain types of rollover deals as playable. Rather, the simple change > to the rules (that is enforcable) was found, and a suitable change that > excludes all rollover deals has not been found. > > This is a better situation than before. It's not perfect. If you have > a better suggestion, please feel free to detail it, how it would work, > and what up and downsides you think it would have. Why is it better than before? This is based on the assumption that rollover deals are bad? Why are they bad? Also keep in mind that the new rules killed more VP deals than simple roll-over deals. I think it is worse to have roll-over deals legal only in some situations and banned in others because that creates unfair situations like the one I presented. Johannes

Shade schrieb: > I think the new rule is just a lot simpler and much easier to > understand and enforce than the old one. So player C loses out in the > above example, well that's unlucky, but maybe next time he'll draw > more cross table cards and block / rush A's minions earlier or > something. It's a multi-player game and there are always times when > two players team up in some fashion against another... that's just > kind of the way it goes. Which old rule are you referring to? Before 01.01.2007 deals were not mentioned, neither in the rule book nor in the tournament rules. Johannes

On May 21, 6:59 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > So Andreas could strike a deal with Johannes. He would then have to > break the deal, but unfortunately he is playing too stupid (like tapping > out with everybody to no good end). > > He could even propose it in a border-linish way: "I give you two VP and > you give me one. Of course I have to break, but I tend to be very weak > in end-game situations so you will probably win anyway". > No, he could suggest the same deal to Johannes: "You torporize Erol's vampires, I diablerize them. Then I do all you say (including going down to 1 pool), but you won't oust me until I oust Erol". Yes, they will be forced to fight when Andreas would oust Erol, but it's possible to set up the situation where Johannes can legally oust Andreas, if they have enough time. At least, it's possible most of the time. Moreover, this is the most logical behaviour for Johannes, since Erol can easily break the deal, oust him and get GW. Moreover, after the Johannes' turn, he can offer Andreas the 3-2 table split to ensure his victory! Yours, Ector

In message <f2u2kf$mp2$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >James Coupe schrieb: >> This is a better situation than before. It's not perfect. If you >>have >> a better suggestion, please feel free to detail it, how it would work, >> and what up and downsides you think it would have. > >Why is it better than before? This is based on the assumption that >rollover deals are bad? Why are they bad? As can be seen from changes like banning Succubus Club, Dramatic Upheavel, and Kindred Restructure, and from Garfield's own writing on V:TES, the inherent structure of the game *should* be that I kill my prey, you kill yours. For example, Garfield expressly turned down the idea of a cross-table oust giving me (the ouster) pool and a VP (one, the other, or both), in favour of them going to the predator as normal. Why? Because if I have an incentive to oust you, it should be distinct from your predator's incentive. Perhaps, for example, you're playing an Anson Many Masters decks, and I *really* need to bring out my copy of Anson. So I'm willing to help oust you. Or, at least, burn Anson in some way. This may be a strategic error on my part, but I think it's the best way - and, if there is any dispute, the judge agrees I'm not being a complete cock. When I can legitimately work with a rollover deal with someone else, this can lead to a number of problems. For example, instead of having one predator, you have two - your real predator, and me. This causes problems, because most of the game is set up based around the idea that it will be your predator and prey doing nasty things to you - the default bleed affects your prey, the undirected political action can be blocked by predator and prey, and I can block my predator's and prey's actions, and so on. I'm not, in general, supposed to be taking on two Methuselahs at once. Note that this is distinct from being the threat on the table (and so we oust you to allow either of us to get a GW, instead of you rolling the table). Rollover deals do not need anyone else to look like the threat. The problem is that when I can make legitimate rollover deals, we two stop having distinct motives. My motives are the same as my ally's motives, and the game is not supposed to be set up that way, save for in the most degenerate cases, which are generally but not universally avoided. On a simpler, though more instinctual, level, this is often regarded as more "sporting" - attempting to win by playing the game as it was "meant" to be played. Going on to your "unfair" comment at the bottom - what's "fair" about having two Methuselahs with identical motives eating me? If their motives are absolutely identical, I have no maneuvering room to offer a counter-deal, or openings to exploit tactically, or whatever. >Also keep in mind that the new rules killed more VP deals than simple >roll-over deals. Up to a point. Thing is, we're down to 2 players, so 2 or 3 VPs have already been awarded. This may well be a better result than the players could have expected anyway, and so fighting it out at that stage may well lead to a better performance for both players anyway. Will both players be hoping to get the GW? Sure. That's a *good* thing. >I think it is worse to have roll-over deals legal only in some >situations and banned in others because that creates unfair situations >like the one I presented. What's unfair about it? You've missed out the preceding game that led up to that point. A player can maneuver him or herself into positions where he or she can make beneficial deals. If they do, and get into a better position, and execute the deal, what's unfair about that? Just as you can be outclassed by someone with better resource management than you, or better deck building skills than you, you can be out- maneuvered by someone with better table manipulation skills than you. V:TES is *not* a game in which all players will have equal opportunities to do everything at all times, nor should it be. The personality of a player and, by extension, the "personality" of their deck will be reflected heavily in the opportunities that come up for them. The point is that the structure of the game should have as much integrity as possible. Once within that structure, players should, will, and can do anything that's possible to win. Have we got the perfect structure? Probably not. Is there a perfect structure? Probably not - there's a certain matter of taste to it anyway, even if you could find a few that everyone agreed were all 100 times better than the other options, but then everyone disagreed as to which of the remaining options was absolutely best. Is providing a disincentive to random cross-table shenanigans, so that I have to defend against two Methuselahs at once for no reason related to my play, a good thing? A fair thing? Is preserving the distinct motives of two Methuselahs a good thing? A fair thing? I'd say yes. Would it be nice to find a better, simple ruling/rule that made everything even better? Sure. But I believe that where we are now is better than where we were. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f2u2p1$mp2$2...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch [ quoted text not captured ] One assumes the plethora of clarifications that LSJ had provided on how to handle deals, VP split deals, rollover deals, and so on. Whilst they had a definite theme and integrity to them, they lacked a simplicity that could be explained to a player in 30 seconds. If you can't explain a key concept briefly to players, this can cause problems - either in the amount of time it takes to explain things, or that it may indicate that your rules are not as elegant as they could be. Additionally, given the way that rollover deals can *significantly* boost a player's resources (e.g. I'm not being bled, so I have a lot of pool now, when I was on the ropes before), it can be difficult for a judge to understand the previous dynamic of a table if they are only brought over later to examine a deal. I *would* have been ousted, if I hadn't agreed to the deal. Because I agreed to the deal, you've helped me (or not hindered me) fixing my vampires a bit, so I could oust the rest of the table with you. So now it looks like I'm a fairly threatening Methuselah. After a few turns of such, is it reasonable for a judge to determine if I can roll over or not? If the judge can just say "Well, the two of you have to fight it out", and the players already know this, and it can be explained in approximately ten words, life is simple. (Yes, this is a reason why calling judges over early can be helpful. No, this does not mean it always happens.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > > While we don't have any information about how Player A got his 2 VP, > > my gut reaction is that he should have thought things through before > > putting himself in a situation where is prey (Player B) could back > > oust him. > > Well Player A got his 2 VP because he is a S&B deck. C was busy not > having 10 Shamblings in his back, so A could roll over the remaining two > players. Ok, so, A should have thought things through and not put himself in a situation where he could be back-ousted. > Why is it "fair and square" that C cannot offer a counter-deal? > "He gets the shaft" is not because of the game situation but because of > the rules, I might add. The deal he could offer to B is better than the > one A could offer to B. C lets his prey get 2 VP, and we're supposed to feel bad for him because he can't weasel a VP split deal? Instead of worrying about how to weasel that VP, worry about how to win games. There's no travesty of justice going on here. - Ben

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <f2u2p1$mp2$2...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >> Shade schrieb: >>> I think the new rule is just a lot simpler and much easier to >>> understand and enforce than the old one. So player C loses out in the >>> above example, well that's unlucky, but maybe next time he'll draw >>> more cross table cards and block / rush A's minions earlier or >>> something. It's a multi-player game and there are always times when >>> two players team up in some fashion against another... that's just >>> kind of the way it goes. >> Which old rule are you referring to? Before 01.01.2007 deals were not >> mentioned, neither in the rule book nor in the tournament rules. > > One assumes the plethora of clarifications that LSJ had provided on how > to handle deals, VP split deals, rollover deals, and so on. > > Whilst they had a definite theme and integrity to them, they lacked a > simplicity that could be explained to a player in 30 seconds. If you > can't explain a key concept briefly to players, this can cause problems > - either in the amount of time it takes to explain things, or that it > may indicate that your rules are not as elegant as they could be. Please note that they were never mentioned in any "official" rules required to run a tournament and therefore in most tournaments they were never applied. I can only speak for my own experience, but I am playing a lot of tournaments in very different locations (and made a lot of deals) and never ever one of my deals was limited or regulated by a judge. So for my own playing experience the change as of 01.01.2007 was very drastic. I have not been able to offer a VP deal since then and I was not offered one. This is not to argue the goodness/badness of this change, just to underline that the change (or at least it愀 effect) was rather drastic. Also I noted that people go easy on deals not only because there is no legal possibility to deal but they do not want to think all the possibilities through and also get confused about what is legal and what not. Johannes

Johannes Walch wrote: > Please note that they were never mentioned in any "official" rules > required to run a tournament and therefore in most tournaments they were > never applied. Most tournament organizers read the newsgroup. The judging analyses/guidelines made on the newsgroup are applied (taken in spirit) by most organizers who have read them.

ben...@gmail.com a écrit : > C lets his prey get 2 VP, and we're supposed to feel bad for him > because he can't weasel a VP split deal? Instead of worrying about > how to weasel that VP, worry about how to win games. There's no > travesty of justice going on here. > > > - Ben My*New*Jyhad*Hero !! =D

On 22 Mai, 02:00, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1179759427.179826.135...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > x5m...@gmx.de writes: > >I personaly only have one problem with the new tournament rules. That > >is, that one of the most stupid deals, Prey-Predator deals, can still > >be honoured, if the prey already has a GW. If the logic of the new > >rules was, to make VP Deals more or less unpossible, why the deal who > >is absolutely against the "kill your prey" principle is an exemption? > > It's not. At least, not in the way you present it. There is an ruling by LSJ, that A and B can make a deal, that B can oust C, D and E, and A ousts him. When B has 1 GW and 3 VP he doesnt have to play to maximize his VPs, so he can honour teh deal. Against the logic IMO, but by LSJ. > This is a better situation than before. It's not perfect. If you have > a better suggestion, please feel free to detail it, how it would work, > and what up and downsides you think it would have. Simple solution. In a two player situation you have to play to win including maximizing your VPs. BTW it is not corner case. I had two such deals in a tournament of three rounds.

In message <f2un56$rbi$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >I can only speak for my own experience, but I am playing a lot of >tournaments in very different locations (and made a lot of deals) and >never ever one of my deals was limited or regulated by a judge. How many times did a player (you, or anyone) call a judge over to ascertain whether the deal was legal? If all the players on the table are happy the deal is legal, and the judge is never alerted, then it's likely that: a) the deal was legal (as the vast, vast majority of deals I've ever seen are) b) the judge, not being psychic, wouldn't know about it. Judges don't have to stand over every deal like a lawyer stamping papers. If a judge sees a deal (he happens to be at that table, or nearby) going on with nothing untoward going on, the judge probably has "regulated" it - by doing nothing. The majority of the time, that's the appropriate response. See legal deal, do nothing, say nothing. The judge absolutely, positively does not have to dot every i and cross every t before a player is even allowed to breathe. Out of interest, how many illegal deals have you struck that a judge should have intervened on and limited? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <MoB4i.1741$C96...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Johannes Walch wrote: >> Please note that they were never mentioned in any "official" rules >>required to run a tournament and therefore in most tournaments they >>were never applied. > >Most tournament organizers read the newsgroup. Or the WW forum. Or various national forums. Or mailing lists. Or get visited by players from elsewhere who do. Or... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1179852022....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, x5m...@gmx.de writes: >On 22 Mai, 02:00, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> It's not. At least, not in the way you present it. > >There is an ruling by LSJ, that A and B can make a deal, that B can >oust C, D and E, and A ousts him. When B has 1 GW and 3 VP he doesnt >have to play to maximize his VPs, so he can honour teh deal. Against >the logic IMO, but by LSJ. No, it's entirely in line with the logic. 1) A player who wins can win in any way he chooses. If I can get a win by doing this deal (where I get a table win) or this other deal (where I get a table win in a very different way) or by not doing a deal (where I still get a table win), I can choose any of these options. One of them might be 5VP, one of them 3VP, and one of them might even be 2VP (and everyone else gets 1, so I still get a table win). I can pick any of them. 2) Deals are off when you get to 2 players. The important point here is that I can't do things that violate play-to-win at this point (which I used to be able to, by virtue of a legal deal). 2) does not mean that 1) does not apply. It's not a case of honouring a deal at that point. If I have a win, I can roll over - because that's not against play-to-win behaviour. I've won. Distasteful? Possibly. Annoying for some players? Obviously. But it's not illogical. You just aren't seeing the actual logic at work here. Note also that players do NOT have to play to maximize VPs. Players first and foremost *always* play for the GW. Many players will also want to maximize their VPs, as a matter of personal pride. But maximizing VPs is what you do when you can't get the GW. If you can get the GW, you can get the GW in any way you choose. >> This is a better situation than before. It's not perfect. If you have >> a better suggestion, please feel free to detail it, how it would work, >> and what up and downsides you think it would have. > >Simple solution. In a two player situation you have to play to win >including maximizing your VPs. As already explained by LSJ *in this thread*, this isn't particularly enforceable. You and I have made a deal for me to roll-over. Roll-overs of that sort are illegal, but we happen to know each other, and we both know what we've agreed even if we've not actually said it. I "just happen" to be in a very weak position when we oust the third player, so you happen to be able to oust me. I didn't roll-over, but the end result was basically identical. This is not the simple solution you present it as. >BTW it is not corner case. I had two such deals in a tournament of >three rounds. Since I didn't imply that this was "corner case", I have no idea why this is relevant. I'd be quite happy to see a better solution, but have yet to see a coherent one. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 22, 6:31 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Which old rule are you referring to? Before 01.01.2007 deals were not > mentioned, neither in the rule book nor in the tournament rules. James has already replied to this and yes I was basically referring to previous rulings on table splitting deals and playing to win etc... Saying all deals are off once it's down to two players just seems a lot simpler and easier to explain. I also agree with the points Ben made. The deal rule is just a symptom, the cause was that C let his prey get 2 VP. If he stops that happening then it doesn't matter what the deal rule is...

On 22 Mai, 19:32, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > No, it's entirely in line with the logic. > > 1) A player who wins can win in any way he chooses. If I can get a win > by doing this deal (where I get a table win) or this other deal > (where I get a table win in a very different way) or by not > doing a deal (where I still get a table win), I can choose any > of these options. One of them might be 5VP, one of them 3VP, > and one of them might even be 2VP (and everyone else gets 1, so > I still get a table win). I can pick any of them. > > 2) Deals are off when you get to 2 players. The important point here is > that I can't do things that violate play-to-win at this point > (which I used to be able to, by virtue of a legal deal). First MY logic. The logic of the new tournament rules is to stop VP deals. If it is not the intended logic, it is still the result of the tournament rules, because they actually stop 95% of VP deals. That the 5% of non stopped VP deals are the ones who are violating the principle of the game (predator-prey- relation) is a flaw of the new tournament rules in fulfilling their job. I cant see any problem for the game, if PTW would be defined as including maximizing VPs. To win a toruinament you need GWs and VPs. > But it's not illogical. You just aren't seeing the actual logic at work > here. I have my own logic. > As already explained by LSJ *in this thread*, this isn't particularly > enforceable. > > You and I have made a deal for me to roll-over. Roll-overs of that sort > are illegal, but we happen to know each other, and we both know what > we've agreed even if we've not actually said it. I "just happen" to be > in a very weak position when we oust the third player, so you happen to > be able to oust me. Weak argument IMO. If a judge can force a player to PTW (GW), he can also enforce him PTW (VP). The guys that know each other can also play that one of them gets the GW in the two player situation. > I didn't roll-over, but the end result was basically identical. No. A and B can now make a deal, that B ousts the others getting a GW and will be ousted by A. With my solution B has to try to kill A.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > First MY logic. The logic of the new tournament rules is to stop VP > deals. If it is not the intended logic, it is still the result of the > tournament rules, because they actually stop 95% of VP deals. That the > 5% of non stopped VP deals are the ones who are violating the > principle of the game (predator-prey- relation) is a flaw of the new > tournament rules in fulfilling their job. And now MY logic: That remaining 5% is not a flaw in the tournament rules, but rather a flaw in the strategy of the players involved. Every time I see a post to the newsgroup from someone compaining about deals being legal or illegal, or contriving some PTW/VP-maximization situation in order to create some universe-imploding paradox, the correct answer is that the players involved were shortsightedly thinking that a weak position means they should sacrifice their game to scrape a VP instead of trying to find a way to win the game despite the poor odds. In my experience, the best way to make the finals of a tournament is to WIN GAMES. Yes, you'll find yourself in situations where your chances of winning a game are poor. However, if you look beyond that one tournament and instead look at your track record over the course of a series of tournaments, you'll find that you'll make the final round more often by taking the poor-odds chance of going for the win than by taking the no chance of getting that 1 VP. Only if you know that you have NO chance of winning the game at all should you go for the 1 VP. This is ESPECIALLY true in the North American and European Championships, where you KNOW you need at least 2 GW to make the finals. If you're in Round 3 with 1 GW and you're trying to weasel out a VP deal, you should be slapped with a handful of crepes. > including maximizing VPs. To win a toruinament you need GWs and VPs. Now we get to the FURTHERMORE part of MY logic. FURTHERMORE, if you go for GW instead of VP, when you make the final round your odds of winning are improved because you are more likely to have the higher seed in the finals - a very advantageous position. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with GW being the FIRST TIEBREAKER. Oh, and you should all play faster, too. That way you won't be scrambling to make GW and VP deals before time runs out. Oh, and you should all shut yer yaps, too. That way you won't waste time during the game negotiating deals, only to see VP and GW slip away from you as time runs out. Play. The. Game. Win. The. Game. - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] Dude, much respect. Some one seriously needed to say that. I so wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Stop bitching and moaning about deal this and agreement that. If some wuss on your table accepts someone else's roll over deal, I view that person as the weak link, and also the person who is making the table threat stronger. At this point there are THREE!!!! players not in this deal, and only 2 who are. Someone please explain to me why those 3 then do not turn around, destroy the table threat communally, annihilate the weak "I'll show you my belly" dog, and then Play. The. Game. You do not win VtES by making deals that weaken your position (and not winning is weakening your position). If someone is enough of a wuss to accept a deal in which they get screwed, awesome, as long as I am making that deal with them. And deals by their very definition are about gaining a meta advantage. Not just a prey/pred advantage but an overall advantage in the game. So it comes down to this: Either you play to win, or you play to lose. Making deals to allow you some scraps from the big dog, just sits wrong with me. So screw that.

On 24 Mai, 20:42, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stop bitching and moaning about deal this and agreement that. Come on boys. With YOUR logic the change of the tournament rules was absolutely nonsense. Because "not bitching" about deals was already possible before. I am really not "bitching". I only ask, if it was necessary to stop VP deals, why not stop them absolutely. Frank

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > I only ask, if it was necessary to stop VP > deals, why not stop them absolutely. It wasn't necessary, merely desirable (YMMV). Stopping them absolutely would also be desirable. If anyone has a workable solution to achieve that goal, please share.