Hi,
in our last tournament yesterday a rather difficult question/situation
arose. We have played a 4 player table with Me, Player A, Player B, Player
C. Me and B have (both playing vote decks) have cooperated through the whole
game by voting with each other all (!) the time, because Player C was also
playing a vote deck AND we would have been able to shut us down because we
were both relying on Voter Captivations.
After about 2 hourse the game was approaching the time limit with no one
ousted. It was my turn, my prey (Player A) had 3 pool I had only 1 vampire
open and this vampire was calling a Kine Resources Contested, which would
oust A and giving me 1,5 VP and B,C 0,5 VP instead of 0,5 VP for everyone.
Player B愀 first idea was to vote with me, because we were cooperating the
whole game and the quite "out of game" time limit thing has nothing to do
with it. But the judge said no you are not allowed to vote with him because
you have to play to max your VPs. I argued against, that we had some kind of
deal AND he was maximizing his VPs he was just not minimizing mine.
In the end it didn愒 matter because I was in the final anyway, but how
should the judge decide in such a situation ? I have collected all the
arguments for both sides, but I want to hear your opinion first. Thats
probably less biased then :-)
johannes walch
> Player B愀 first idea was to vote with me, because we were cooperating the
> whole game and the quite "out of game" time limit thing has nothing to do
> with it.
I have to add that I even discarded an Awe and a Bewitching Oration (which
together would have made me pass the vote on my own) 2 and 3 turns before,
because I was never thinking of the possibility that he might not be allowed
to vote with me !
[ quoted text not captured ]
B can vote with you so long as doing so doesn't reduce B's prospect of a
Game Win, or, if he cannot get a GW, doesn't reduce his expected VP tally.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
> Johannes Walch wrote:>> Hi,
>>
>> in our last tournament yesterday a rather difficult
>> question/situation
>> arose. We have played a 4 player table with Me, Player A,
>> Player B, Player
>> C. Me and B have (both playing vote decks) have
>> cooperated through the whole
>> game by voting with each other all (!) the time, because
>> Player C was also
>> playing a vote deck AND we would have been able to shut
>> us down because we
>> were both relying on Voter Captivations.> etc..>
> B can vote with you so long as doing so doesn't reduce B's
> prospect of a
> Game Win, or, if he cannot get a GW, doesn't reduce his
> expected VP tally.
That is such a bloody minefield. Very, very, very difficult to rule on.
Has anyone actually been cautioned or whatever on that yet?
Essentially asking the judge to climb inside the players heads.
Rob
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.comhttp://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
robtreasure wrote:
>>B can vote with you so long as doing so doesn't reduce B's
>>prospect of a
>>Game Win, or, if he cannot get a GW, doesn't reduce his
>>expected VP tally.>
>
> That is such a bloody minefield. Very, very, very difficult to rule on.
> Has anyone actually been cautioned or whatever on that yet?
>
> Essentially asking the judge to climb inside the players heads.
Asking the judge to examine the game state without regard to
the players' heads, actually.
You're right that it is difficult. It is a judgment call in many
cases. Which is what the judges are for.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> robtreasure wrote:>>>B can vote with you so long as doing so doesn't reduce B's
>>>prospect of a
>>>Game Win, or, if he cannot get a GW, doesn't reduce his
>>>expected VP tally.>>
>> That is such a bloody minefield. Very, very, very
>> difficult to rule on.
>> Has anyone actually been cautioned or whatever on that yet?
>>
>> Essentially asking the judge to climb inside the players heads.>
> Asking the judge to examine the game state without regard to
> the players' heads, actually.
True enough, my bad. That said, I have had to justify my actions on more
than one occasion though with regard to my future plans on cards /
plays.
> You're right that it is difficult. It is a judgment call in many
> cases. Which is what the judges are for.
Again a fair point. I suppose it comes down to good judge - good
rulings, bad judge - bad rulings.... although as you say it is a
difficult one.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>True enough, my bad. That said, I have had to justify my actions on more
>than one occasion though with regard to my future plans on cards /
>plays.
Agreed. And only you know what's in your deck. So if you have a Dramatic
Upheaval or two in your deck and you're just waiting to draw into it, it could
potentially explain a lot of the bizarre cross-table actions you're taking.
Halcyan 2
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:b54mvp$ckh$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
The way I see it, Player B doesn't need to oust his predator to win the
game. Maximizing your VPs or minimizing others isn't the goal, winning the
game is. Even if there were no time limit, allowing you to oust Player B's
predator may have been a sound strategic decision.
Dorrinal
> The way I see it, Player B doesn't need to oust his predator to win the
> game. Maximizing your VPs or minimizing others isn't the goal, winning
the
> game is. Even if there were no time limit, allowing you to oust Player
B's
> predator may have been a sound strategic decision.
The question was not if I oust player A but rather if I oust player A in
this very moment. Next round would have been his doom anyway because I stole
(Form of Corruption, Temptation of Greater Power) his 2 biggest minions. He
was left with 2 weenies, 3 pool and I had 6 decent minions. Not much of a
chance I guess. And Player C was still quite strong at this moment and
without my help Player B could not have ousted Player C at any reasonable
(before I oust him) time later.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E75E594...@white-wolf.com>...
> B can vote with you so long as doing so doesn't reduce B's prospect of a
> Game Win, or, if he cannot get a GW, doesn't reduce his expected VP tally.
How can I maximise my VPs if I give one away freely without a valid
deal? It was short before timeout, Player B couldn't expect to get
help from Johannes for his kill because there was no time left for
that. For what reason should he help someone to make a kill if he does
not get something in return. Just because of loyalty for the help he
got in the turns before? I think not, because both players had a
benefit of their support, so nobody owed something to the other player
(caution: bad englisch).
I think, this problem is a question of style. I don't think, you can
rule that perfectly. In my opinion Johannes and Player B should have
make a clear deal before. I was the player to be ousted and I didn't
called the judge. But I questioned Player B why he wanted to throw
away a VP for nothing. I don't help somebody to get a VP and 6 blood,
something what could mean a place in the Finals, just because of
sympathy, do I?
Joscha Duell wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E75E594...@white-wolf.com>...
>>>B can vote with you so long as doing so doesn't reduce B's prospect of a
>>Game Win, or, if he cannot get a GW, doesn't reduce his expected VP tally.>
>
> How can I maximise my VPs if I give one away freely without a valid
> deal?
If your expected VP accumulation is 0 with or without the "deal" (which is
not the right term here, since there's no actual deal), then you are free
to go ahead with the deal or go ahead without the deal.
> It was short before timeout, Player B couldn't expect to get
> help from Johannes for his kill because there was no time left for
> that. For what reason should he help someone to make a kill if he does
> not get something in return.
If you can't help yourself, every action you take (or omit) will help one
player or another (or will be immaterial).
> Just because of loyalty for the help he
> got in the turns before? I think not, because both players had a
> benefit of their support, so nobody owed something to the other player
> (caution: bad englisch).
"Owed" hasn't been part of the argument or the answer so far.
> I think, this problem is a question of style. I don't think, you can
> rule that perfectly. In my opinion Johannes and Player B should have
> make a clear deal before. I was the player to be ousted and I didn't
> called the judge. But I questioned Player B why he wanted to throw
> away a VP for nothing. I don't help somebody to get a VP and 6 blood,
> something what could mean a place in the Finals, just because of
> sympathy, do I?
B didn't have the VP. So he's not throwing it away.
If his action resulted in him taking 1 fewer VP than he would have
otherwise received, *then* he would be "throwing away" a VP.
But that isn't how the situation was described.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<b55brb$ni5$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
To say the truth you were down to three pool after the Temptation of
Greater Power so I think there wouldn't come a next turn for you with
all minions tapped and an Obtenebrationdeck at your heels (though I
don't know, if you had Wakes and Misdirections in your hand of
course). But it's the question again: why should I help to kill my
Predator without a deal? I'd rather try to keep him alive, so I don't
get a new even harder Predator.
> To say the truth you were down to three pool after the Temptation of
> Greater Power so I think there wouldn't come a next turn for you with
> all minions tapped and an Obtenebrationdeck at your heels (though I
> don't know, if you had Wakes and Misdirections in your hand of
> course). But it's the question again: why should I help to kill my
> Predator without a deal? I'd rather try to keep him alive, so I don't
> get a new even harder Predator.
I had 1 Wake and 2nd Tradition and 1 or 2 Telepathic MD plus I hade some
fierce Ivory Bow / Flamethrower Blockers (stolen from you, hehehe).
And voting wasn´t an option for my predator at this moment, because I had 8
or 9 perm votes and Player A also had 9 perm votes. And I am sure Fabian
would not have allowed Frank to oust me and then you in the same turn. That
would NOT have maximized his VP ;-).
johannes