reply

Does this change the legality of the mutual withdrawl? It seems that at this point the judges responsibility is to determine if there is enough time to facilitate additional ousts, since with infinite time there certainly is a reasonable chance to merit additonal play. I guess my fundamental question is: 1) What precisely are the rules for tournaments, outside of mechanical considerations? What does the 'play the win' concept really mean in a tournament setting? There are so many gray and confusing situations that the concept seems somewhat inadequate, at least to me. I could find no dirth of questions the 'play to win' concept does not put into crystalline focus.

Jeff Haar wrote: > Does this change the legality of the mutual withdrawl? It seems that What "this"? > at this point the judges responsibility is to determine if there is > enough time to facilitate additional ousts, since with infinite time > there certainly is a reasonable chance to merit additonal play. > > I guess my fundamental question is: > 1) What precisely are the rules for tournaments, outside of mechanical > considerations? What does the 'play the win' concept really mean in a > tournament setting? That each player must play to win (based on the information available to him or her at the time) and, if unable to win, must play to maximize his or her VP accumulation. > There are so many gray and confusing situations that the concept seems > somewhat inadequate, at least to me. I could find no dirth of > questions the 'play to win' concept does not put into crystalline > focus. Gray areas are what judges are for. If everything were in crystalline focus, we wouldn't need judges. -- 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/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F70812A...@white-wolf.com>... > Jeff Haar wrote: > > Does this change the legality of the mutual withdrawl? It seems that > > What "this"? Sorry this was in regards the the mutual withdrawl situation. Somehow the site could not connect it to the post I was replying to. > > > at this point the judges responsibility is to determine if there is > > enough time to facilitate additional ousts, since with infinite time > > there certainly is a reasonable chance to merit additonal play. > > > > I guess my fundamental question is: > > 1) What precisely are the rules for tournaments, outside of mechanical > > considerations? What does the 'play the win' concept really mean in a > > tournament setting? > > That each player must play to win (based on the information available to > him or her at the time) and, if unable to win, must play to maximize > his or her VP accumulation. > So the players in the game in question would have had to play for a while longer and could attempt to withdrawl when there is so little time left that no one could oust the other. Maybe 5 minutes if both players are still fairly healthy. > > There are so many gray and confusing situations that the concept seems > > somewhat inadequate, at least to me. I could find no dirth of > > questions the 'play to win' concept does not put into crystalline > > focus. > > Gray areas are what judges are for. > If everything were in crystalline focus, we wouldn't need judges. We would still need judges to differentiate between my crystal and another crystal. I am not even sure what the ideal crystal is. I am pretty sure in a tournament I can do anything I would like and if the judge bothered to care I could explain it within the 'play to win' framework. Not that I actually expect any judge to be that hands on.

Jeff Haar wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F70812A...@white-wolf.com>... >>Jeff Haar wrote: >>>1) What precisely are the rules for tournaments, outside of mechanical >>>considerations? What does the 'play the win' concept really mean in a >>>tournament setting? >> >>That each player must play to win (based on the information available to >>him or her at the time) and, if unable to win, must play to maximize >>his or her VP accumulation. > > So the players in the game in question would have had to play for a > while longer and could attempt to withdrawl when there is so little > time left that no one could oust the other. Maybe 5 minutes if both > players are still fairly healthy. They'd have to play until the deal represented their maximum VP take. >>>There are so many gray and confusing situations that the concept seems >>>somewhat inadequate, at least to me. I could find no dirth of >>>questions the 'play to win' concept does not put into crystalline >>>focus. >> >>Gray areas are what judges are for. >>If everything were in crystalline focus, we wouldn't need judges. > > We would still need judges to differentiate between my crystal and > another crystal. I am not even sure what the ideal crystal is. I am If your idea of a concept in crystalline focus is such that the meaning is different between players, then it matches my idea of a gray area (quite far from my idea of a concept being in crystalline focus). > pretty sure in a tournament I can do anything I would like and if the > judge bothered to care I could explain it within the 'play to win' > framework. Not that I actually expect any judge to be that hands on. If the set of things you "would like" is limited to things that can be explained away under the "play to win" rule, sure. There are trivial examples of things that one can do that violate such the rule, regardless of explanations and conjecture, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> So the players in the game in question would have had to play for a >> while longer and could attempt to withdrawl when there is so little >> time left that no one could oust the other. Maybe 5 minutes if both >> players are still fairly healthy. > >They'd have to play until the deal >represented their maximum VP take. Wow! Almost sounds like Economics in VTES! I can almost hear LSJ or Josh saying "they'd have to play at least until the marginal benefits are equal to the marginal costs"... Halcyan 2

On 24 Sep 2003 14:55:48 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] but how would one model a player's indifference curves? :P salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm