Howdy,
Not to flog a dead horse, but questions on the legality of various VP
deals came up repeatedly at a tournament today, and, while I thought I
understood the rules on the subject quite well, a review of the
relevant V:EKN rules and Google is much less definitive then I'd
hoped.
My understanding was that it was illegal to make deals that reduce
your expected Table Win and/or VP haul. The only basis I could find
for this was:
5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
<snipped> Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the
goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking
certain players on the basis of their VEKN ratings or overall
tournament standing, etc.).
Here's an excerpt from the online rulebook about the goal of the game:
Object of the Game
<snipped> As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the
winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the
game (see Victory Points, sec. 9.1). <snipped>
It seems a tad strange to me that VEKN 5.2 references the rulebook, as
the VEKN rules themselves contain a series of rules on game scoring,
and these rules differ from the online rulebook, most notably in that
the online rulebook doesn't discuss table wins, while VEKN does:
3.8.1. Game Win Scoring
A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have
received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points
than any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case
of ties.)
So, is it correct to say that players must play to win the table, and,
if that is not possible, to earn as many VP as possible (and then, I
suppose to maximize table points, though I don't think this is
possible outside of VP)? That seems like a reasonable synthesis of
the above; I guess I'd just like an explicit verification that I'm not
on crack, as I seemed to be the only person present objecting to
violations of the above.
Thanks,
Alex
-----
As a coda/justification for possibly starting another
collusion/table-splitting flamefest, let me just say that I really,
really, hate sitting down to a game, watching each player turn over a
vampire (or sometimes even before this), and having a player or
players immediately state, "Oh, you're playing _that_ deck. I can't
go through that/I'm dead - let's make a deal," and then proceeding to
carve up the VPs on the basis of perfect function of the deck(s) in
question, even in the presence of unknown factors (e.g. decks at the
table that they _haven't_ seen before). I also really don't like the
(I'm pretty sure illegal) tournament behavior of, in later rounds,
playing for just enough VP to make the final. Both of them happened
today. That and my deck flailed badly in the final, which was the
only round relatively (though not entirely) untainted by silly deals,
which just plain put me in a bad mood. (Props to the !Malky winner
for being such a sport, though, even if he did make one hell of a
stooopid deal in one round.)
Alex Broadhead wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Not to flog a dead horse, but questions on the legality of various VP
> deals came up repeatedly at a tournament today, and, while I thought I
> understood the rules on the subject quite well, a review of the
> relevant V:EKN rules and Google is much less definitive then I'd
> hoped.
>
> My understanding was that it was illegal to make deals that reduce
> your expected Table Win and/or VP haul.
You have to play to win. Meaning it's illegal to do anything that "reduces"
your winningness.
> [...]> So, is it correct to say that players must play to win the table, and,
> if that is not possible, to earn as many VP as possible (and then, I
> suppose to maximize table points, though I don't think this is
> possible outside of VP)?
Yes.
--
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/
If you must play to maximise your VP, presumably the following play is
legal:
A number of players remain in the game; all players are looking
particularly strong, and the end of the game is approaching. One
player proposes that if the situation is significantly unchanged by
two or three minutes prior to the end of the round, all players should
empty their libraries simultaneously (by doing nothing in their turn
but discarding a card and ending their turn repeatedly, which should
allow even multiple players with half their decks left to empty their
libraries in a minute or so). Then all but one should announce that
they are attempting to withdraw and be allowed to do so by the other
players, garnering them a VP each and leaving one player remaining,
garnering them a VP also. As the alternative was to play to time and
take 1/2 VP each, this seems like a legitimate tactic for maximising
VP in such a situation.
Is this legal? To give an example on one game in where this was
proposed, as the game drew to a close three players were left with
multiple healthy minions, pool levels in the low twenties to thirties
and all players were fairly low on library cards, meaning that in
practice no-one could be ousted within the last couple of minutes.
- Rafe
[ quoted text not captured ]
So long as all the VTES rules are followed (you actually take your turns
in sequence, pay for the Anarch Revolts, etc.), yes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
rafe...@hotmail.com (Rafe) wrote in message news:<b153a84.02102...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
From the tournament rules:
"3.7. Intentional Draw
Players may mutually agree to accept an intentional draw at any time
before the game results are submitted. If an offer to intentionally
draw is declined, the game must continue as normal without any further
coercion to accept the offer. Declaring an intentional draw has the
same results for competitors as playing to the time limit (so in
general it would be better for the players to take advantage of the
withdrawal rules if possible, see the V:TES rulebook for the rules on
withdrawal)."
It's right there, in the last sentence.
Jeroen
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DB6922D...@white-wolf.com>...
> Rafe wrote:
> > Is this legal? To give an example on one game in where this was
> > proposed, as the game drew to a close three players were left with
> > multiple healthy minions, pool levels in the low twenties to thirties
> > and all players were fairly low on library cards, meaning that in
> > practice no-one could be ousted within the last couple of minutes.
>
> So long as all the VTES rules are followed (you actually take your turns
> in sequence, pay for the Anarch Revolts, etc.), yes.
To me this seems rather silly. If several players are in a situation
where the table will time out, they would much rather mutually
withdraw from the game earning 1 full VP rather than 0.5 VPs each.
Making people go through the motions seems rather ridiculous.
I understand the "need" for a mechanism which encourages people to
play for victory. If one player was stalling, eventually everyone at
the table would see how hopeless things were and all take their 1 VP
leaving it at that. I would prefer to see an option where if there are
exactly TWO people left, they may mutually withdraw, but not if there
were three or more.
Jeff
Jeff Kuta wrote:
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DB6922D...@white-wolf.com>...
> > Rafe wrote:
> > > Is this legal? To give an example on one game in where this was
> > > proposed, as the game drew to a close three players were left with
> > > multiple healthy minions, pool levels in the low twenties to thirties
> > > and all players were fairly low on library cards, meaning that in
> > > practice no-one could be ousted within the last couple of minutes.
> >
> > So long as all the VTES rules are followed (you actually take your turns
> > in sequence, pay for the Anarch Revolts, etc.), yes.
>
> To me this seems rather silly. If several players are in a situation
> where the table will time out, they would much rather mutually
> withdraw from the game earning 1 full VP rather than 0.5 VPs each.
> Making people go through the motions seems rather ridiculous.
It allows for the standard deal-breaking threat to still be a factor,
for instance.
> I understand the "need" for a mechanism which encourages people to
> play for victory. If one player was stalling, eventually everyone at
> the table would see how hopeless things were and all take their 1 VP
> leaving it at that.
Stalling is illegal.
> I would prefer to see an option where if there are
> exactly TWO people left, they may mutually withdraw, but not if there
> were three or more.
I don't see why that is better, or why the line is to be drawn at 2.
Explanation?
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DB6F867...@white-wolf.com>...
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > To me this seems rather silly. If several players are in a situation
> > where the table will time out, they would much rather mutually
> > withdraw from the game earning 1 full VP rather than 0.5 VPs each.
> > Making people go through the motions seems rather ridiculous.
>
> It allows for the standard deal-breaking threat to still be a factor,
> for instance.
This is true, but there's no benefit other than spite to break a
"mutual withdraw" deal. If you keep the deal, you get 1 VP; if you
break it, you get 0.5 VPs. It's not like it's a zero sum scenario.
Everyone benefits by keeping the deal.
> > I understand the "need" for a mechanism which encourages people to
> > play for victory. If one player was stalling, eventually everyone at
> > the table would see how hopeless things were and all take their 1 VP
> > leaving it at that.
>
> Stalling is illegal.
Yes, of course. But players can reasonably play and attempt to take
their actions without Untap, Discard, Done. I don't think we have a
stalling epidemic on our hands (and perhaps this rule contributes to
keeping that at bay), but it must be happening occasionally even on a
very small scale. It might not even be intentional because some people
are just SLOooooooooooooooow.
> > I would prefer to see an option where if there are
> > exactly TWO people left, they may mutually withdraw, but not if there
> > were three or more.
>
> I don't see why that is better, or why the line is to be drawn at 2.
> Explanation?
It's like pirahnas. I read somewhere that 6 is the minimum magic
number for happiness in a tank full of pirahnas (or Methuselahs). If
there are five, 3 will eat 2 (or 4 will eat 1), then 2 will eat 1,
then the last pair will duke it out for total tank supremacy. It's
also like winner-takes-all politics. You should end up with only two
major political parties left to fight over spoils.
In a 5-player start, when there are 4 Meths left, it is not
advantageous for a mutual withdraw, since someone would then get 2 VPs
and the GW, which (if I weren't getting the GW) would hurt my chances
of making the finals cut. If there are 3 Meths left it's always
advantageous to do a "mutual withdraw." There are two scenarios: 1)
One Meth will get 3VPs and the GW (as they would anyway with a
timeout, earning 2.5 VPs) and two Meths will get 1VP, or 2) Two will
each have 2 VPs and no GW (which is still better than 1.5 VPs) and one
would earn 1 VP (better than 0.5 VP). Mutual withdraw is also
advantageous with 2 Meths -- either one has 3 VPs and the other 0 VPs,
or one has 2 VPs and the other 1 VP. The GW still goes to the same
player. The two-player scenario where both have 1 VP is possible, but
still has the same end result where mutual withdraw is better than
timeout.
There's just something inherently "wrong" to me having three players
collude at the end to their mutual advantage. Currently I haven't seen
a whole lot of that, and perhaps that's due to the disadvantage of
timing out and forcing people to go through the motions. I know in a
zero-sum scenario, I would try my hardest to work an alliance in order
to oust one player so the last two could relax in relative peace.
Two's company; three's a crowd.
I suppose since everyone left at a table would benefit by the same
amount in a mutual withdraw with two or three players left, there is
really little difference between them, unless you force people to go
through the motions, which I see primarily as an exercise in being a
busybody. In this case, there might be differences since when the
first player withdraws, the other two may go at each other's throats
if the first was the perceived primary balancing factor (unlikely as
that may be).
With no time constraints, in the three player endgame, anyone still
has a chance to win if they sweep the rest of the table. Thus,
deal-making should happen where one player gets ousted by two. In the
two player endgame, either player still has a chance, but one of them
can win by playing defense, one MUST achieve an oust to have any
chance of winning. It is much more plausible for one player to have
weak offense compared to one defensive player, and therefore benefit
from the withdraw since they'd be fighting a Pyrrhic battle.
Jeff
Jeff Kuta wrote:
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DB6F867...@white-wolf.com>...
> > Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > > To me this seems rather silly. If several players are in a situation
> > > where the table will time out, they would much rather mutually
> > > withdraw from the game earning 1 full VP rather than 0.5 VPs each.
> > > Making people go through the motions seems rather ridiculous.
> >
> > It allows for the standard deal-breaking threat to still be a factor,
> > for instance.
>
> This is true, but there's no benefit other than spite to break a
> "mutual withdraw" deal. If you keep the deal, you get 1 VP; if you
> break it, you get 0.5 VPs. It's not like it's a zero sum scenario.
> Everyone benefits by keeping the deal.
GeeGOLLYwhiz, that's naive! I have 50 cards. My four opponents each
have around 20 cards. For argument's sake, let's say no one at the table
has much advantage from permanents, pool, or anything likely to come out
of the crypt, and particularly no one is set up to bloat much with just
permanents. We make the deal, I let all the other guys get down to
one or two cards left in their library and start attacking, bleeding, or
whatever I do like mad. Do you think I'm necessarily likely to wind up
with just 0.5 VPs? I don't. With sufficient time and luck I may sweep
the table.
Of course, someone may conjecture this situation or that where all I
manage to do is screw myself. But I would think most of time I would at
least get an oust or two and certainly be unlikely to get ousted. It
really depends on whether the others made the deal too soon. I've seen
people who were bored enough to make it with 40 minutes to go, being
pretty certain that if they continued competing no one was likely to get
anywhere even with that much time. (I've never seen anyone doublecross
on it. I'm just saying the potential is there.)
Fred
Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DB7A845...@removethis.com>...
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
> >
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DB6F867...@white-wolf.com>...
> > > Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > > > To me this seems rather silly. If several players are in a situation
> > > > where the table will time out, they would much rather mutually
> > > > withdraw from the game earning 1 full VP rather than 0.5 VPs each.
> > > > Making people go through the motions seems rather ridiculous.
> > >
> > > It allows for the standard deal-breaking threat to still be a factor,
> > > for instance.
> >
> > This is true, but there's no benefit other than spite to break a
> > "mutual withdraw" deal. If you keep the deal, you get 1 VP; if you
> > break it, you get 0.5 VPs. It's not like it's a zero sum scenario.
> > Everyone benefits by keeping the deal.
>
> GeeGOLLYwhiz, that's naive!
If you had been paying attention, this discussion started with taking
a withdraw WITHOUT going through the motions (when time is running
out). Of course if you force people to play it through the outcome
could be different.
> I have 50 cards. My four opponents each
> have around 20 cards. For argument's sake, let's say no one at the table
> has much advantage from permanents, pool, or anything likely to come out
> of the crypt, and particularly no one is set up to bloat much with just
> permanents. We make the deal, I let all the other guys get down to
> one or two cards left in their library and start attacking, bleeding, or
> whatever I do like mad. Do you think I'm necessarily likely to wind up
> with just 0.5 VPs? I don't. With sufficient time and luck I may sweep
> the table.
Pot. Kettle. Black. If we were in that situation at the same table,
I'd damn sure make our libraries were roughly equal (maybe down to
20ish cards) before ending the game. It's ludicrous to assume
otherwise.
> Of course, someone may conjecture this situation or that where all I
> manage to do is screw myself. But I would think most of time I would at
> least get an oust or two and certainly be unlikely to get ousted. It
> really depends on whether the others made the deal too soon.
I'd sure hope the others didn't discard in a mad rush to reach the end
of their libraries.
> I've seen
> people who were bored enough to make it with 40 minutes to go, being
> pretty certain that if they continued competing no one was likely to get
> anywhere even with that much time. (I've never seen anyone doublecross
> on it. I'm just saying the potential is there.)
I'm talking about when there are 5-10 minutes left in the game, no
more than 3 Meths left, and everyone knows there isn't enough time to
finish the game without exposing their flanks to the others. As you
should know, at 40 minutes, it's extremely unlikely that people will
play for a withdraw. Come on, now.
Jeff
Jeff Kuta wrote:
>
> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DB7A845...@removethis.com>...
> > Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > >
> > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<3DB6F867...@white-wolf.com>...
> > > > Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > > > > To me this seems rather silly. If several players are in a situation
> > > > > where the table will time out, they would much rather mutually
> > > > > withdraw from the game earning 1 full VP rather than 0.5 VPs each.
> > > > > Making people go through the motions seems rather ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > It allows for the standard deal-breaking threat to still be a factor,
> > > > for instance.
> > >
> > > This is true, but there's no benefit other than spite to break a
> > > "mutual withdraw" deal. If you keep the deal, you get 1 VP; if you
> > > break it, you get 0.5 VPs. It's not like it's a zero sum scenario.
> > > Everyone benefits by keeping the deal.
> >
> > GeeGOLLYwhiz, that's naive!
>
> If you had been paying attention, this discussion started with taking
> a withdraw WITHOUT going through the motions (when time is running
> out). Of course if you force people to play it through the outcome
> could be different.
I believe I had been paying attention. Perhaps I don't but I thought
you were attempting to claim there's difference between the two. Clearly
there is.
You said, "It seems silly to make people go through the motions." Scott
said, "They have to do that because going through motions forces them to
expose themselves to doublecross, which is intended." You said, "But
there's no incentive to ever doublecross when they *DO* go through the
motions." (Otherwise, I don't think your statement makes much sense as
a logical objection to what Scott said.) But I claimed, "There *is* a
theoretical incentive to doublecrossing when they're making a withdrawal
deal." In short, I'm saying that to bypass this phase would subtly change
the conditions for withdrawal.
> > I have 50 cards. My four opponents each
> > have around 20 cards. For argument's sake, let's say no one at the table
> > has much advantage from permanents, pool, or anything likely to come out
> > of the crypt, and particularly no one is set up to bloat much with just
> > permanents. We make the deal, I let all the other guys get down to
> > one or two cards left in their library and start attacking, bleeding, or
> > whatever I do like mad. Do you think I'm necessarily likely to wind up
> > with just 0.5 VPs? I don't. With sufficient time and luck I may sweep
> > the table.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
??? Confusing comment. But OK, I'll admit it: I'm just like these guys.
???
Whatever...
> If we were in that situation at the same table,
> I'd damn sure make our libraries were roughly equal (maybe down to
> 20ish cards) before ending the game. It's ludicrous to assume
> otherwise.
...
> I'd sure hope the others didn't discard in a mad rush to reach the end
> of their libraries.
*You* may make certain of that. Others don't, however. My point is that
if you simply allow people to withdraw when they like, then they needn't
concern themselves with such details. You're proposing a rule that would
allow people to bypass otherwise non-trivial procedures.
> I'm talking about when there are 5-10 minutes left in the game, no
> more than 3 Meths left, and everyone knows there isn't enough time to
> finish the game without exposing their flanks to the others. As you
> should know, at 40 minutes, it's extremely unlikely that people will
> play for a withdraw.
That's absolutely not true! I've been in games where this has been
done. Sometimes people get a distinct sense that no one has any capability
to oust anyone else at the table and never will and they just....want...to
get...OUT. Not common, I agree, but it happens once in blue moon. Anyway,
were there a rule that people could simply withdraw by mutual agreement of
the table, it would get used in situations other than what you're talking
about. I'm not sure that automatically would make it a bad rule. I just
don't think it's as silly not to have as you're claiming.
Fred