Maximizing VPs

I can't seem to find the VEKN tournament rule forcing players to "maximize VPs". Could someone please tell me where to find this information? Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering. Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: >I can't seem to find the VEKN tournament rule forcing players >to "maximize VPs". Could someone please tell me where to >find this information? There is no such rule. Darwin never said "survival of the fittest", and neither the V:TES nor V:EKN rules say "maximize your victory points". The closest thing to this comes from the standard rules under the object of the game: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs." It was recently explained to me that "most", in that object clause, means "more than anyone else" and not "as many as possible". I believe that it is from that clause that the confusion comes. Having to maximize one's VPs would cause all sorts of troubles when it came to deal making and keeping. word up, Jay

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote > > There is no such rule. Darwin never said "survival of the fittest", > and neither the V:TES nor V:EKN rules say "maximize your victory > points". The closest thing to this comes from the standard rules > under the object of the game: "Your goal is to accumulate the most > victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs." > It was recently explained to me that "most", in that object clause, > means "more than anyone else" and not "as many as possible". > I believe that it is from that clause that the confusion comes. > Having to maximize one's VPs would cause all sorts of troubles > when it came to deal making and keeping. Thank you Jay. But I seem to recall a lot of people talking about this over the past half-year or so however. What were they all referring to? Or am I smoking crack again? I'm confused. Cheers, WES

[ quoted text not captured ] Incorrect. {I've always wanted to do that ;-D} There is such a rule. If it isn't in the tournament rules it should be. LSJ made a ruling but I can't find it -search on "author: LSJ" and any othe suitable term in Google for this group and you will get some references to it but I didn't find the actual ruling. (I'm sure someone else will point it out shortly ;-) Anyway: 1) You must try to get a Table/Game Win 2) If you cannot achieve a Win, you must maximise your Victory Points. 3) You may choose to honour a deal that contravenes (1) or (2) above IF and ONLY IF that deal was in line with the rules (including 1 and 2 above) at the time you made it. (ie. if you make a deal that improves your situation, you are allowed to complete it even if it would be in your interests to break it -having already benefitted earlier but not yet completed your part of the bargain). EG: You make a deal with your predator that he will help you kill your prey (who you have no prospect of ousting without active help from your predator) and then let him oust you. Assuming that you genuinely couldn't have ousted your prey without this help, it is legal to let your predator oust you afterwards even if you could then prevent them from doing so. If on the other hand you make a deal to throw the game at a point where you have a decent prospect of winning you MUST break that deal if breaking it will gain you VP/a win. It is legal to make a deal that reduces your chance of winning/VPs so long as you don't intend to honour it. It is not legal to honour such a deal later (when it comes to the point where it costs you VP) It is *ALWAYS LEGAL* to break a (cardless) deal. (Succubus Club is the obvious exception where the deal resolves all at once anyway -afaik- you can make a deal to exchange stuff with SC and then do something else such as not attack and break the later part of the deal: just not the exchange). I'm sure LSJ will let us know if this is right :-) LSJ: Is there any reason I can't attach a penalty clause to my deal? Something along the lines of "I'll do X and in exchange you'll do Y. If you fail to do Y I will throw all my resources into ousting you without any further regard to my prospects of winning or gaining VP." Or rather could such a deal be legal to honour in the breach <;-)>? I reckon it could on the grounds that it increases the chances of the deal being honoured and thus (assuming a beneficial deal which would be required anyway) your chance of VPs (though maybe not always).

Timlagor wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:48:23 GMT, Jay Kristoff wrote: >>Wes wrote: >>>I can't seem to find the VEKN tournament rule forcing players >>>to "maximize VPs". Could someone please tell me where to >>>find this information? >>under the object of the game: "Your goal is to accumulate the most >>victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs." >>It was recently explained to me that "most", in that object clause, >>means "more than anyone else" and not "as many as possible". > > 1) You must try to get a Table/Game Win > 2) If you cannot achieve a Win, you must maximise your Victory Points. > 3) You may choose to honour a deal that contravenes (1) or (2) above IF and > ONLY IF that deal was in line with the rules (including 1 and 2 above) at > the time you made it. Correct. This stems from VEKN 2.3 - sportsmanship. It is not sportmanlike to throw a game. > > LSJ: Is there any reason I can't attach a penalty clause to my deal? > Something along the lines of "I'll do X and in exchange you'll do Y. If you > fail to do Y I will throw all my resources into ousting you without any > further regard to my prospects of winning or gaining VP." Or rather could > such a deal be legal to honour in the breach <;-)>? I reckon it could on the > grounds that it increases the chances of the deal being honoured and thus > (assuming a beneficial deal which would be required anyway) your chance of > VPs (though maybe not always). The terms of the deal are up to the deal-makers to decide. -- 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/

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:07:19 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> LSJ: Is there any reason I can't attach a penalty clause to my deal? >> Something along the lines of "I'll do X and in exchange you'll do Y. If you >> fail to do Y I will throw all my resources into ousting you without any >> further regard to my prospects of winning or gaining VP." Or rather could >> such a deal be legal to honour in the breach <;-)>? I reckon it could on the >> grounds that it increases the chances of the deal being honoured and thus >> (assuming a beneficial deal which would be required anyway) your chance of >> VPs (though maybe not always). > > The terms of the deal are up to the deal-makers to decide. Sure. I realise that -but is it *legal to honour* such a deal in the even that your 'partner' fails to do his part and you get to invoke the penalty clause? My concern is that this would allow you to throw the game almost any way you choose -might well give someone a clean sweep. Now the chances of 3-way collusion are fairly slim but it could still wreck the game for the other players. OTOH is it really unsportsmanlike? -you have already been betrayed and you gave everyone ample warning that it might happen. On the foot (I only have two hands after all) without a penalty clause you could well have no legal recourse/retaliation once your deal is broken. Perhaps it's only legal sometimes? Legality (in terms of whether it will be legal to keep the deal) is determined at the point when the deal is agreed is it not?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > 1) You must try to get a Table/Game Win > > 2) If you cannot achieve a Win, you must maximise your Victory Points. > > 3) You may choose to honour a deal that contravenes (1) or (2) above IF and > > ONLY IF that deal was in line with the rules (including 1 and 2 above) at > > the time you made it. > > Correct. This stems from VEKN 2.3 - sportsmanship. It is not sportmanlike > to throw a game. Ok, that's more like it. Those three items are not listed under 2.3 in the tournament rules. Was this a mistake, am I looking in the wrong area or is what defines "sportsmanship" left up to the head judge to define? No matter though, that answers my question I think. Thanks guys, WES

Timlagor wrote: > Sure. I realise that -but is it *legal to honour* such a deal in the even > that your 'partner' fails to do his part and you get to invoke the penalty > clause? "Is it legal to honor a broken deal?" is a flawed question. The threat of action if the other person breaks the deal is just that, a threat. It is not a deal. Adding the clause doesn't improve your chances of winning or of increasing VPs. But, as long as "honoring" the penalty clause doesn't hurt your chances, then, like any other activity that doesn't hurt your chances, you're free to do so. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok.. let's get cynical about this topic. So tell me the following if legal or not: 1) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey order: A and B both got 1 VP. C made deal with A to oust B so that A can get 2 VP, and C will have a chance to tie the table with 2VP knowing he could've just try to oust A and get B afterwards to win the table. Is C's motive legal? 2) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey order: A already ousted 2, and got 2VPs, B and C didn't get any yet. C never pressured A in whole game and A ended up 4-5 minions while C had only one big vampire with 1 blood but really nice pool recursion. A is 'worried' C might get chance to oust him, and made deal with B that they would both oust C out first and then deal with each other. Is A motive legal? 3) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey order: A already ousted 2, and got 2 VPs, and thinks his deck will cremate B's deck theme, so he decided to go fully backwards and take C out and give B the 1VP. However, B ended up easily defeating A afterwards and got 3vp instead. Is A motive legal? My above points are simply as this, we all can try to win the game by how we think, but if one doesn't like the other, he can just try to find some 'reasonable' excuse to oust that other player and get away with it. Ruling has nothing to do with it since it is nearly impossible to pose a judgement on such activity. It's like hiring minorities in coaching NFL(oh no, the racial issue.. but sorry, this is the most obvious example that I think many can understand) but you want certain type of ppl (friends, etc), and so you say 'well, I dont want this candidate around because i think the team has a better chance to win with this other candidate's philosophy'.. better yet, the game show "Weakest Link", where many of the smartest/wittiest ppl were ousted by peers' votes because they pose threat, or simply, unlikeable.. Therefore my observation is such... You CAN'T impose ruling on ousting in some situations where it's just a big fat grey area using the excuse "I must TRY to get a table/game win".. even great judges cannot judge by themselves what is right and wrong sometimes. You can try to find proof that A and B are great friends and planned to take out anyone else in tournament, but without solid proof of such plans, and along with very smart careful moves, you can avoid to be caught 'cheating'. So is life. It is ridiculous to make such ruling if no solid proof is found or if everyone is cunning enough to avoid getting caught. The only thing you can do is.. always remember who did that to you, and make sure they learn their lessions not to mess with you next time, or ever, in next game. Glad V:tES is just a game? :) LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3EF3BDD7...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Correct. This stems from VEKN 2.3 - sportsmanship. It is not sportmanlike > to throw a game. > Can you clarify how this applies to this situation: Player A has 1 pool Player B is the prey of Player A and wishes to use Player A as a buffer against his grandpredator. Player As only chance of a VP is a time-out Player B plays Golconda on Player A's last vampire. Can player A choose to pay two pool (and thus get ousted)? Thanks

DeistMutts wrote: > Ok.. let's get cynical about this topic. So tell me the following if > legal or not: > > 1) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey > order: A and B both got 1 VP. C made deal with A to oust B so that A > can get 2 VP, and C will have a chance to tie the table with 2VP > knowing he could've just try to oust A and get B afterwards to win the > table. Is C's motive legal? If C "could've just" ousted A and B, then no. C must play to win. > 2) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey > order: A already ousted 2, and got 2VPs, B and C didn't get any yet. C > never pressured A in whole game and A ended up 4-5 minions while C had > only one big vampire with 1 blood but really nice pool recursion. A is > 'worried' C might get chance to oust him, and made deal with B that > they would both oust C out first and then deal with each other. Is A > motive legal? If it maximimizes A's chances to win. > 3) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey > order: A already ousted 2, and got 2 VPs, and thinks his deck will > cremate B's deck theme, so he decided to go fully backwards and take C > out and give B the 1VP. However, B ended up easily defeating A > afterwards and got 3vp instead. Is A motive legal? If it maximimized A's chances to win. > My above points are simply as this, we all can try to win the game by > how we think, but if one doesn't like the other, he can just try to > find some 'reasonable' excuse to oust that other player and get away > with it. ... and must convince the judge. > Ruling has nothing to do with it since it is nearly > impossible to pose a judgement on such activity. Making a judgment call is easy - you just use your judgement. The judge isn't required to strictly prove or disprove any theory, nor is he required to "know" motives or future actions. He's just required to use his judgment. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Cannot pay choose to pay two pool if you only have one, so let's assume A has 2 pool. If paying two pool maximizes A's chances to win (and the judge agrees), then it is not in violation of the "play to win" rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:47:31 -0400, LSJ wrote: > DeistMutts wrote: >> Ok.. let's get cynical about this topic. So tell me the following if >> legal or not: >> >> 1) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey >> order: A and B both got 1 VP. C made deal with A to oust B so that A >> can get 2 VP, and C will have a chance to tie the table with 2VP >> knowing he could've just try to oust A and get B afterwards to win the >> table. Is C's motive legal? > > If C "could've just" ousted A and B, then no. > C must play to win. "Could've *try* to oust A" (presumably "tried"). If C thinks B will oust him but that he can beat C alone this may be his best strategy. Is it legal given that ig gurantees no win for him? >> 3) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey >> order: A already ousted 2, and got 2 VPs, and thinks his deck will >> cremate B's deck theme, so he decided to go fully backwards and take C >> out and give B the 1VP. However, B ended up easily defeating A >> afterwards and got 3vp instead. Is A motive legal? > If it maximimized A's chances to win. Shouldn't this be "If A thought it would maximise A's chance to win"? >> My above points are simply as this, we all can try to win the game by >> how we think, but if one doesn't like the other, he can just try to >> find some 'reasonable' excuse to oust that other player and get away >> with it. > ... and must convince the judge. >> Ruling has nothing to do with it since it is nearly >> impossible to pose a judgement on such activity. > Making a judgment call is easy - you just use your judgement. > The judge isn't required to strictly prove or disprove any theory, nor > is he required to "know" motives or future actions. > He's just required to use his judgment. It seems you (Deismutts) are suggesting that this rule shouldn't be there? The alternative would be not to have a rule against collusino at all -most people appear to agree that this would be a bad idea.

>> Can you clarify how this applies to this situation: >> >> Player A has 1 pool >> >> Player B is the prey of Player A and wishes to use Player A as a buffer >> against his >> grandpredator. >> >> **Player As only chance of a VP is a time-out** >> >> Player B plays Golconda on Player A's last vampire. >> >> Can player A choose to pay two pool (and thus get ousted)? > > Cannot pay choose to pay two pool if you only have one, so let's > assume A has 2 pool. > > If paying two pool maximizes A's chances to win (and the judge > agrees), then it is not in violation of the "play to win" rule. Surely the answer is "NO"? A has no VP and may (however improbably) get one (or half) if he hangs around but can't if he ousts himself. Player B is already showing an inclination to protect A indicating at least some chance he will be around for a timeout.

In message <y3qiwqcjs58e$.1aq83ody...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >"Could've *try* to oust A" (presumably "tried"). Which tends to suggest he can at least have a good go at it. >If C thinks B will oust >him but that he can beat C Hmm... the letters are confused. >alone this may be his best strategy. Is it legal >given that ig gurantees no win for him? If he had a chance of a table win before (ask the judge for a judgement call, if problems exist), he has to play for it. After that, he has to play to maximise VPs. If the judge thinks it's reasonable that he can't get a table win, then actions which end up with no table wins are reasonable, but you are then bound to maximise your VPs. >>> 3) A, B, C remaining at the tournament table as the predator/prey >>> order: A already ousted 2, and got 2 VPs, and thinks his deck will >>> cremate B's deck theme, so he decided to go fully backwards and take C >>> out and give B the 1VP. However, B ended up easily defeating A >>> afterwards and got 3vp instead. Is A motive legal? >> If it maximimized A's chances to win. > >Shouldn't this be "If A thought it would maximise A's chance to win"? What people *think* isn't so relevant. Judges are not telepathic. Additionally, just because something happens such that B storms through A doesn't impact upon the decision at the time. Every deck can have a lucky break. If there was a problem with A's behaviour, however, then the judge would have to make a judgement call on whether *he* thought A was playing to win. You can't judge people's motives per se, just what the possible or probably effects will be on their TWs or VPs. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

>>Shouldn't this be "If A thought it would maximise A's chance to win"? > > What people *think* isn't so relevant. Judges are not telepathic. Judges are not telepathic but they can make a judgement on what they believe A thinks ;-) (based on what A says and what it is reasonable for A to think -if it comes to a judge, the table has presumably already discussed it)

In message <1nt5jcuypql0r.1...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>>Shouldn't this be "If A thought it would maximise A's chance to win"? >> >> What people *think* isn't so relevant. Judges are not telepathic. > >Judges are not telepathic but they can make a judgement on what they believe >A thinks ;-) Which, if true, modifies your "Shouldn't this be..." substantially anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1hnorntbokzwb$.lnlgzlaqys6$.d...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> mumbled something about: >> If paying two pool maximizes A's chances to win (and the judge >> agrees), then it is not in violation of the "play to win" rule. > >Surely the answer is "NO"? A has no VP and may (however improbably) get one >(or half) if he hangs around but can't if he ousts himself. Player B is >already showing an inclination to protect A indicating at least some chance >he will be around for a timeout. I don't agree. Player B is clearly attempting to turn "A" into a meat shield, allowing B to focus all his efforts on ousting C without any pressure from behind. The amount of time it would take to oust A, given that he had no vampires and ten pool, is equivalent to the speed in which one can say: "No master. Bleed for 1, bleed for 1, bleed for 1, bleed for 1, no discard, done." ...as many times as necessary, and as many vampires as you have who can bleed. A has no reasonable chance to survive to a timeout unless there is already almost no time left in the round -- either his predator will get him, or B will blow through his predator and finish A off himself. I would personally like to see self-ousting made illegal. Transfer yourself down to 1 and tap out, fine -- but playing a card or making transfers that will definitely oust you should be disallowed. (calling Ancilla Empowerment when you have more minions than you have pool would be permitted, since it might not pass and you might be intending to vote it down yourself to move vote-modifer cards). Anyway. That's a lengthy discussion for another thread. :) -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Hey LSJ and Whoever has control over the tournament rules, I think the common definition of "sportsmanship" is sufficiently different from the way we define it for V:TES tournaments that it should be clarified in the tournament rules. This has come up over and over, and the following text (which reflects the reality of the tournament rules) should be explicitly added to the tournament rules: **************************** - You must try to get a Game Win - If you don't have a reasonable chance of getting a Game Win, you must try to maximize your VPs. - If you don't have a reasonable chance of getting more than zero VPs, you can play however you want (oust yourself, kingmaker, wall, etc.) - You may choose to honor a deal that goes against the above rules if the deal was legally made. "A reasonable chance" is decided by the judge. **************************** From talking with LSJ, "a reasonable chance" should be something like 5% to 10%, not 50% or 1%. That's my interpretation of the case studies provided to LSJ, since he refused to provide even a ballpark number. :) I admit that stating actual percentage chances in reality is impossible, but stating a number as a ballpark figure is helpful to judges since the definition of "reasonable" could vary so much from judge to judge, and I don't think we want rulings that vary greatly from judge to judge. Ira

Ira wrote: > Hey LSJ and Whoever has control over the tournament rules, > > I think the common definition of "sportsmanship" is sufficiently > different from the way we define it for V:TES tournaments that it No. The rulings for sportsmanship in V:TES tournaments are made based on the usual definition of sportsmanship (e.g., it is not sporting to throw a game). > should be clarified in the tournament rules. This has come up over That could be. > and over, and the following text (which reflects the reality of the > tournament rules) should be explicitly added to the tournament rules: > > **************************** > - You must try to get a Game Win > - If you don't have a reasonable chance of getting a Game Win, you > must try to maximize your VPs. > - If you don't have a reasonable chance of getting more than zero VPs, > you can play however you want (oust yourself, kingmaker, wall, etc.) > - You may choose to honor a deal that goes against the above rules if > the deal was legally made. > > "A reasonable chance" is decided by the judge. > **************************** > > From talking with LSJ, "a reasonable chance" should be something like > 5% to 10%, not 50% or 1%. That's my interpretation of the case > studies provided to LSJ, since he refused to provide even a ballpark > number. :) Since one cannot produce actual numbers in practice, finding out what the numerical value of "reasonable" is, in addition to being impossible itself, also useless when accomplished. > I admit that stating actual percentage chances in reality is > impossible, but stating a number as a ballpark figure is helpful to > judges since the definition of "reasonable" could vary so much from > judge to judge, and I don't think we want rulings that vary greatly > from judge to judge. "Reasonable" is, by definition, in the eye of the beholder (i.e., it is up to the judge, who is assumed to be reasonable). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > If paying two pool maximizes A's chances to win (and the judge > agrees), then it is not in violation of the "play to win" rule. But by paying his last 2 pool, player A is ousting himself and therefore *cannot* maximize his chances to win. How can someone self-oust and still be in accordance with the "play to win" rule? The only possible situation I can think of is if there are two players left at a five player table and the self-ousting player has ousted three Methuselahs and earned 3 VPs already. He will win the game regardless of his actions at that point, so self-ousting becomes redundant. Losing the battle but winning the war I suppose. Cheers, WES

In message <bd7l9...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> writes: >How can someone self-oust and still be in accordance with the "play to win" >rule? If, by so doing, you maximise your Table Wins and VP chances, in the opinion of the judge, to a reasonable level of confidence. If you already have a table win, you have 'won' and can win in the manner you please. (The theoretical problem of players then randomly giving away VPs is mostly, but not entirely, theoretical. Such behaviour is likely to reflect on players long term, and a judge paying attention will likely watch them in later rounds for signs of collusion etc.) If you do not have a table win, you must be unable to get a table win (in the reasonable opinion of the judge). Additionally, you must be unable (in the...) to get any more VPs than you currently have. The text book example would be a player who has been pounded into the ground, who ousts himself because he has no chance of going anywhere. Additionally, if you had made a legitimate deal earlier, you could oust yourself in the process of honouring that deal. Remember, the "play to win" rule doesn't mean that you automatically have to backstab a legitimate deal. (Due to the inherent problems this would cause with certain obvious relatively long-term deals, where you could never make them, since you would automatically be required to backstab the other player, who would therefore never go through with the deal in the first place.) It is possible, for instance, that a player saved you from otherwise certain death, allowing you to get an otherwise impossible VP, for which you offered to oust yourself later. e.g. Me, you and LSJ are playing, that order (add in a couple of other players). LSJ is playing some nasty intercept, which will be a nightmare to my votes. You're doing pretty badly and I could otherwise oust you, but I reckon your combat will help me. So I make a deal with you that I'll help you get LSJ. Perhaps I call one of my votes - an Archon, which I put in the deck for bargaining power, perhaps? And this way, you get a VP ousting LSJ, and you roll over, giving me a VP and a better shot at killing the other two players because I don't have an intercept wall stopping EVERY SINGLE VOTE, so I do better. That sort of thing is entirely plausible. You get a VP you wouldn't/couldn't have got, and in return you stop me having to fight through you *again*. [ quoted text not captured ]

> But by paying his last 2 pool, player A is ousting himself and therefore > *cannot* maximize his chances to win. > > How can someone self-oust and still be in accordance with the "play to win" > rule? This isn't the situation we were discussing but here is one way: A B and C left. A has 2 pts B has 0 pt C has 0 pts B is set to mop up. A can't (reasonably expect to) oust B. A believes 6 pool will not allow C to beat B (and probably A believes that B is likely to oust C next turn -no point doing it prematurely) A self-ousts. B ousts C A 2 B 2 C 1 D/E 0 As you say also the trivial situation where A has already won. In a 6 player game, A could get an outright win like this.

>>Surely the answer is "NO"? A has no VP and may (however improbably) get one >>(or half) if he hangs around but can't if he ousts himself. Player B is >>already showing an inclination to protect A indicating at least some chance >>he will be around for a timeout. > > I don't agree. Player B is clearly attempting to turn "A" into a meat > shield, allowing B to focus all his efforts on ousting C without any > pressure from behind. A becomes a meat shield. B wants to keep him as long as possible and if the table is going to time out, would rather have him in than out at that point. Therefore he can be expected to make further moves to keep A in the game. > The amount of time it would take to oust A, given that he had no > vampires and ten pool, is equivalent to the speed in which one can say: > > "No master. Bleed for 1, bleed for 1, bleed for 1, bleed for 1, no > discard, done." 1) Assuming A can't get another Vamp out and do soemthing useful with it) 2) Depends how long B's turns are too. > ...as many times as necessary, and as many vampires as you have who can > bleed. A has no reasonable chance to survive to a timeout unless there > is already almost no time left in the round -- either his predator will > get him, or B will blow through his predator and finish A off himself. Very probably but you can't be certain. C might decide to hit B hard because he feels threatened and misjudge it (assuming B can do more to help A). > I would personally like to see self-ousting made illegal. Transfer Can't argue with that -well I could but I happen to agree ;-) OTOH I think that it already is illegal in most circumstances (ie when you don't want to spread the VPs around to make the ones you have go further)

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:49:00 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > In message <1nt5jcuypql0r.1...@40tude.net>, Timlagor > <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>>>Shouldn't this be "If A thought it would maximise A's chance to win"? >>> >>> What people *think* isn't so relevant. Judges are not telepathic. >> >>Judges are not telepathic but they can make a judgement on what they believe >>A thinks ;-) > > Which, if true, modifies your "Shouldn't this be..." substantially > anyway. No the rule would be as i stated it. It is then up to the Judge to make a judgement on what A thinks -and thus whether he is breaking the rule. Since the table will already have discussed the issue when the judge is called in (to some extent anyway) it really amounts to whether A can reasonably think it would maximise their chance to win but that doesn't need to be in the rule either.

In message <j0rf14log387$.bnrmq1tz...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:49:00 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > >> In message <1nt5jcuypql0r.1...@40tude.net>, Timlagor >> <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>>>>Shouldn't this be "If A thought it would maximise A's chance to win"? >>>> >>>> What people *think* isn't so relevant. Judges are not telepathic. >>> >>>Judges are not telepathic but they can make a judgement on what they believe >>>A thinks ;-) >> >> Which, if true, modifies your "Shouldn't this be..." substantially >> anyway. > >No the rule would be as i stated it. No, it wouldn't. The judge does not have to read people's minds, or attempt to do so. Specifically: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E94AF7D.5030109%40white-wolf.com "The judge is not asked to determine what the player is thinking. That is impossible. The judge is asked to evaluate the game state." [LSJ 20030409] [ quoted text not captured ]

> The judge does not have to read people's minds, or attempt to do so. > > Specifically: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E94AF7D.5030109%40white-wolf.com > > "The judge is not asked to determine what the player is thinking. > That is impossible. > The judge is asked to evaluate the game state." [LSJ 20030409] Good point. Ok so the question is what it is reasonable for 'A' to think?

Also, you must take in consideration game time effect.. of all these postings.. you think players actually have that much time to think that much? Which is what leads to another question.. should there be a time limit for each player like in chess? :( Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cjqoj6aj1adh.13rn63lr5cfkw$.d...@40tude.net>... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a3baa2e3.03062...@posting.google.com>, psydu...@hotmail.com (DeistMutts) mumbled something about: >Also, you must take in consideration game time effect.. of all these >postings.. you think players actually have that much time to think >that much? Which is what leads to another question.. should there be a >time limit for each player like in chess? :( Speaking of chess, have you ever seen a master play pickup "for fun"? Most of his moves will be lightning fast, spending maybe a second or two on each. Is he really thinking about the moves, or does he just have superior pattern-recognition, allowing him to both initially filter out the vast majority of moves available, and select one rapidly from the few that are left based on instinct? So yes... I do think players have time to think that much. [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, ya, i do think chess players have time to think that much.. because your'e facing one opponent, so you can focus on the future several moves.. however, this is VtES, and from the previous discussions among all those postings.. sounds like a lot to think about when 3-4 other players need to be taken in consideration on style of play, moves, disciplines minions have, what cards have been played, who has how many VPs, who you can take on, will the politics be balanced, etc, etc.. that's my question.. because seriously, although i'm not gonna say i'm a simpleton, i don't think i can conjure up an absolute mathematic/logic/political decision to know who i want out or who to weaken.. i usually look at table, make a worst case scenario, look at each player's blood pool and cards played, and make a deal or move.. and that's about it, therefore to have someone else on table to actually use an excuse to justify his action/decision, i have to take it in consideration half the time, it's just personal or out of sheer fear or stupidity simply because I think most of us most of the time just don't have the capacity to go thru the whole discussion we talked b4. VtES doesn't have the same dimension as chess. Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<tl2ifvoemktluopb5...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 24 Jun 2003 14:46:33 -0700, DeistMutts wrote: > Also, you must take in consideration game time effect.. of all these > postings.. you think players actually have that much time to think > that much? Which is what leads to another question.. should there be a > time limit for each player like in chess? :( We were discussing waht is legal in terms of the Gamewin/Sportman/Maximise VPs rules. I posited a situation where you could legally self-oust. What does this have to do with thinking time?

In message <a3baa2e3.0306...@posting.google.com>, psydu...@hotmail.com (DeistMutts) mumbled something about: >Well, ya, i do think chess players have time to think that much.. >because your'e facing one opponent, so you can focus on the future >several moves.. however, this is VtES, and from the previous >discussions among all those postings.. sounds like a lot to think >about when 3-4 other players need to be taken in consideration on >style of play, moves, disciplines minions have, what cards have been >played, who has how many VPs, who you can take on, will the politics >be balanced, etc, etc.. that's my question.. because seriously, OK, I'll give you a hint. Chess players think on their opponent's time. It's very easy to adapt a similar style to V:TES. In addition, chess players typically adopt an accumulative thinking pattern -- assess a situation completely at the beginning, then modify the situation in small increments as necessary depending on what moves are made. This applies to V:TES, as well. If I see Beast and Theo as my grandprey, I can easily class the deck as "rush deck", and from there determine exactly what type over the course of several turns as I accumulate more data. However, the simple fact that it's a rush deck lets me know what sort of moves I can expect from it. This is why you will see long pauses for thought, and then a number of moves played at lightning speed -- it was all prepared ahead of time. >although i'm not gonna say i'm a simpleton, i don't think i can >conjure up an absolute mathematic/logic/political decision to know who >i want out or who to weaken.. i usually look at table, make a worst Nothing is ever absolute. But it's not hard to make a decision. >case scenario, look at each player's blood pool and cards played, and >make a deal or move.. and that's about it, therefore to have someone >else on table to actually use an excuse to justify his >action/decision, i have to take it in consideration half the time, >it's just personal or out of sheer fear or stupidity simply because I >think most of us most of the time just don't have the capacity to go >thru the whole discussion we talked b4. VtES doesn't have the same >dimension as chess. I agree. I believe chess is probably more complex, as far as the "play" aspect is concerned. The deckbuilding aspect is different -- but the vampires in play limit the options of cards you can use, so the play is significantly easier. [ quoted text not captured ]