Self-ousting

First off - this came up in a tournament yesterday and while it did deny me a spot in the finals and with it qualification for the EC, it didn't matter because I needed to leave before the finals anyway, have no intention of going to Prague and got the T-shirt anyway. That said, this is not a whine but something that has been bugging me for, well, probably years. Game context: * My predator is crippled with 4 of his 5 minions in torpor and a giovanni weenie without dominate in his ready region along with a few 0-bleed 0-str retainers. He is to get ousted in two turns tops. * My prey has 1 minion with inferior dominate and 1 blood. The rest of his minions are empty in torpor and he has no way to get them out. He has 11 pool. * My grandprey just got his one minion Archon'd by his prey (my grandpredator). He now has 7 pool, no minions and no permanents in play; the smallest vampire in his uncontrolled region and crypt is capacity 7. There is no blood on any of the ones in his uncontrolled. * My grandpredator has a bunch of vic weenies with skillcards and intercept retainers.and a War Ghoul. He is very low on pool (3 or 4 I think). * I am on 9 pool, have 4 minions out (two with a .44), a fair amount of bleed in my hand and some wake/intercept. A fairly standard Auspex-hand, so to speak. I'm playing a Black Hand AUS deck and have been trying to keep my grandprey alive for a while not only so my prey doesn't get 6 more pool for me to bleed through but also so I can grab his VP before I go heads up with my grandpredator. So far it's working quite well; between Eagle Sight and Direct Intervention, I have managed to get to the point where I can oust my prey before he can oust his as described above. In my turn I bleed my prey for 3. He knows I can't bleed for more than three and expect him to have a deflection on hand that I can't stop him from playing. He indeed has the deflection and sends the bleed to my grandprey, putting him on 4 pool. It doesn't matter, because he will have to hunt next turn and will be ousted the turn after. I bleed for 6 more, putting him on 5 pool. Even if he has a another deflection and a wake next turn, I can still bleed him out in two actions (out of 4 available) and his prey can still handle a bleed for 3. Yes its close, but I'm on two guaranteed ousts here. My prey hunts, I fail to block, he discards and ends his turn. My grandprey says: "well if I'm playing to win, I need to transfer out a new minion" and promptly transfers himself out of the game, giving my prey 6 pool. Now of course, under the current rules this is perfectly legal. Said player had absolutely no way of scoring a VP short of his prey tranfering out, so he is entitled to do whatever he wants to do. He chose to transfer out, deny me a VP and virtually hand his prey the gamewin. I think we all agree that doing this is rather unsportsmanlike. It would be like rolling over to your dying predator to enforce a 2-2 split on a 4-player table so nobody gets the gamewin which may give your friend at the other table a good shot at the finals. Given that the topic of transfering out has recently surfaced in a different thread, I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that prevents people from self-ousting. I would personally love one, because this is one of many frustrating situations where someone self-ousting can just completely ruin your well-played game and it's sometimes even kingmaking. Thoughts?

"Izaak" <.> a écrit dans le message de news:48568552$0$7410$ba62...@nova.planet.nl... > Given that the topic of transfering out has recently surfaced in a different > thread, I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that prevents people > from self-ousting. > > I would personally love one, because this is one of many frustrating > situations where someone self-ousting can just completely ruin your > well-played game and it's sometimes even kingmaking. > > Thoughts? I'd love one as well and it would be easy to implement. Something like "a player is not allowed to self-oust except if he gains a VP in the process. This includes : using transfers during a given influence phase until the player has no pool, paying for a card resulting in having no pool, voting in favor of a referendum that would oust him etc." As usual, judgment would have to be used for less obvious situations (like entering in combat with Tension in the Ranks and both minions' controller being at 1 pool, or something. Sure, judgment is supposed to be used anyway, but the real net result is that people get away with transferring out, and I see that very frequently, these days. They also do it on purpose so that no one gets a GW. At least in Paris, you won't play in a tournament without having at least one player threatening to transfer out or to be kingmaker, which definitely ruins much of the enjoyment most players expect. Cunning players will make the threat known without hostility if they feel they could be pinned by the judge for unsportsmanlike conduct, so that it becomes too grey to merit a sanction, but it's still unsporstmanlike conduct. It's even done on a regular basis in casual games, which hints at the extent to which poor sportmanship has become the standard. Such a rule would be easy to apply and would avoid very lame behaviours, not to mention one less tool for the kingmakers out there. Stone

Izaak wrote: > Now of course, under the current rules this is perfectly legal. Said player > had absolutely no way of scoring a VP short of his prey tranfering out, so he > is entitled to do whatever he wants to do. He chose to transfer out, deny me a > VP and virtually hand his prey the gamewin. > > I think we all agree that doing this is rather unsportsmanlike. Not at all. The dead-on-his-feet player is under no obligation to help you over helping some other player. Any activity or inactivity on his part helps one player or another, and it is not unsporting to avail himself of one of those options. > Given that the topic of transfering out has recently surfaced in a different > thread, I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that prevents people > from self-ousting. How, exactly, would that rule be written? What are the exact terms that you conceive would prevent this sort of activity given reasonably-intelligent players? The prior discussions of this topic lead to the realization that we all agree is it not tractable in a meaningful way, if it were desirable in the first place.

On Jun 16, 11:22 am, "Izaak" <.> wrote: >I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that prevents people > from self-ousting. How would you word such a rule that it becomes ironclad? If I'm in a losing position, and wish to oust myself, but there is a rule saying "you can't oust yourself", what is to prevent me from tapping what minion I have, transfering myself to 1 pool, and waiting for my predator to kill me with no attempt to avoid that death? -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:sVv5k.4249$L_....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com... > Izaak wrote: >> Now of course, under the current rules this is perfectly legal. Said player >> had absolutely no way of scoring a VP short of his prey tranfering out, so >> he is entitled to do whatever he wants to do. He chose to transfer out, >> deny me a VP and virtually hand his prey the gamewin. >> >> I think we all agree that doing this is rather unsportsmanlike. > > Not at all. So kingmaking is not unsportsmanslike? I honestly think it is. It's nothing but screwing another player because "you can". That's unsportmanslike. > The dead-on-his-feet player is under no obligation to help you over helping > some other player. I'm not asking him to help me. I really didn't want to move the discussion to this specific situation, but as was, the fact that he was still in the game was 100% my doing because I was playing to maximize my VP's and actually trying to win. I succeeded in doing so until someone thought it would be cool to self-oust. Again, it didn't matter at all because it was still a fun game up to that point, but I'd be quite gutted if I *did* really want to qualify. >> Given that the topic of transfering out has recently surfaced in a >> different thread, I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that >> prevents people from self-ousting. > > How, exactly, would that rule be written? What are the exact terms that you > conceive would prevent this sort of activity given reasonably-intelligent > players? "A Methusalah cannot play cards that cost pool or use transfers if doing so would result in the Methusalah being ousted" works for me. What it does is people killing themselves for whatever reason. Could be because they dont want to be a pool buffer for their prey, or because they want to give their predator who also happens to be a friend a VP he will otherwise not get or just because they can. It doesn't prevent dying from properly playing of the game. > The prior discussions of this topic lead to the realization that we all > agree is it not tractable in a meaningful way, if it were desirable in the > first place. How is not traceble? Player A uses transfers to kill himself, call judge, undo it.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:7f31ca19-aa69-49ab...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] There isn't. But at the very least it requires your predator to actually actively oust you by getting a bleed through. Especially in the age of intercept, DI and Xtable blocking, that's often not as easy as it sounds.

Izaak wrote: > So kingmaking is not unsportsmanslike? I honestly think it is. It's nothing > but screwing another player because "you can". That's unsportmanslike. You seem to have missed the section of my reply that you snipped. It directly addresses this straw man. Here it is again: Any activity or inactivity on his part helps one player or another, and it is not unsporting to avail himself of one of those options. > >> The dead-on-his-feet player is under no obligation to help you over helping >> some other player. > > I'm not asking him to help me. Yeah, you are. You're asking him to perform some other useless-to-him activity instead of the equally-useless-to-him activity which hurts you (the latter being: make transfers). > I really didn't want to move the discussion to > this specific situation, but as was, the fact that he was still in the game > was 100% my doing because I was playing to maximize my VP's and actually > trying to win. I succeeded in doing so until someone thought it would be cool > to self-oust. Again, it didn't matter at all because it was still a fun game > up to that point, but I'd be quite gutted if I *did* really want to qualify. Those specifics do nothing to change my case: they conform to the general case you gave at the start, and the response to them remains the same. >>> Given that the topic of transfering out has recently surfaced in a >>> different thread, I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that >>> prevents people from self-ousting. >> How, exactly, would that rule be written? What are the exact terms that you >> conceive would prevent this sort of activity given reasonably-intelligent >> players? > > "A Methusalah cannot play cards that cost pool or use transfers if doing so > would result in the Methusalah being ousted" works for me. Ah. You wish to make some other rule regarding cost payments (but only for cards, not for in-play optional effects, odd). Regardless, it still doesn't do much when given reasonably-intelligent players at a table. > What it does is people killing themselves for whatever reason. Could be > because they dont want to be a pool buffer for their prey, or because they > want to give their predator who also happens to be a friend a VP he will > otherwise not get or just because they can. It doesn't prevent dying from > properly playing of the game. > >> The prior discussions of this topic lead to the realization that we all >> agree is it not tractable in a meaningful way, if it were desirable in the >> first place. > > How is not traceble? Player A uses transfers to kill himself, call judge, undo > it. No, not that. The fact that it is so easily circumvented by reasonably intelligent players makes it intractable.

On Jun 16, 11:40 am, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > > "A Methusalah cannot play cards that cost pool or use transfers if doing so > would result in the Methusalah being ousted" works for me. > > What it does is people killing themselves for whatever reason. Could be > because they dont want to be a pool buffer for their prey, or because they > want to give their predator who also happens to be a friend a VP he will > otherwise not get or just because they can. It doesn't prevent dying from > properly playing of the game. And apparently what constitutes 'proper playing of the game' is your decision to impose upon others? Your grandprey decided to self-oust in a fashion that you admit is entirely legal, rather than reward you for keeping him in the game (yet specifically doing so in a fashion that benefitted him in no way whatsoever.) Your grandprey opted to play in a fashion to thwart the person who was clearly going to oust him, and who was clearly focused on that goal. In a lot of places, trying your best to deny a person the VP for ousting you is not considered 'unsportsmanlike', it's considered 'standard play'. In this case, his only avenue of not being ousted by you was to self- oust - because that's the only option -you- had left him (clearly, his predator wasn't going to get his VP.) Most of the people I play with regularly, if faced with someone setting them up cross-table instead of assisting them, would definitely start looking for ways to harm that player's game. That's kind of the risk you run in trying to 'balance the table' in your favor - that someone might try to unbalance it against you. -John Flournoy

Izaak <.> wrote: > "A Methusalah cannot play cards that cost pool or use transfers if > doing so would result in the Methusalah being ousted" works for me. What about a 5-player game that is down to you 'A' and player 'B', where you have 2VP and B has 1VP, you have 1 pool and B has 3 pool. You should not be allowed to call a KRC on your turn, ousting you both? etc. 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

Stone <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > Sure, judgment is supposed to be used anyway, but the real > net result is that people get away with transferring out, and > I see that very frequently, these days. They also do it on purpose > so that no one gets a GW. Well, since you get more TPs for being at a table where you lose 5-0-0-0-0 versus 4-1-0-0-0, etc., then it follows that there *are* reasons for self-ousting. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the concept of players being a bunch of fucking wankers when they self-oust for spite only. But what are you going to do to legislate every single possible scenario? You can't. This has been solved in some respect for the finals of any tournament, in that, since all non-winners achieve 2nd place, there is the ability for the judge to rule in some circumstances that self-ousting wouldn't be legal, but I can still envision circumstances in a final where LSJ (or whomever judging) would allow a self-oust. [ quoted text not captured ]

Izaak wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] A very similar situation has come up in one of our regular group games. I think, at the time we let it pass, but then discussing the game afterwards we decided that since the game only had a few minutes to timeout anyway, the logical PTW thing for the low pool/ no minion guy to do would have been to pass his turn. His predator's turn was unlikely to come round again before the timeout, so if they wanted to maximise their game position, then simply sitting tight and holding on for the 0.5 VPs is still more than self ousting for 0. I think this is reasonable as a template. No one player can guarantee the outcome of any other's turn. Even if the game was only half an hour old, then trying to play for the timeout (all other reasonable considerations aside) seems to be the best possible application of PTW in my mind. ta John Best, Prince of Manchester

tbz_...@hotmail.com wrote: > Izaak wrote: >> player >> had absolutely no way of scoring a VP > A very similar situation has come up in one of our regular group > games. > > the game only had a few minutes to > timeout anyway, the logical PTW thing for the low pool/ no minion guy > to do would have been to pass his turn. His predator's turn was > unlikely to come round again before the timeout, so if they wanted to > maximise their game position, then simply sitting tight and holding on > for the 0.5 VPs is still more than self ousting for 0. Note that "a situation in which the player will likely get 0.5 more VPs" is not "very similar" to "a situation in which the player has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs".

> What about a 5-player game that is down to you 'A' and player 'B', where > you have 2VP and B has 1VP, you have 1 pool and B has 3 pool. You should > not be allowed to call a KRC on your turn, ousting you both? Since when does KRC cost pool?

On Jun 16, 12:40 pm, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > So kingmaking is not unsportsmanslike? I honestly think it is. It's nothing > but screwing another player because "you can". That's unsportmanslike. Kingmaking is not unsportsmanlike, no. It isn't always desireable, of course. But if someone is in a losing position, and they are getting ousted anyway, how they decide to get ousted is up to them. If they have some reason to spite someone, (i.e. for example you, their cross table "buddy" kept hitting them with extra KRC damage, which is why they are now in a losing position. They could just wait till you oust them after ousting their predator, or self oust just to spite you, to deny you a VP. Seems totally reasonable to me). If someone has no reason to screw you over just 'cause they can, they probably won't. If they feel they have a reason to do so, there is probably a reason for it. -Peter

> And apparently what constitutes 'proper playing of the game' is your > decision to impose upon others? No, properly playing the game is just to play the game. > Your grandprey decided to self-oust in a fashion that you admit is > entirely legal, rather than reward you for keeping him in the game > (yet specifically doing so in a fashion that benefitted him in no way > whatsoever.) I really want to move away from this specific case as at the time it didn't matter and I didn't care. I just thought it was unsportsmanslike and got me thinking. As others have posted, self-ousting can be used to manipulate a tournament by preventing someone from getting the gamewin and I think it's stupid that it's possible, let alone allowed. Clearly I'm fairly lonely in this opinion and I doubt it will get changed anytime soon. I still wonder - what, other than griefing other players - does self-ousting bring to the game? It has NO tactical implications and NO purpose other than picking who gets to oust you (or, how fast you will get ousted). So far nobody has convinced me self-ousting is somehow good for the game and I don't see why it should stay. > Your grandprey opted to play in a fashion to thwart the person who was > clearly going to oust him, and who was clearly focused on that goal. > > In a lot of places, trying your best to deny a person the VP for > ousting you is not considered 'unsportsmanlike', it's considered > 'standard play'. That argument doesn't fly. Standard play is trying to not get ousted. If you're self-ousting that's hardly standard play. Besides, you're still giving away the VP and six pool so not much VP denial there. On top of it, in the scenario that you're self-oust it's usually not to the guy who actually did the job of getting you to do so in the first place so in effect you're punishing someone for playing well. Where I live we call that griefing.

On Jun 16, 5:26 pm, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > I still wonder - what, other than griefing other players - does self-ousting > bring to the game? It has NO tactical implications and NO purpose other than > picking who gets to oust you (or, how fast you will get ousted). The fact that self-ousting is allowed by the rules has hefty tactical implications. The primary among them is that players attempting to control the table must maintain the illusion that his opponents have a chance at a VP. > > > Your grandprey opted to play in a fashion to thwart the person who was > > clearly going to oust him, and who was clearly focused on that goal. > > > In a lot of places, trying your best to deny a person the VP for > > ousting you is not considered 'unsportsmanlike', it's considered > > 'standard play'. > > That argument doesn't fly. Standard play is trying to not get ousted. Except when it isn't. > If > you're self-ousting that's hardly standard play. Besides, you're still giving > away the VP and six pool so not much VP denial there. On top of it, in the > scenario that you're self-oust it's usually not to the guy who actually did > the job of getting you to do so in the first place so in effect you're > punishing someone for playing well. Where I live we call that griefing. The rules allow for self-ousting. If you did not hedge against that possibility, perhaps you weren't playing as well as you thought. -witness1

On Jun 16, 4:26 pm, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > > And apparently what constitutes 'proper playing of the game' is your > > decision to impose upon others? > > No, properly playing the game is just to play the game. Self-ousting is part of 'playing the game', though - you're making a distinction between one form of legal play (that you like) and another form of legal play (that you don't like.) Both are 'playing the game'. > I really want to move away from this specific case as at the time it didn't > matter and I didn't care. Fair enough. > I just thought it was unsportsmanslike and got me thinking. As others have > posted, self-ousting can be used to manipulate a tournament by preventing > someone from getting the gamewin and I think it's stupid that it's possible, > let alone allowed. Clearly I'm fairly lonely in this opinion and I doubt it > will get changed anytime soon. Self-ousting can certainly be used to manipulate a tournament. Unfortunately, if your goal is to manipulate the tournament so can intelligently applied game play that isn't as clear-cut as self- ousting. Smart players can certainly throw games (or kingmake) without being obvious about it. > I still wonder - what, other than griefing other players - does self-ousting > bring to the game? It has NO tactical implications and NO purpose other than > picking who gets to oust you (or, how fast you will get ousted). So far nobody > has convinced me self-ousting is somehow good for the game and I don't see why > it should stay. Here's a specific example where self-ousting matters in terms of 'tactical implications.' 5-player tournament final. A -> B -> C -> D -> you. You oust A and B. C ousts D. You reach a position where you cannot gain further victory points. C is clearly set up to oust D, and then you. It is clearly in your interest to self-oust to D (creating a tie between you and C for the win) instead of letting C oust you both (making you lose the game.) Is this good for the game? That's a separate issue. > > Your grandprey opted to play in a fashion to thwart the person who was > > clearly going to oust him, and who was clearly focused on that goal. > > > In a lot of places, trying your best to deny a person the VP for > > ousting you is not considered 'unsportsmanlike', it's considered > > 'standard play'. > > That argument doesn't fly. Standard play is trying to not get ousted. We're discussing a scenario where 'not getting ousted' is specifically not an option; all that remains is to determine -how- you get ousted, not if. > If > you're self-ousting that's hardly standard play. Besides, you're still giving > away the VP and six pool so not much VP denial there. Again, the scenario is one where the VP will be lost no matter what course of action is taken. > On top of it, in the > scenario that you're self-oust it's usually not to the guy who actually did > the job of getting you to do so in the first place so in effect you're > punishing someone for playing well. Where I live we call that griefing. Sure. If your predator has not crippled you himself, it's a result of someone else crippling you cross-table (or backwards.) My point is that when you cripple a player who is not your prey, you shouldn't get angry when that player decides not to roll over and obligingly wait his turn to give you his VP on a platter as your presumed 'reward' for your play. Many players - when facing a deck that is successfully crippling non- prey opponents in a clear attempt to set up (partial) table sweeps - will immediately act contrary to the best interests of that player to the best of their ability. LOTS of times this results in the entire table making explicit deals to gang up on such a player until he's ousted, then continue the game. Self-ousting is obviously a very extreme example of playing to foil a clearly dominant opponent, but there are occasions where it's the only option available, and some people (as noted elsewhere in this thread, even) think that 'good play' is avoiding creating situations where that self-oust is their only option to retaliate against your choice of strategy. For instance, setting someone up with 'I have left you with one minion that can only bleed for one, and there's just no probable way you can win before I get around to you' frequently is reacted to less vehemently than 'I have diablerized all your minions and you get to do nothing but discard 1 card/turn until I get around to ousting you.' Both might justify self-ousting, but one is more likely to provoke it than the other. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] It doesn't cost pool - 1 pool of the 4 must by card-text be applied to yourself (since it cannot all be assigned to the only other remaining player); playing a KRC in this situation both self-ousts and gives you the game win. It's hard to write a rule that prevents self-ousting yet still allows you to legitimately oust yourself for the immediate game win (and there are other scenarios that accomplish this.) (also hard: wording a rule that prevents you from self-ousting via a Brinksmanship.) -John Flournoy

I agree with Izaak that the game would be more fun without the option of selfousting/kingmaking. transfering out is an active decision. Your predator was not good enough to oust you (in time) but because you will die anyway you might as well give him the VP. I dont like that attitude, even if it is out of strategic tournament planning. Someone else on the table was able to control the table and the ousting order (apart from selfousting). He should be rewarded for that in my opinion. Currently the rules do not agree with that point of view. So yes, i would like to put my name under "yes it is desirable" which LSJ was asking "whether it is desirable in the first place". I can't think of an enforcable rule that would stop it though. But there might be people out there who can give that some more thought than i have until now :-) W

On Jun 16, 8:22 am, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > I think we all agree that [self-ousting when there's no reasonable chance for move VPs] is rather unsportsmanlike. I definitely disagree. Obviously several players have also posted this viewpoint, and I wanted to add my opinion so you realize there are many people who think that the current rules around self-ousting are just fine. The sportsmanship rules are specific: 1) If you have a reasonable chance at a GW, you must try to get a GW. 2) If you don't have a reasonable chance at a GW, you must try to maximize your VPs. 3) If you don't have a reasonable chance at more VPs (or you already have the GW), you can do whatever you want. The self-ousting player you described was following rule #3, and it's a perfectly good rule. Also note that "reasonable chance" can include risk analysis. Here are a couple a good threads on that topic, if you want to read more about it: 1) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/50d82292b37a151f 2) http://tinyurl.com/5zxq9z In the specific situation you described, you could have only bled for 2 each time, instead of 3, and then it might have been impossible for your grandprey to self-oust. Ira

On Jun 16, 7:43 pm, Cooper <wouterkuy...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Izaak that the game would be more fun without the option > of selfousting/kingmaking. Sure--I agree for the most part here. But "self ousting" and "kingmaking" are two completely different things--one can easily kingmake (intentionally or otherwise) in VTES very easily without self ousting. Say I crosstable Parity Shift you in the name of "table balance" 'cause you are looking really strong. Which makes my prey lunge forward, which ousts you, and he ends up winning as a result. I have totally played kingmaker. I did so without self ousting. I see this sort of thing (cross table shenanagins just making someone else win) happen *far* more often than people self ousting. Until you can come up with a rule that keeps people from using cross table shenanagins to "balance the table" (which, again, I see far more often than I see self ousting) which more often than not, just makes someone else win the game (which is as much of a kingmaking as anything is), which is impossible to do, trying to whack self ousting in the name of foiling kingmaking is pointless. > transfering out is an active decision. Your predator was not good > enough to oust you (in time) but because you will die anyway you might > as well give him the VP. I dont like that attitude, even if it is out > of strategic tournament planning. I don't like the attitude of "Hey! You! Across the table! Even though me screwing with you is just likely to make my prey win the game, and hurt my own game in the long run, I'm gonna do it anyway, as I think you look too strong, and I want to balance the table!" Which is also the result of strategic tournament planning. But we can't get rid of that, either. As it is impossible to legislate against. -Peter

Cooper wrote: > I agree with Izaak that the game would be more fun without the option > of selfousting/kingmaking. > > transfering out is an active decision. Your predator was not good > enough to oust you (in time) but because you will die anyway you might > as well give him the VP. I dont like that attitude, even if it is out > of strategic tournament planning. > > Someone else on the table was able to control the table and the > ousting order (apart from selfousting). He should be rewarded for that > in my opinion. Currently the rules do not agree with that point of > view. > I don't like playing a game where I have 2 predators. If my predator has been neutralized I don't like having to make sure that anyone with AUS or SPI is also put down because they might play Eagle's Sight or Falcon's Eye. If you don't want me to self-oust to someone that is not you than keeping ousting your prey until you are preying on me. Until I am your predator or prey don't worry about me. I used to make decks that tried to lock down the table (a Lunatic Eruption on everyone or some First Tradition decks), but the game can still fall apart due to self-ousts, so I stopped trying to tweak those decks. Later, ~Rehlow

On Jun 17, 3:22 am, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > I would personally love one, because this is one of many frustrating > situations where someone self-ousting can just completely ruin your > well-played game and it's sometimes even kingmaking. Given the situation you described I believe you're overstating how well you were playing your game. Your prey must also have been playing well (and / or had help) as they had your grandprey down to 7 pool and no minions which is clearly not a good situation to be in. You don't describe how this happened and what you were doing while it happened, but at some point - with the deck you had in particular - you decided to let this happen (or you didn't have the cards to stop it happening) which turned out to be a bad choice. Propping someone up just to get their VP isn't really good play, you have to at least look like you're helping them get a VP and clearly you weren't (or were unable to) in this case. As such I can see why someone would suicide to give away their VP to the person that did the most work to oust them as opposed to a cross table "ally" busy propping them up. Sure it's annoying and I'm sure a lot of us have been in the situation you've described or something similar and been so close to victory but then come away with nothing. The appropriate thing to do when this happens is not to get annoyed but to go and get yourself another drink... ;-) S

In message <d1d42e71-e9ba-4bb0...@k30g2000hse.googlegroup s.com>, Rehlow <news...@rehlow.com> writes: >I don't like playing a game where I have 2 predators. If my predator >has been neutralized I don't like having to make sure that anyone with >AUS or SPI is also put down because they might play Eagle's Sight or >Falcon's Eye. > >If you don't want me to self-oust to someone that is not you than >keeping ousting your prey until you are preying on me. Until I am your >predator or prey don't worry about me. You can't self-oust simply because someone (your grand-predator or otherwise) interferes with your game. If you still have a reasonable chance at the game win or more VPs, you can't self-oust. And the player interfering with your game may well be playing to win - he plays Eagle Sight on your Soul Gem, so your turbo deck doesn't go off just yet, for example. You cannot use "Don't be a second predator on me, or I'll self-oust" as a threat and carry it out, unless you have no reasonable chance of getting more VPs (or winning). As LSJ says, this is a tough criteria to meet. If nothing else, you may well be able to negotiate with other players on the table. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

. >Given the situation you described I believe you're overstating how >well you were playing your game. >Your prey must also have been playing well (and / or had help) as they >had your grandprey down to 7 pool and no minions which is clearly not >a good situation to be in. You don't describe how this happened and >what you were doing while it happened, but at some point - with the >deck you had in particular - you decided to let this happen (or you >didn't have the cards to stop it happening) which turned out to be a >bad choice. Again, I really wanted to not discuss this particular table as only 5 players would properly understand the table. I''ll try and elaborate a bit then. My prey is playing Sabbat Setite Duat breed with 20 or so presence masters, Black Lotus and Ezechiel. My grandprey is a new player on his first tournament that's playing a toolbox setite deck with Temptation, Corruption and Khobar towers. My prey has a first-hand Dreams and from 4th position brings out Black Lotus in turn 1. He lays heavily into my grandprey who has brought out that setite primogen by now. Having seen my prey's deck before, I try and control the amount of weenies he can create which he responds to by just going all-forward into my grandprey with his two minions (both with dominate now) and I respond by bleeding for no more than 1 (discarding conditionings) knowing I'll just get deflected. A few turns later, my grandprey sacrifices his vampire to Khobar Towers and brings out Nakthortheb. That puts him on aforementioned 7 pool with still only 1 minion. Another round passes, we skirmish a bit, I manage to block and torp one of my prey's two minions and look to be in a good position to grab a VP. My prey doens't manage to land a bleed, but he does get his second vampire back into the ready region. Now it's my grandprey's turn. He plays blood doll on Nakthor, giving him some pool gain and bleeds his prey for 4. Nakthor subsequently gets AI'd. He is now officially fucked and I haven't touched him once for him to get in that situation. So that's where the opportunity came up dor a double VP. I spend a few turns controlling my prey's minions instead of trying to bleed him out, so he doesn't kill his prey before I kill him. That's when my grandprey decides to roll over and give away a VP (and practically give my grandpredator the GW at that point) because he can. I still think it's, albeit within the rules, unsportmanslike. >Sure it's annoying and I'm sure a lot of us have been in the situation >you've described or something similar and been so close to victory but >then come away with nothing. The appropriate thing to do when this >happens is not to get annoyed but to go and get yourself another >drink... ;-) Well that's what I said. I played a fun game the last 25 minutes of which I spent with 4 cards in my hand trying to withdraw every turn and I only realized that this one VP meant the difference between getting to the finals and not getting to the finals later in the tournament. I didn't get mad or anything as I still played a nice tournament. As for enforability; I'd be perfectly happy if players could just not transfer themselves to deatth. Any other scenario does at least require you to play a card or do an action. Masters can be washed, self-ousting votes can be blocked. Transfering? It's not unstoppable. Well, unless you play lots of brainwash...

Again, it seems to me the issue hangs on what can be deemed a *reasonable* chance of maximising VPs. Without going too far into specifics the "mildly similar" :P event we had, this hinged on whether or not playing to time was viable. Under those circumstances, then it was completely reasonable to assume that doing nothing would mean maximisation. Without perfect knowledge of the other hands at the table, its hard to define what makes up reasonable. You're minionless, and on one pool. Looks impossible, sure. Then a cross table ally suddenly pulls off a successful parity shift, crippling your predator and bringing you back into the game. Yes, I know its an unlikely example, but if you'd transferred out under those "hopeless" circumstances, you'd have missed out on the possibility of maybe getting at least half a VP. In that example, transferring out seems perfectly *reasonable* but it was (unbeknownst to the player self-ousting) the wrong thing to do. I can empathise with the view that transferring out is helping one player or another (and if you're the other, it can seem *unreasonable*), since every action you take has an impact on your predator or prey at least. I've been in situations where it looked hopeless, and my predator has asked me not to make things "hard for them" i.e. transferring myself out, as it was AS unsportsmanlike as self ousting was making it easy for them. I have to play to win, or maximise my VPs as a rule. Will transferring out EVER achieve this? No, regardless of how hopeless the situation seems. Indeed to paraphrase LSJ from a previous thread - a 0.0000001% chance of getting a VP is not no chance at all. Ta John Best Prince of Manchester

On 17 kesä, 11:06, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > As for enforability; I'd be perfectly happy if players could just not transfer > themselves to deatth. Any other scenario does at least require you to play a > card or do an action. Masters can be washed, self-ousting votes can be > blocked. Transfering? It's not unstoppable. Well, unless you play lots of > brainwash... "1 .Players should not attempt to purposefully oust themselves. 2. Players that do not clearly understand the implications of rule 1 are not mature enough to play V:TES. 3. Players who try to smart ass their way around rule 1 by purposefully misinterpreting the spirit of the rule may be disqualified at the judges discretion."

On Jun 17, 2:08 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > You can't self-oust simply because someone (your grand-predator or > otherwise) interferes with your game. I don't think Matt was trying to articulate the point of "if someone interferes with my game, I'll self oust." I'm pretty sure he was trying to articulate the point of "People shouldn't be trying to control the whole table--they should be trying to oust their prey." -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:czx5k.4259$L_....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com... > Any activity or inactivity on his part helps one player or another, and it is > not unsporting to avail himself of one of those options. > what may have been overlooked is the interaction of the quoted statement with the PTW rule. An ousted player can't get any more VPs. The story about "cannot _reasonably_ get more VP" is just that - a story. In the real world, it more often than not just serves as a pretext for a player acting out of spite. It makes for a lot of grey areas, and we wouldn't have to worry about some of those if there was a rule preventing someone from transferring out and from ousting himself via payment of a card (for example). I agree that "reasonably intelligent" players could still use other means (kingmaking is inherent to multiplayer anyway), but at least some problems would be solved without bringing others. Another way to ask the question, maybe, would be "is it better for the game to preserve the possibility to self-oust, in order to preserve the reasoning according to which any action or inaction will benefit anyone anyways ; or is it better to get rid of the possibility to self-oust, so that it'll be less easy for spiteful and kingmaking players to achieve their goals ?" Not to mention it sometimes spoils the fun of victory. In my last casual game, I had to Wash my prey's Eternals of Sirius or else he would have got to zero pool by using transfers, just because he was pissed with his prey. Sure, getting a prey that transfers out brings you one step closer to victory, so what ? Nothing to feel proud about. Why allowing a player to self-oust by using transfers or a DI or whatever is beyond me, it really doesn't bring anything constructive to the game. Stone

Stone wrote: > Why allowing a player to > self-oust by using transfers or a DI or whatever is beyond me, it really > doesn't bring anything constructive to the game. Because it is playing the game, and it cannot be meaningfully prohibited, if playing the game were somehow something to be prohibited in the first place. The same reason that a player is allowed to "lunge" against seemingly insurmountable odds, even though that lunge will oust him if he fails by leaving him defenseless.

In message <f8d200de-e20d-4ec5...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups [ quoted text not captured ] He may have meant that. If he did, he's playing a different game to the rest of us. LSJ is quite explicit that you should be playing to win, and for the game win if necessary. Going after your prey and *not* looking cross- table can screw that up. As in the example I gave, stopping a turbo deck going off may be essential to retaining a chance at the game win, because otherwise you suddenly find Arika breathing down your neck having just taken oodles of bleed actions, and kitted up to screw you now too. If I just try to oust my prey in such a situation, I'm being *stupid*. This then becomes a question of degree. Many players will want to secure the game win, and may want to stop ousts in the process. Or they may want to oust cross-table, even though it doesn't help them in terms of VP or pool. The latter mechanism is explicitly discussed by Garfield - people might get other benefits, such as securing vote lock or whatever. The former may be required in order to play for the game win - though, clearly, a player may not see that, or may have a different risk assessment, or a greater knowledge of what's left in their deck, or whatever. Certainly, I've seen many players over-extend themselves when trying to control the table when, in that specific situation, I think they should have ousted their prey and solidified their position. But the game is not and has never been about solely surviving your predator and ousting your prey with tunnel vision. Garfield could have created such a game, but he didn't. There are intentional avenues for cross-table alliances and cross-table screwing, where appropriate. Perhaps the best example of such a tactic being flawed comes from a discussion on rush decks. Some player - I forget who, can't have been anyone important - suggested that the best way to win with a rush deck was to oust your first prey, and then oust the rest of the table backwards. Since that can be, for many such decks, a clear and resilient strategy, being asked to play with tunnel vision is like being asked to play with one arm tied behind your back. Botttom-line: screwing someone other than your prey can be your tactically strongest moves. Good players will play such moves, when they benefit them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Stone wrote: > Why allowing a player to > self-oust by using transfers or a DI or whatever is beyond me, it really > doesn't bring anything constructive to the game. Banning self-ousting is like trying to treat a broken leg with a shot of morphine. The real "problem" is that in a game of vtes there are often events beyond our control that can cause us to lose, or at the very least make the game a lot more difficult. Imagine this game: A->B->C->D->E-> C is playing a rush deck and dunks D's first minion. D responds by not influencing any more. C threatens B into inactivity. E takes advantage of a lack of predator by spending most of his pool on vampires to overwhelm A. A has tremendous problems with her predator and her prey will not tap any vampires and only plays defensively. This is a terrible situation to be in. There is no way to prevent it from happening occasionally. Your options are: adapt or die. Never assume your predator won't have free reign to crush you. Never assume your prey won't be on full defensive mode from go. Never assume your grandprey won't transfer out. Never assume your cross-table "buddies" won't harass you and try to get you ousted. My point here is that vtes has numerous strategic hurtles. Other players not playing the way you'd like them to is only one of them. It's a warzone out there. Be prepared for it. Matt Morgan

On Jun 17, 10:08 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > He may have meant that. If he did, he's playing a different game to the > rest of us. I don't know that that is true, in the sense that it is better to worry about ousting your prey first, and worry about the rest of the table second, as opposed to the sense of "play with blinders on", which I also don't think was the intention of the comment. But now I'm likely reading way more into things than I probably should :-) > LSJ is quite explicit that you should be playing to win, and for the > game win if necessary. Going after your prey and *not* looking cross- > table can screw that up. Sure. But I have seen *way* too many examples of people spending too much time looking cross table and not looking at their prey. Which results in games going very badly. For everyone. Especially, more often than not, the guy who is going cross table instead of ousting his prey. Yes. Once and a while you need to monkey with someone across the tabel to engineer a game win. But likely a lot less often than people seem to think. > There are intentional avenues for cross-table alliances > and cross-table screwing, where appropriate. Sure. But "appropriate" is likely much, much less often than it occurs in real life. And to bring this back on target, is exactly the kind of kingmaking that folks are trying to eradicate in one area (self ousting), but in the same discussion, promoting in other areas (preventing folks from ousting their prey, cross table blocking and DI). > Botttom-line: screwing someone other than your prey can be your > tactically strongest moves. Good players will play such moves, when > they benefit them. Sure. But lots and lots of players will play what they *think* are such moves, when in fact, they are not. And it never hurts to remind people of this :-) -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:J_P5k.5383$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Playing with Dramatic Upheaval or Edge Explosion is also playing the game. It all depends on how one defines what "playing the game" means. Banning simple effects (transferring out, going to 0 pool by playing a card) that result in self-ousting would make the game healthier. In contrast, banning "lunging" wouldn't be doable because it wouldn't be possible to define equally simple effects. Stone

On Jun 17, 11:52 am, "Stone" <mc_judge_st...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message denews:J_P5k.5383$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... > Playing with Dramatic Upheaval or Edge Explosion is also playing the game. > It all depends on how one defines what "playing the game" means. Banning > simple effects (transferring out, going to 0 pool by playing a card) that > result in self-ousting would make the game healthier. In contrast, banning > "lunging" wouldn't be doable because it wouldn't be possible to define > equally simple effects. > Stone Forcing a player with no minions and no way of gaining minions to sit on their thumbs waiting for someone to oust them may not, in fact, make the game any healthier. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] There's no reason to keep him around at that point. The usual solution is to replace him with a stack of counters that represent his remaining pool. Seems much better than self-ousting to me.

[ quoted text not captured ] So how would you apply these rules in the previously-mentioned circumstance where a self-oust insures a game-win? Forbid the person from playing to win because it involves "purposefully ousting themselves"? -John Flournoy

On Jun 17, 6:25 am, tbz_be...@hotmail.com wrote: > I have to play to win, or > maximise my VPs as a rule. Will transferring out EVER achieve this? > No, regardless of how hopeless the situation seems. You desperately need a minion, and someone could always play "Life Boon".

On Jun 17, 9:08 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <f8d200de-e20d-4ec5-b025-a46419828...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups > .com>, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> writes: > > >On Jun 17, 2:08 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> You can't self-oust simply because someone (your grand-predator or > >> otherwise) interferes with your game. > > >I don't think Matt was trying to articulate the point of "if someone > >interferes with my game, I'll self oust." I'm pretty sure he was > >trying to articulate the point of "People shouldn't be trying to > >control the whole table--they should be trying to oust their prey." > > He may have meant that. If he did, he's playing a different game to the > rest of us. > Most people I have played with would agree that I do play a different game then the rest of us. I cite Turbo Baron as an example. ;) > LSJ is quite explicit that you should be playing to win, and for the > game win if necessary. Going after your prey and *not* looking cross- > table can screw that up. As in the example I gave, stopping a turbo > deck going off may be essential to retaining a chance at the game win, > because otherwise you suddenly find Arika breathing down your neck > having just taken oodles of bleed actions, and kitted up to screw you > now too. If I just try to oust my prey in such a situation, I'm being > *stupid*. > > This then becomes a question of degree. Many players will want to > secure the game win, and may want to stop ousts in the process. Or they > may want to oust cross-table, even though it doesn't help them in terms > of VP or pool. The latter mechanism is explicitly discussed by Garfield > - people might get other benefits, such as securing vote lock or > whatever. The former may be required in order to play for the game win > - though, clearly, a player may not see that, or may have a different > risk assessment, or a greater knowledge of what's left in their deck, or > whatever. > I'm alright with someone cross-table doing some interference. I'm not alright with someone cross-table putting all my vampires in torpor/ removing my ability to play the game. Maybe I'm basing my opinion on the example too much (prey and grandprey have 1 vampire between them). If the cross-table player would have spent more time ousting their prey instead of putting all my vampires in torpor then they might have ousted their prey by now. > Certainly, I've seen many players over-extend themselves when trying to > control the table when, in that specific situation, I think they should > have ousted their prey and solidified their position. But the game is > not and has never been about solely surviving your predator and ousting > your prey with tunnel vision. Garfield could have created such a game, > but he didn't. There are intentional avenues for cross-table alliances > and cross-table screwing, where appropriate. > I know all about players over-extending themselves. In my playgroup it was a common occurance when someone played a Kindred Restructure to rearrange the table and set themselves up for 2 easy VPs. Many times it resulted in their new prey getting a VP because they failed to oust them and then they were setup with a weak prey. > Perhaps the best example of such a tactic being flawed comes from a > discussion on rush decks. Some player - I forget who, can't have been > anyone important - suggested that the best way to win with a rush deck > was to oust your first prey, and then oust the rest of the table > backwards. Since that can be, for many such decks, a clear and > resilient strategy, being asked to play with tunnel vision is like being > asked to play with one arm tied behind your back. > That tactic is fine with me. By the time that combat deck got around to me it should be either my predator or my prey. > Botttom-line: screwing someone other than your prey can be your > tactically strongest moves. Good players will play such moves, when > they benefit them. > Screwing with someone is fine. Removing their ability to play the game is going to piss them off. Pissed off people rarely do anything rationally. Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] "4. Unless they would gain a game-win." It's not rocket science.

[ quoted text not captured ] And before you ask: "5. Or gain a vp." If you can come up with some other problem I encourage you to think about a possible solution before asking.

[ quoted text not captured ] Since I'm not looking to change the rules, I'm not solving the problems inherent in trying to create such a rule - I'll leave that exercise to the people who actually think this needs to be fixed. However, the 'how do you get around people self-ousting for the win' was posited elsewhere in the thread by several people prior to your post, so it's not unreasonable to reiterate it when your suggestion lacked it. If you prefer, I can instead point out the problems with making vague rules about what people 'should' do instead of 'can or cannot' do, as well as with ones that inherently insult people if they don't think like you expect them to (saying 'you're not mature enough to play this game' is absurd, but I expect you knew that when you made the statement, which is why I didn't point it out the first time.) -John Flournoy

On Jun 16, 6:43 pm, Cooper <wouterkuy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Someone else on the table was able to control the table and the > ousting order (apart from selfousting). He should be rewarded for that > in my opinion. Currently the rules do not agree with that point of > view. To some degree I agree with this sentiment; however as other people have noted what you're in effect doing is rewarding someone for actually -failing- to control the ousting order - If they truly controlled the ousting order, self-ousting wouldn't be an issue (because they wouldn't have put the other players in a position where self-ousting was legal.) It's the difference between 'controlling the table and setting up a sweep' and 'annihilating someone across table to the point where their ability to gain VP is demonstrably over well before you get around to being their predator'. 'Good' decks/players can do the former without putting cross-table opponents into an absolutely unsalvagable position. I'd accordingly find self-ousting much more objectionable from a player who still had a non-zero chance of affecting the game otherwise. But 'controlling' a player cross-table by reducing to 'no minions, no chance to bring more out, and no chance of anyone else helping them' while you are still neither predator nor prey? That's not something I find especially worthy of a reward. If you like, you can view it as 'why should someone be rewarded for forcing another player to literally have no fun or participation in the game but still have to keep sitting there playing it?' -John Flournoy

In message <9f10e53b-7ee7-4a90...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, Rehlow <news...@rehlow.com> writes: >On Jun 17, 9:08 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >I'm alright with someone cross-table doing some interference. I'm not >alright with someone cross-table putting all my vampires in torpor/ >removing my ability to play the game. Maybe I'm basing my opinion on >the example too much (prey and grandprey have 1 vampire between >them). > >If the cross-table player would have spent more time ousting their >prey instead of putting all my vampires in torpor then they might have >ousted their prey by now. Of course they might have done that. That might not be their strongest move, however. You might be causing the deck more problems such that it doesn't think it will be able to function reliably with you on the table, and is more likely to remove you cross-table. One obvious example is vote-lock - better to 'waste' a few resources removing you now with your real predator also helping than to wait until he's gone. I've also seen a few decks that would benefit significantly from avoiding an intercept wall in this way - call votes cross-table and it can't be pulling Eagle's Sight all the time. You don't have to waste so much stealth, so can push the few key votes when you need to. Using a player who's mostly immobilised (not 100% certain, of course) as a cushion is a perfectly ordinary tactic. Much though it may piss you off, I may think it's a better move to get rid of you (or to tenderize you) than to get rid of my prey. >Screwing with someone is fine. Removing their ability to play the game >is going to piss them off. Pissed off people rarely do anything >rationally. So it's simply a question of degree. You're happy with cross-table screwing, but not if it makes you unhappy. If you were in a situation where you thought you could win by screwing someone cross-table, would you choose not to play-to-win instead? [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > The sportsmanship rules are specific: > > 1) If you have a reasonable chance at a GW, you must try to get a GW. Where does it say this anywhere? 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

[ quoted text not captured ] But you could at least co-operate enough for me to be able to assume that I don't have to answer questions which you yourself could easily answer by sacrificing 2 seconds of time. > However, the 'how do you get around people self-ousting for the win' > was posited elsewhere in the thread by several people prior to your > post, so it's not unreasonable to reiterate it when your suggestion > lacked it. > > If you prefer, I can instead point out the problems with making vague > rules about what people 'should' do instead of 'can or cannot' do, as > well as with ones that inherently insult people if they don't think > like you expect them to (saying 'you're not mature enough to play this > game' is absurd, but I expect you knew that when you made the > statement, which is why I didn't point it out the first time.) > > -John Flournoy Please do. It's pretty simple to arbitrate rules for card interactions because there isn't room for interpretation there. Most of the discussion here has focussed on using similar means to control unwanted human behavior (self-ousting, for example). Those opposed to this approach have rightfully pointed out the problems with this. The game's internal logic is just not flexible enough to control external (i.e. human) factors. This is why I proposed what I did. Instead of trying to make smart ass-proof rules we should just make a social contract to ban smart asses.

Kevin M. wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> The sportsmanship rules are specific: >> >> 1) If you have a reasonable chance at a GW, you must try to get a GW. > > Where does it say this anywhere? http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/?line=veknRules#sec4.8

[ quoted text not captured ] The problem I see with that is that what is 'a smart ass' or 'mature enough' or anything like that is a subjective judgement call, and those are exceedingly hard to legislate and enforce. The judge can already arbitrate on what counts as 'unsportsmanlike' behavior. As you can see from this thread, there's a vast difference of opinion among a number of players as to whether or not self-ousting even should count as 'unsportsmanlike'. Lacking a clear, concise rule that expressly forbids (at least some types of ) self-ousting, you're left with a rule that is open to personal interpretation among a set of players and judges that don't agree on what the interpretation should be. So adding a 'players should not do X' rule is a problem, both because not everyone agrees that they should indeed not do it and different judges would rule differently on whether or not the 'spirit of the rule' is being violated (and different players would complain regardless of which ruling the judge hands down.) Making a rule that says something like "You cannot spend your last pool on a transfer" is something that would be more clear-cut and enforcable. However, as LSJ noted early in the thread it's nigh-impossible to write an enforcable, consistent rule that prevents someone from self- ousting (or at least engineering a self-oust quickly and indirectly). Something like "You cannot spend your last pool on a transfer" while enforcable, doesn't stop things like "I spend all but one and invite my predator to bleed me freely" or in-play effects or other circumventions. As far as the "you are not mature enough to play the game", that's a ludicrous clause to include, considering the subjectivity of 'maturity' - I think many players know people they regularly play against that they'd consider immature, and it's hard to justify a maturity clause when tournament environments include pre-teen players (especially ones with multiple tournament wins.) It's also fairly insulting; a judge telling a player 'i'm sorry, I'm disqualifying you because you're not mature enough to play' is just inviting a particularly ugly argument (at least.) Plus, how does such a player convince that same judge that they'll be 'sufficiently mature' next time? Maturity isn't a qualification for tournament play, so you can't ban a player from future events for it. And why codify a rule where only one singular violation counts as 'immature'? Wouldn't 'you're not mature enough to play the game' also apply to such rules violations as 'cheating', collusion, arguing with the judge, etc etc? If you're going to make new tournament rules, they need to be clear, concise, and consistent. Adding rules that rely on personal judgement is suboptimal. Unfortunately, self-ousting or other forms of kingmaking is a subjective issue that is extremely hard to concisely codify, so there may simply not be a straightforward rule to solve this percieved problem. As you say, you could certainly ask players to enter some sort of social contract; however that's not something that you can easily make a rule out of. And since there's clearly a decent number of experienced players who feel such a contract is neither desirable nor warranted, any unofficial contract you make is going to fail (much like how some players have a social contract not to deal-break, yet this does not stop other people from freely breaking deals with them.) Similar social contracts that most people abide by already include stuff like 'Don't contest cards cross-table' or 'Don't diablerize vampires cross-table _just_ because you have vote lock' or 'Don't insultingly tell another player how badly they're playing their deck to their face.' There's lots of players who already refuse to self- oust if it doesn't give them a victory of some sort. Encouraging players to continue to do so is great, and I wholly approve of that (as well as putting social pressure on the people who do so anyway). Codifying it (or any of the other social contracts) as some sort of enforcable violation of a rule, however, is not something I'd approve of. -John Flournoy

In message <ouT5k.785$Fj5...@newsfe23.lga>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> The sportsmanship rules are specific: >> >> 1) If you have a reasonable chance at a GW, you must try to get a GW. > >Where does it say this anywhere? In the tournament rules. Not quite phrased like that, but equivalent: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules 4.8. Play to Win ... For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. It used to be that the Sportsmanlike Conduct clause was interpreted/ruled/clarified by LSJ to mean much the same thing, but without the Play to Win aspect being explicitly stated in the rules. That changed a while back. It's not marked as new in the 2008 rules, so probably 2007 - maybe earlier. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <fd543fee-acec-48c4...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, suolir...@gmail.com writes: >It's pretty simple to arbitrate rules for card interactions because >there isn't room for interpretation there. This is not always true. LSJ issues rulings and clarifications regularly to help with this. New subjects come up, and opinions vary on particular subjects. At the very least, there is often room for mis-interpretation. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That is a problem with language itself. Language is subjective by it's nature and requires a degree of co-operation from all involved parties in order to be meaningful. > The judge can already arbitrate on what counts as 'unsportsmanlike' > behavior. As you can see from this thread, there's a vast difference > of opinion among a number of players as to whether or not self-ousting > even should count as 'unsportsmanlike'. I'm just suggesting a way to ban self-ousting, whether there should be one or not. > Lacking a clear, concise rule that expressly forbids (at least some > types of ) self-ousting, you're left with a rule that is open to > personal interpretation among a set of players and judges that don't > agree on what the interpretation should be. 'Don't try to oust yourself' seems pretty clear to me. Here's a good rule of thumb: if you are trying to think of ways to oust yourself without breaking this rule you are probably breaking it. > So adding a 'players should not do X' rule is a problem, both because > not everyone agrees that they should indeed not do it and different > judges would rule differently on whether or not the 'spirit of the > rule' is being violated (and different players would complain > regardless of which ruling the judge hands down.) Again, the idea seems pretty clear to me. > Making a rule that says something like "You cannot spend your last > pool on a transfer" is something that would be more clear-cut and > enforcable. > > However, as LSJ noted early in the thread it's nigh-impossible to > write an enforcable, consistent rule that prevents someone from self- > ousting (or at least engineering a self-oust quickly and indirectly). > > Something like "You cannot spend your last pool on a transfer" while > enforcable, doesn't stop things like "I spend all but one and invite > my predator to bleed me freely" or in-play effects or other > circumventions. Exactly, it isn't practical to make rulings on human behavior within the boundaries of the game's internal logic. For example, you couldn't make a card that says "burn all green cards" because the game doesn't recognize the word 'green'. However, if I told you that the green cards are meant to go to your library you would immediately know what I meant. This is why I see some kind of an external rule as the most elegant possible answer to self-ousting. > As far as the "you are not mature enough to play the game", that's a > ludicrous clause to include, considering the subjectivity of > 'maturity' - I think many players know people they regularly play > against that they'd consider immature, and it's hard to justify a > maturity clause when tournament environments include pre-teen players > (especially ones with multiple tournament wins.) > > It's also fairly insulting; a judge telling a player 'i'm sorry, I'm > disqualifying you because you're not mature enough to play' is just > inviting a particularly ugly argument (at least.) > > Plus, how does such a player convince that same judge that they'll be > 'sufficiently mature' next time? Maturity isn't a qualification for > tournament play, so you can't ban a player from future events for it. > And why codify a rule where only one singular violation counts as > 'immature'? Wouldn't 'you're not mature enough to play the game' also > apply to such rules violations as 'cheating', collusion, arguing with > the judge, etc etc? Sorry if I offended anyone, I only used that to make a point and would now like to move away from it. > If you're going to make new tournament rules, they need to be clear, > concise, and consistent. Adding rules that rely on personal judgement > is suboptimal. > > Unfortunately, self-ousting or other forms of kingmaking is a > subjective issue that is extremely hard to concisely codify, so there > may simply not be a straightforward rule to solve this percieved > problem. > > As you say, you could certainly ask players to enter some sort of > social contract; however that's not something that you can easily make > a rule out of. And since there's clearly a decent number of > experienced players who feel such a contract is neither desirable nor > warranted, any unofficial contract you make is going to fail (much > like how some players have a social contract not to deal-break, yet > this does not stop other people from freely breaking deals with > them.) I said social contract because it illustrates the nature of my proposed rule. Following the rule would not be optional. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 kesä, 22:04, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <fd543fee-acec-48c4-94a4-d7a29e90c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup > > s.com>, suoliruse...@gmail.com writes: > >It's pretty simple to arbitrate rules for card interactions because > >there isn't room for interpretation there. > > This is not always true. > > LSJ issues rulings and clarifications regularly to help with this. New > subjects come up, and opinions vary on particular subjects. At the very > least, there is often room for mis-interpretation. > > -- > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Okay, 'pretty simple' was a horrible overstatement. Cards are as subjective as everything else, it's just not as obvious as in some other cases.

On Jun 17, 1:48 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Of course they might have done that. That might not be their strongest > move, however. Sure. But experience has shown me that far more often than not, "killing your prey" is much more likely to work out well for you than "screwing with people cross table as part of a devious master plan that looks like it is pure insanity, but actually will result in me getting a 5VP sweep when all my pieces fall into place..." And yes. I agree that once and a while, doing something that looks crazy and arbitrary and seems to randomly screw folks cross table actually is pure genius and will win you the game in the long run. But usually? It is just doing something that looks crazy and arbitrary and randomly screws folks cross table. > If you were in a situation where you thought you could win by screwing > someone cross-table, would you choose not to play-to-win instead? If I did it and it made me win? Clearly, it was genius and the right move. In the far more likely event that I do it and it makes someone else win? I'm just a tool who is randomly screwing folks cross table 'cause I think I'm clever, but really I'm a tool. The line between the two is very, very thin. -Peter

In message <08ac7912-438a-4cc5...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups. com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Jun 17, 1:48 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Of course they might have done that. That might not be their strongest >> move, however. > >Sure. But experience has shown me that far more often than not, >"killing your prey" is much more likely to work out well for you than >"screwing with people cross table as part of a devious master plan >that looks like it is pure insanity, but actually will result in me >getting a 5VP sweep when all my pieces fall into place..." Absolutely. But that's not the point. People make mistakes in all aspects of the game - deck construction, metagame judgements, risk assessments, timing a good play, and so on. This is no different. That guy sat at the table with a wacky deck of shit that he can't control and can't use because he's a tool? He's causing just as many problems, but we don't prevent that. >> If you were in a situation where you thought you could win by screwing >> someone cross-table, would you choose not to play-to-win instead? > >If I did it and it made me win? Clearly, it was genius and the right >move. No, you're an evil person who's just ruined my game. Stop doing that. I have to be allowed to play my game. Stop torporising my minions. Stop it, you vile brute. YOU'RE RUINING IT. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 17, 5:11 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Absolutely. But that's not the point. People make mistakes in all > aspects of the game - deck construction, metagame judgements, risk > assessments, timing a good play, and so on. > > This is no different. > > That guy sat at the table with a wacky deck of shit that he can't > control and can't use because he's a tool? He's causing just as many > problems, but we don't prevent that. Huh. I'm not quite sure what we are disagreeing about here anymore :-) I'm not trying to prevent anything--I'm (originally) arguing that you can't prevent self ousting kingmaking any more than you can prevent cross table shenanagins kingmaking. Both are a pain in the ass. Both are not worth trying to outlaw. In terms of "kill your prey rather than screwing with folks cross table..." That isn't intended as a decree. It is just good advice. -Peter

On Jun 17, 3:32 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 17 kesä, 22:16, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm just suggesting a way to ban self-ousting, whether there should be > one or not. Fair enough. > > Lacking a clear, concise rule that expressly forbids (at least some > > types of ) self-ousting, you're left with a rule that is open to > > personal interpretation among a set of players and judges that don't > > agree on what the interpretation should be. > > 'Don't try to oust yourself' seems pretty clear to me. Here's a good > rule of thumb: if you are trying to think of ways to oust yourself > without breaking this rule you are probably breaking it. We've both already noted that "Don't try to oust yourself" isn't sufficiently clear, because of the "...unless doing so makes you win" situation. > > So adding a 'players should not do X' rule is a problem, both because > > not everyone agrees that they should indeed not do it and different > > judges would rule differently on whether or not the 'spirit of the > > rule' is being violated (and different players would complain > > regardless of which ruling the judge hands down.) > > Again, the idea seems pretty clear to me. Here's an unclear counter-example. I have six pool. I have no minions. I transfer four of my pool to an uncontrolled vampire. If a judge claims I'm transferring out, I'll counter-argue that the uncontrolled vampire is a 5-cap and I have every intention of trying to make a deal with my predator to let me finish influencing him and live for a while before he ousts me - and that trying to bring the vampire into play is the only viable way I have to not automatically be ousted, and thus I - have- to do it under 'play to win' rules. So am I 'trying to self-oust' or not by dropping myself to one pool in that case? Should I be expressly banned from ever making those transfers? > Exactly, it isn't practical to make rulings on human behavior within > the boundaries of the game's internal logic. For example, you couldn't > make a card that says "burn all green cards" because the game doesn't > recognize the word 'green'. However, if I told you that the green > cards are meant to go to your library you would immediately know what > I meant. This is why I see some kind of an external rule as the most > elegant possible answer to self-ousting. The problem is that it's also not practical to make rulings on human behavior outside of the boundaries of the game's internal logic, beyond very broad strokes like 'unsportsmanlike' that are already inherently subjective. Yes, a rule that does what you aim for is almost certainly the most elegant possible answer - I just don't think that 'most elegant' in this case is likely to include 'reasonable and enforcable'. > Sorry if I offended anyone, I only used that to make a point and would > now like to move away from it. Done. (This is why I didn't comment on it originally.) > > As you say, you could certainly ask players to enter some sort of > > social contract; however that's not something that you can easily make > > a rule out of. And since there's clearly a decent number of > > experienced players who feel such a contract is neither desirable nor > > warranted, any unofficial contract you make is going to fail (much > > like how some players have a social contract not to deal-break, yet > > this does not stop other people from freely breaking deals with > > them.) > > I said social contract because it illustrates the nature of my > proposed rule. Following the rule would not be optional. How could it not be effectively optional, when at the core of the rule whether or not someone is following it is a matter of opinion and easily debatable? Yes, there will be some cases where someone is clearly violating the rule and should be sanctioned under that rule. But there will also be cases where someone only -might- be violating the rule, but might also not be, and it's extremely hard to come up with a rule that reduces those cases to a non-optional, fair decision on a judge's part (or even the player's). -John Flournoy

On Jun 17, 8:06 pm, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > Again, I really wanted to not discuss this particular table as only 5 players > would properly understand the table. Sure. [snip game discussion] > on Nakthor, giving him some pool gain and bleeds his prey for 4. Nakthor > subsequently gets AI'd. He is now officially fucked and I haven't touched him > once for him to get in that situation. This would seem to be the point things went wrong for you personally. > So that's where the opportunity came up dor a double VP. I spend a few turns > controlling my prey's minions instead of trying to bleed him out, so he > doesn't kill his prey before I kill him. That's when my grandprey decides to > roll over and give away a VP (and practically give my grandpredator the GW at > that point) because he can. I still think it's, albeit within the rules, > unsportmanslike. I guess in hindsight you could have gone for the kill, played your conditionings and hoped for the best. If you had his minions under control then an extra six pool isn't going to take too long to get through even if he does manage to get your grand prey. Your grand predator was the one that played the AI which effectively sealed your grand preys fate, the subsequent transfer out could have been to spite him rather than you. If your grand predator won the game then I guess they knew what they were doing at the time. > As for enforability; I'd be perfectly happy if players could just not transfer > themselves to deatth. Any other scenario does at least require you to play a > card or do an action. Masters can be washed, self-ousting votes can be > blocked. Transfering? It's not unstoppable. Well, unless you play lots of > brainwash... As others have mentioned, how do you stop him or her transfering down to 1 which isn't a self oust but may as well be? The 1 in a million lunge that leaves you totally exposed? Occasionally someone will screw you out of spite - it happens and it's unfortunate but trying to create a rule to stop it creates more problems than it solves. Simon

Izaak wrote: >> What about a 5-player game that is down to you 'A' and player 'B', where >> you have 2VP and B has 1VP, you have 1 pool and B has 3 pool. You should >> not be allowed to call a KRC on your turn, ousting you both? > > Since when does KRC cost pool? > > Ummm, since you have to do split 4 pool damage up among at least 2 meths, and in Kevin's example, there are only 2 meths. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

librarian wrote: > Izaak wrote: >>> What about a 5-player game that is down to you 'A' and player 'B', where >>> you have 2VP and B has 1VP, you have 1 pool and B has 3 pool. You >>> should >>> not be allowed to call a KRC on your turn, ousting you both? >> >> Since when does KRC cost pool? > > Ummm, since you have to do split 4 pool damage up among at least 2 > meths, and in Kevin's example, there are only 2 meths. KRC is free. It doesn't cost a pool. How the terms are set and what effects the successful referendum (conducted after costs are paid) might have do not change that.

On Jun 17, 12:51 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 6:43 pm, Cooper <wouterkuy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Someone else on the table was able to control the table and the > > ousting order (apart from selfousting). He should be rewarded for that > > in my opinion. Currently the rules do not agree with that point of > > view. > > To some degree I agree with this sentiment; however as other people > have noted what you're in effect doing is rewarding someone for > actually -failing- to control the ousting order - If they truly > controlled the ousting order, self-ousting wouldn't be an issue > (because they wouldn't have put the other players in a position where > self-ousting was legal.) > > It's the difference between 'controlling the table and setting up a > sweep' and 'annihilating someone across table to the point where their > ability to gain VP is demonstrably over well before you get around to > being their predator'. > I guess this is what I was trying to get at. You "didn't deserve" to oust your prey and grandprey in succession unless you also prevent your grandprey from self-ousting when he/she has no chance to win. > 'Good' decks/players can do the former without putting cross-table > opponents into an absolutely unsalvagable position. > I have found there are very few people that are this good. Its really hard to be faster than transfer 4 pool a turn once I have no minions. > I'd accordingly find self-ousting much more objectionable from a > player who still had a non-zero chance of affecting the game > otherwise. > Personally I would not self oust if I had the smallest chance of still being able to oust (if I have a vampire in torpor that's probably enough to keep me in the game). You have 0% chance to get more VPs once you are out of the game. Until then who knows. Maybe someone ousts your prey with an Anarchist Uprising. > But 'controlling' a player cross-table by reducing to 'no minions, no > chance to bring more out, and no chance of anyone else helping them' > while you are still neither predator nor prey? That's not something I > find especially worthy of a reward. > > If you like, you can view it as 'why should someone be rewarded for > forcing another player to literally have no fun or participation in > the game but still have to keep sitting there playing it?' > Exactly. Later, ~Rehlow

In message <dfbede79-6e52-4f31...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, Rehlow <news...@rehlow.com> writes: >I guess this is what I was trying to get at. You "didn't deserve" to >oust your prey and grandprey in succession unless you also prevent >your grandprey from self-ousting when he/she has no chance to win. Your grandprey can't self-oust when he/she has no reasonable chance to win. Your grandprey can self-oust when he/she has no reasonable chance to win, and has no reasonable chance of improving their VPs. This includes but is not limited to playing in a timely fashion for a time-out, which nets 0.5VP. (That is, you can't stall, but you can make play choices that will probably lead to a time-out - bloating, for example.) If your grandprey is thinking about it, letting you have the VP may be better than letting his predator have the win, because it can make the TPs split better. You're not required to play for TPs, but there's nothing stopping you - after all, if your position is actually truly lost, you can choose any of the lost avenues available to you. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I can't think of an enforcable rule that would stop it though. But > there might be people out there who can give that some more thought > than i have until now :-) > W Dont have time to read the whole thread, but how about: instead of PTW: ....blah blah blah when you cannot gain more VP's you can go out anyway you want PTW: when you cannot gain more VP's and have no reasonable chance at the GW you are obliged to strive to stay alive as long as possible. But then in lawyer talk so you can stop most difficulties misinterpreting it ;-) W

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:BHZ5k.1846$_T7...@newsfe08.phx... > Izaak wrote: >>> What about a 5-player game that is down to you 'A' and player 'B', where >>> you have 2VP and B has 1VP, you have 1 pool and B has 3 pool. You should >>> not be allowed to call a KRC on your turn, ousting you both? >> >> Since when does KRC cost pool? > > Ummm, since you have to do split 4 pool damage up among at least 2 meths, > and in Kevin's example, there are only 2 meths. Yes I know that. The KRC situation was posted as a reply on my suggestion of disallowing players to Xfer out or play cards when the cost of them in pool would oust them. KRC or any of the other minion phase examples people are currently making up to illustrate the impossibility of self-ousting have nothing to do with transferring yourself to zero pool. My only true beef is with self-ousting by transferring because you can't be arsed to sit out the table properly and people are spending resources to try and maximize THEIR game. Who gets the VP of a player with no real chance of a VP, should be decided by the play and strategy plannig of the other players at the table and not by the one that gets himself crippled in the first place.

<snip game discussion> >As others have mentioned, how do you stop him or her transfering down >to 1 which isn't a self oust but may as well be? It doesn't. However, it still requires someone to oust you, rather then you just doing it yourself because you're pissed over fucking up your own game to get to that point in the first place.

On Jun 18, 1:10 pm, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > It doesn't. However, it still requires someone to oust you, rather then you > just doing it yourself because you're pissed over fucking up your own game to > get to that point in the first place. Well, to be fair, wasn't the example used to illustrate this one where *you* fucked up someone else's game cross table to get them to that point? -Peter

Peter D Bakija napsal(a): > On Jun 16, 11:22 am, "Izaak" <.> wrote: >> I wondered what everyone would think about a rule that prevents people >> from self-ousting. > > How would you word such a rule that it becomes ironclad? If I'm in a > losing position, and wish to oust myself, but there is a rule saying > "you can't oust yourself", what is to prevent me from tapping what > minion I have, transfering myself to 1 pool, and waiting for my > predator to kill me with no attempt to avoid that death? "A player cannot choose to pay a pool cost of a card or an effect if doing so would oust him without improving his final position in the game." Please note that this is just an attempt and I am not native speaker. The only card that I can think of, which might be a bit different with such a rule is Golconda. Thoughts? -- -bur ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

>Well, to be fair, wasn't the example used to illustrate this one where >*you* fucked up someone else's game cross table to get them to that >point? Not really. I posted more details elsewhere and I had not touched said player once. I just kept him alive from my predator to grab the VP myself instead of letting my pred have it and have to bleed through six more pool. Regardless, unless there is some table ganging going on, getting to a position with zero minions and sub-10 pool within 30 minutes it's really your own fault. Can be be choice of deck for the metagame, can be poor deck design, can be poor decision taking or just inexperience.

Izaak wrote: > My only true beef is with self-ousting by transferring because > you can't be arsed to sit out the table properly and people are > spending resources to try and maximize THEIR game. So, just to make sure I understand: You're against players being able to **transfer out** but you are OK with **other methods of self-ousting**, correct? [ quoted text not captured ]

> So, just to make sure I understand: > You're against players being able to **transfer out** but you are OK > with **other methods of self-ousting**, correct? Correct.

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 16, 8:22 am, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > maximize your VPs. > 3) If you don't have a reasonable chance at more VPs (or you already > have the GW), you can do whatever you want. > A personal preference of mine would be that if you already have the GW you MUST maximize your VP. This would remove the last remnants of the 3/2 table-split deals as the current rule does allow a winning player to roll over in the duel at the end, provided of course that said winning player already has 3 VP. Sten [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] 100% certainty is a tricky thing to achieve in practice. Some even call it impossible. This applies to every rule in the game, not just the example above. Imagine you're a judge and get called to a table. Player A claims that player B incinerated player A's Arika with a lighter and swallowed the ashes. Player B denies this and claims that player A is a CIA-agent trying to set him up. There are no other witnesses and both players give a different version of the events if you try to reconstruct the game that lead to the current game state. Should player B be sanctioned or not? You could make up a similar scenario concerning any specific rule (and no need to get stuck on the absurdity, the principle of uncertainty still applies). We must accept a degree of subjectivity if we want to have rules at all.