Deals, deals, again...

Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the question of deals arises again. From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP. My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or a 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the situation deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored away from the game ? ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

Orpheus wrote: > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, > the question of deals arises again. > Indeed :-) > From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are > disgusted of the importance it takes in the game, and would like to > find a solution to avoid the worst players from ruining a table from > a VP. > Yes, i witnessed too much of these situations to not say that thet've become really a concern when i'm going to judge at tournaments. > My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere > the deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line > rule, or a 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the > situation deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good > players get bored away from the game ? > This is so very true - almost all the new players here have run from the game, feeling too overhelmed by the importance of deals in the game, they just don't wanted to spend hours discussing about deal, 3 -2 vps split and so on ("hey, i bought the cards, i like to talk and play but.... too much time discussing about these damn deals..." "i like the cards and the game but, won't you eradicate the based vps deal from it?") More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at conversation, and so have little persuasive power with words, are disavantaged at the very beginning in matter of deals (having them all the power to change a game outcome). I would like a serious revision of the "rules" about deals. regards Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

> More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at conversation, > and so have little persuasive power with words, are disavantaged at the very > beginning in matter of deals (having them all the power to change a game > outcome). Sunday, I asked for a deal in my first game. It is, for me, one of the few cases where it is a logical conclusion : I had 2 VPs, a predator who could make some bleeds, and Beast and friends as a prey. I dealt a "you kill prey and then withdraw" with Beast because I had no hope of killing him before he seriously maimed all my minions, and that could have benefited either him or my predator. Beast on the other hand would probably not have survived if I had bled a lot and then died to my prey. So we withdrawed because both our decks were strong enough to counter each other. What I despise *a lot* is when people withdraw because their decks are to weak to win VPs, but still destroy the table (I still recall a Shambling doing his work for his prey, left me vomiting on the table...). Or when it stops good game and makes it become shit. Which is way too often. > I would like a serious revision of the "rules" about deals. "There are no rules about deals". LSJ. ;-) Possible, very easy rules (cumulative or not) : - No deals can be made involving giving VPs to another player - A player must optimize his VPs, no matter if he still has the Game Win - A player must optimize his VPs at any given time, even to the point of breaking any deal made in other circumstances : if these circumstances are changed in any way, the deal is de facto considered invalid. - There can be no deals involving material benefits of any sort, including money, splitting the price, going to bed with anyone, or getting a signed picture of LSJ in a wet swimsuit. ;-) - There are no deals. This is the Jyhad. Kill or die. -- ----------------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:26:32 +0200, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, >> the question of deals arises again. >> Rather than trying to legislate deals, why don't you try handling deals in a different way as a player? In the DC playgroup, we almost never make any kind of table-split deals, and that may be because we all know that deals are not set in stone, and people can and will break deals. Once deals become less of a sure thing, then table splitting deals should become less common, simply because what is the point of making a deal that you know will be broken? Instead of sweeping deals that determine the outcome of the game, we make deals about situations that can be resolved immediately or within a turn, and rarely involve giving someone a VP. The following types of deals tend to occur often: "You rescue my vampire and I'll rescue yours, that way there is less chance the rescues will be blocked." "You vote for this Kine Resources Contested and I'll call the next one with 3 points to your prey." A lot of times we will simply rely on enlightened self-interest instead of deals: "I think you should rescue my vampire because all I'm trying to do right now is survive and deny your prey a VP." "You can block this hunt if you want but I'm just trying to gain pool and be a wall for you." Quite a bit of the talking in our games revolves around manipulating perception of who is the strongest/weakest, with everyone pointing a finger at someone else and claiming that is the person who everyone should be worried about. So maybe this is just the rambling of an incorrigible deal-breaker, but I think introducing deal-breaking into your playgroup (and maybe by playgroup I mean, the European continent) would benefit by seeing a reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals. Trey - I was the first deal-breaker in DC

> > Orpheus wrote: > >> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, > >> the question of deals arises again. > >> > > Rather than trying to legislate deals, why don't you try handling deals > in a different way as a player? (snip lots of stuff I agree upon) > So maybe this is just the rambling of an incorrigible deal-breaker, but > I think introducing deal-breaking into your playgroup (and maybe by > playgroup I mean, the European continent) would benefit by seeing a > reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals. You're quite right. But it is a very big playgroup. ;-) And do you think there are no such deals in the US, Canada, Australia etc ? Situational and temporary "deals" (as a matter of fact, more like alliances for a short while) should be all that happens. But as some people feel obliged to make deals and keep their words (and give you a bad rep if you don't), it becomes necessary to make a rule preventing such deals. Because it wasn't in the initial conception of the game and is ruining it. Because, as you said, such deals are not necessary to keep the finesse of the game : it is up to each to argue to his best interests without having to make cheap promises. Authorising VP deals brings nothing to the game and takes a lot (fun, players, winning spirit...) from it. Thanks for stating what should be the natural course of a game, with all its great options. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:4159cff3$0$23943$626a...@news.free.fr... > - There are no deals. This is the Jyhad. Kill or die. rock'n'roll !!!

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:4159d622$0$23939$626a...@news.free.fr... > Authorising VP deals brings nothing to the game and takes a lot (fun, > players, winning spirit...) from it. actually, some people will tell you that table splitting adds something like "diplomatics" to the game. the problem is, at a certain level of play, someplayers will propose table splits at each of their untap. players who get used to the split system will divide the table very early and they will never break such deals, so they can benefit from them in the future : they are aiming for the long run, and they are right since all the people i'm thinking about right now are in the top 15 in my country. They know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to manage a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens, since they are part of the "trustful club". where does the collusion start ? where does the fun end ? what level of frustration can it be for players who just came to enjoy a game and get out of the table under cross table pressure ? honestly i can't understand how VP gain via table split is a gain in their mind. i deeply think it's a loss for the game. 'nuff said.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> escribió en el mensaje news:4159bb3a$0$23931$626a...@news.free.fr... > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the > question of deals arises again. > > From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of > the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to > avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP. As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not the problem, but players and judges: Players giving up too soon, and therefore not playing to win. Judges allowing "illegal" deals without taking into account the reasonable chances the "losing" player has to win the game. > My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the > deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or a > 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the situation > deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored > away from the game ? I rather think that judges should be very careful when judging deals involving VPs. Illegal deals make games boring, not legal ones. A player playing to win (and just playing to win) is not boring stuff. A player not doing his or her best to win is boring stuff, and must not be allowed to do so. Regards, Damnans

> Or to let the situation > deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored > away from the game ? Strange. We don´t have these problems around here ...

It short, deals can suck... but I have come accept them as part of the game. I will make a suggestion. Most VP deals revolve around maximising VPs to get into the final. I propose a change to the tournament structure. With the addition of a final-less tournament for small events I have experienced a change in attitudes. No longer is the drive just to make the finals, it is actually trying to get as many VPs as you can. On top of the fact that after the usual 3 games people have to sit out while only 5 people get to play the last game. Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual techniques to distinguish. What do people think? Andrew

>Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the >archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual >techniques to distinguish. > >What do people think? It's worth checking out. I can already see an issue with people doing screwy things once they realize they can't win or in trying to prevent a situation where they can't win. But, then, people will always do screwy (and undesirable) things to manipulate the scoring system. Another multiplayer CCG had a similar structure as we do with the prelims and the final table. I was constantly trying to get rid of the final table for that game. But, that game had ways to reward multiple players such that you might feel like you accomplished something even when not winning and that game's final table philosophy was much more egregious as it didn't necessarily reward success in determining who played for the tournament victory. If the prize structure is entirely TW-based with the overall winner getting something extra, it might work out as the people out of running for overall victory still have an incentive to win their later games. But, the same thing could be done now with prizes as incentives to winning each game. I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will be brought up - that a final table is more dramatic, that playing against your direct competition for victory makes for a better tournament finale. Not necessarily bad, but it's hard to argue one side when the other is never experienced.

"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message news:<cjd0a7$462$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > Strange. We don´t have these problems around here ... These problems are very common in Minsk, since the level of players (and their decks) here is very different. Most of our players (including myself) are newbies, and, IMHO, the main problem isn't the newbie's frustration from the inevitable loss but his/her inability to find the way to improve. If I've lost due to my mistake or lack of some cards, I should avoid making the mistake and search the needed cards. But what can I do if several strong players decide to include my head as a part of their agreement? The true answer is "become strong myself", but it isn't quite obvious. If a player feels himself strong, he or she may attempt to break the offending deal to suggest a more appealing one, and (s)he can also make another deal with the "sentenced to death" players. The simplest way to make other players respect your strength is playing a rush deck... take two Brujah precons and see others trying to make a deal with you :)

Damnans wrote: > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> escribió en el mensaje > news:4159bb3a$0$23931$626a...@news.free.fr... >> Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, >> the question of deals arises again. >> >> From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are >> disgusted of the importance it takes in the game, and would like to >> find a solution to avoid the worst players from ruining a table from >> a VP. > > As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not the > problem, > but players and judges: > As i pointed there too, you can't just expect good things if the players starts to use table splitting deals on regular basis - being a matter of evaluating the game state, it's pretty subjective: a single judge could consider losing a position while another not, so no matter how the judging is, the deals usually ends up screwing the game for the player(s) that are on the "losing side" of the involved deal. We have no real guidelines besides the general "evaluate game state", "go for GW, if you can reasonably go for it, then maximize VP, if you can't reasonably even maximize vps fell free to kill yourself" - those points are too vague, too open to subjective evaluation to give a real reference. More, the aspect of deals and their over-power on games outcome, is at disavantage of all the players that are not good at conversation - those players usually can't convince anyone of their vision about game state, and usually always ends up on the losing side of deals. This aspect was clear in the final of the last italian qualifier: Stephan got the better english and conversation at the table, and it was able to convice almost anyone - Mirko tried to deal with Sebastien, but he was too weak with the international language, and so the vision of Stephan prevaled over Sebastien ("ehy, don't have the upveal end up with me as prey of weenie horde, i will not do the dirt work for you... " :-)). This way, language is becoming too important in this card game, ending up somewhat in talking/conversation abuse. greetins Emiliano <snip>

> actually, some people will tell you that table splitting adds something like > "diplomatics" to the game. > the problem is, at a certain level of play, someplayers will propose table > splits at each of their untap. > players who get used to the split system will divide the table very early > and they will never break such deals, so they can benefit from them in the > future : they are aiming for the long run, and they are right since all the > people i'm thinking about right now are in the top 15 in my country. They > know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to manage > a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens, since > they are part of the "trustful club". I beg to differ. I am n° 14 right now, and belong to no such fag club. And the 16nth is the more notorious deal-breaker in all of France !! He even once respected a deal with me just to show the contrary, and because it had no importance in the game any more... Good players don't need deals to know what they have to do at a table. Diplomatics and manipulation are in this game even without any type of mentionned deals, and of course without deals for VPs. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Normal. You german guys are so disciplined... ;-) But seriously, you've had them. If only in Barcelona last year (I know there wasn't a german in the finals, but you get my meaning). Lucky you if your countrymen are more reasonable than the rest of Europe (only ?) but you'll get these troubles in every EC at least... [ quoted text not captured ]

> > More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at conversation, > and so have little persuasive power with words, are disavantaged at the very > beginning in matter of deals (having them all the power to change a game > outcome). Vtes is a social game. Players without good social skills will not do as well as those with good social skills, all things being equal. That is the nature of the game and for one I like it like that. I don't want to play with introverted nerdy dweebs who can't string a sentence together. Chris.

> > >> > > > > Rather than trying to legislate deals, why don't you try handling deals > > in a different way as a player? > > (snip lots of stuff I agree upon) > > > So maybe this is just the rambling of an incorrigible deal-breaker, but > > I think introducing deal-breaking into your playgroup (and maybe by > > playgroup I mean, the European continent) would benefit by seeing a > > reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals. > > You're quite right. But it is a very big playgroup. ;-) And do you think > there are no such deals in the US, Canada, Australia etc ? Deals tend to be kept in Oz as far as I have witnessed although deal-breaking does go on. Reyda says in another response that there are players in France who can trust each other to come to gentleman's agreements. We have the same type of players here (of which i am one). Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't understand why points must be extremized to paradoxicals extents.... :-\ Without going to your extent, i'm saying that the conversational aspect of the game is becoming too relevant, above all in tournaments - You can't reasonably accept to loose in front of a table split only because the other player talks and has better english than you. Emiliano

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:415a5e98$0$5304$626a...@news.free.fr... > > > actually, some people will tell you that table splitting adds something > like > > "diplomatics" to the game. > > the problem is, at a certain level of play, someplayers will propose table > > splits at each of their untap. > > players who get used to the split system will divide the table very early > > and they will never break such deals, so they can benefit from them in the > > future : they are aiming for the long run, and they are right since all > the > > people i'm thinking about right now are in the top 15 in my country. They > > know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to > manage > > a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens, since > > they are part of the "trustful club". > > I beg to differ. I am n° 14 right now, and belong to no such fag club. don't tell me you don't deal VP in the prelims ;) > And the 16nth is the more notorious deal-breaker in all of France !! He even > once respected a deal with me just to show the contrary, and because it had > no importance in the game any more... no comment on this one ;)

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2rv4jjF...@uni-berlin.de... > Stephan got the better english and conversation > at the table, and it was able to convice almost anyone - Mirko tried to > deal with Sebastien, but he was too weak with the international language, > and so the vision of Stephan prevaled over Sebastien ("ehy, don't have > the upveal end up with me as prey of weenie horde, i will not do > the dirt work for you... " :-)). > This way, language is becoming too important in this card game, > ending up somewhat in talking/conversation abuse. > > greetins > > Emiliano funny anecdote : when a french playgroup first came to qualify in england, the only diplomatic words philippe used were "no, no : no deal !". He was not very good at english at that time, but it's also the fact we did not want to split table back then. It was so funny, though : watching some perfectly polite englishmen trying to describe him how the table will flow and why he should do this and that and agree for a deal with such polished sentences. and after 5 minutes of one side talking, philippe opened his mouth for the sentence : "no, no : i say no deal !". You cannot imagine the expression of his interlocutor =)

Orpheus wrote: > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the > question of deals arises again. > From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of > the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to > avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP. I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in occurance. i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals. 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a losing deal for 2 in the final round. 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out on purpose. just my 2 cents stefan

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:415a5e98$0$5304$626a...@news.free.fr... if my reponse seemed cryptic, i wish to add something : i'm not naming a player in, particular because i firmly believe that it's the deal system, not the players, that gave birth to this vicious "dealing gentleman circle" where newbies/antideal-individuals are automatically rejected and serve as sacrificial lambs.

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players > that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for > dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule Well, and anyone who thought about playing Brinksmanship. > 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between > the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out > on purpose. This is already possible for the judge to do. The problem case I see is the player who is surely dead, but can get one more VP (either by withdrawal or oust) in the service to another methuselah. That player really is maximizing his VPs, yet it screws the table as surely as any other VP/table split. -- David Cherryholmes

> I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i > do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in occurance. > i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals. That makes me really think .... > 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players > that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for > dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule Probably a better idea than I thought in the beginning. > 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and > use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. > so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than > someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a > losing deal for 2 in the final round. A new idea. Will probably affect small tournaments a lot more than the large ones (where you need 2GW anyway). > 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between > the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out > on purpose. Almost impossible to enforce. How can you say that someone looses deliberately and not by mistakes? Will you point out the mistakes to him? That would be rather unfair... -- johannes walch

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040929023551...@mb-m24.aol.com>... > >Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the > >archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final > >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual > >techniques to distinguish. > > > >What do people think? > > It's worth checking out. <SNIP> > If the prize structure is entirely TW-based with the overall winner getting > something extra, it might work out as the people out of running for overall > victory still have an incentive to win their later games. But, the same thing > could be done now with prizes as incentives to winning each game. > > I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will be brought up - > that a final table is more dramatic, that playing against your direct > competition for victory makes for a better tournament finale. Not necessarily > bad, but it's hard to argue one side when the other is never experienced. I see your point... there is always an element of mystery when trying something new. Resistance will always be there when changes are to be made. :) I feel that the 'tournament metagame' becomes more complicated when you remove 'final table'. Everyone now must play for themself. Even if a shrewed player was to examine the progressive totals round to round, tournament points could prove to make the difference. You basically would have to have a calculator to determine positions and if it was a big event there would be so many outcomes to consider. It makes deals less appealing when there is so much uncertainty... and again this would be as the emphasis isn't in making the final table anymore as it is now trying to win for yourself. It equally ties in with the new scoring system, if people are that way inclind. As for prizes, frankly over the past 18 months, the amount provided by white-wolf has decreased and when people have to start forking out more money for a chance to win prizes they opt for free tournements. Though I must confess I would pay for prizes as I like a competative environment. My final point I want to raise is that when a player travels so distance to play, it is disappointing to only play 3 games and then leave or sit and wait for the final to be over. I think it is fairer to all if everyone played the same number of games. It would make for a happier environment as everyone participating would be involved. They are just my ideas... I honestly believe there does need to be some sort of change as the vp dealing is an unwanted aspect to our game. There will always be someone trying to abuse the system, lets just make it harder for them! :) Andrew

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<4159bb3a$0$23931$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the > question of deals arises again. > > From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of > the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to > avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP. > > My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the > deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or a > 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Or to let the situation > deteriorate until all tournaments are shit and more good players get bored > away from the game ? > No rules affecting deals are required, deals are very important in the game, you can't just provoke the entire table and get away with it. The will make a deal to go against you. I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game, like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details. Deals should be straight-forward and once made, everyone involved must stick to the deal and not back out. After all we are methuselahs involved in jyhad, but that doesn't mean we are without honor. Me and everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in the appropriate manner. Deals can screw up the table, if a meth involved is stupid, but because jyhad is not for the unintelligent that is not something that cannot be dealt with. if meth A is unexperienced and meth B tries to lure him to screw meth C, then meth C can simply explain to the unexperienced meth A why he shouldn't do what meth B says, because it is not in his best interest and will just screw the table. If a meth is just plain stupid and cannot learn by any means to make deals that are in his interest and always makes deals that screw the table and the game, then this meth should be dealt accordingly and if he just can't learn to play and make deals based on intelligence and keeps screwing games for any reason, then he must be removed. No need to remove deals from the game (or deteriorate them), remove the stupid ones, whose acts are based on stupidity and anger. Jyhad is not for the stupid, no man can be allowed to ruin a 4-5 or 6 men's game. Finaly, above i am talking about those meths who can screw a game out of vengeance or anger. e.g. i had to deal with the following incident: We are 4 meths left in a game, me (George playing a Malkavian-presence-free states rant-sleep of reason), my prey (Kostas playing a !Nosferatu), his prey (John playing a gangrel deck) and his prey Petros (who is my predator and plays a Toreador-Magnum-combat deck). John with the gangrel deck (who is sitting opposite to me and supposely is an ally) is screwed, 2 pool, 2 empty minions in torpor, so he has no minions ready and only 2 pool, his predator (which is my prey) has 4 ready minions, that means that even if i rescue one of john's minions from torpor, he won't be able to remain in the game, because he has no good cards in his hand (the Nosferatu had just beaten the hell out of both his minions) and 2 pool. So, it is my turn and john asks me to rescue one of his vampires, i explain to him, that i only have 2 vampires ready (3 blood on 1 and 2 on the other) and 1 in torpor, so if i rescue his vampire, i will lose 1 action, 2 blood and he will be ousted anyway. He insists and i tell him to let it go, because there is no way he can convince me to rescue one of his vampires and screw myself and my chances of wining the game. I had a good chance to win the whole table even with my prey ousting John, that is because i knew how Kosta's !Nosferatu deck performed in combat, he had played that deck many times before and i knew what to expect. I also knew how the Toreador-magnum predator of mine had constructed his deck. So, examining both Kostas and Petros asheaps i was sure that the !Nosferatu would get beaten by the Toreador-magnum (my predator), i would oust him and then the Toreador would be an easy prey for me, if i could just convince Kostas (the !nosferatu who was my prey, to attack the Toreador). I had no trouble convincing the !Nosferatu to rush the Toreador's minions in every possible way (after he had ousted the Gangrel-john), in return i promised not to attack him for 2-3 rounds and try to send the Toreador's Alexandra to torpor. So, my plan was the following: torporize Alexandra and diablerize her, so i would have a table vote lock, next turn rescue Esau from torpor and play a consaguineous + voter cap (both were in my hand) to fill esau up. Then i would be ready to oust both the !Nosferatu and Toreador. Because it was certain than in these 3 turns (max 1-2 more) the !Nosferatu would get beaten up ugly, the Toreador would be weakened in some degree and i would had been preparing to oust them both (i would even be unharmed by the Toreador trying to defend himself with his 2 minions against the 4 of the !Nosferatu. I only had to toast my predator's Alexandra, because he had 4 votes and i couldn't pass a Political action without serious vote boosting that i couldn't afford all the time (the Toreador had 2 other minions to defend himself, had 6-7 pool and magnum at each minion, so he would beat the Nosferatu eitherway, because i knew that that particular deck played a dozen dodges, enough blurs and the Nosferatu played only from long distance, no Drawing out the Beasts, only a few Terror Frenzies all already played), Alexandra is at 1 blood, so i try to send her to torpor with Aristotele. That is a Sleep of reason at +1 stealth (aristotele's special), a minion of my predator (the Toreador) tries to block with +1 intercept. ---Meanwhile, John, the beaten Gangrel, has already packed his deck and just watches the game, waiting to be ousted by the nosferatu as he has 2 pool and no ready minion---- I play forgotten labyrinth and get to +4 stealth, the toreador, plays intercept and gets to +4 intercept, so i play a lost in corwds and get to a magnificent +6 stealth, the toreador can't block so he says "ok, i can't block, i have no more intercept", i am delighted..... and then the asshole-John (which is also a good friend of mine) screws the table, he taps his rumor mill and his KRCG, burning 1 pool and gives his prey!!!! +2 intercept to block me and he does, i play majesty. !!!!!!!!!! In a few words, the asshole-John gave +2 intercept to his prey!!! just to get back to me, because i refused to rescue a vampire of his from torpor, because it was meaningless, he wouldn't be able to defend himself eitherway. I call this screwing up the table... "Anger leads to the stupid side" of jyhad, leave anger and revenge out of jyhad. Don't act like mortals do, act like the methuselahs you are. Sorry for the really long post.

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > Orpheus wrote: > > > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the > > question of deals arises again. > > From all the discussions I hear, it looks like many people are disgusted of > > the importance it takes in the game, and would like to find a solution to > > avoid the worst players from ruining a table from a VP. > > I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i > do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in > occurance. > i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals. > > 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players > that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for > dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good, reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual withdrawal. Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em. > 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and > use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. > so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than > someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a > losing deal for 2 in the final round. Seems to put a _lot_ of focus on the game win, which I am not sure is such a good thing. I don't like the idea of rewarding a player with results of 1GW 3VP, 0,0 over another that gets 1GW 2VP, 0GW 2VP, 0GW 2VP. Surely 6VP shows that my deck is consistently more competitve? > 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between > the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out > on purpose. How do you judge that a fight is lost on purpose? I can argue that I didn't play combat card(x) in combat(y) because I was saving (x) for a later combat(z). Personally, I am happy to accept table splits as a neccessary part of the game. Deal-making is a desirable aspect of the game and table splits are an inevitable bi-product. Also, table splits servre a purpose in that they can give players incentive to band together and remove threats to the table. Two players attacking a weenine vote that is trouncing the table can negotiate a mutually beneifial outcome based on VP's. The no-split rule could remove a good deal of the incentive to take these kinds of actions. The neccessity of removing particularly successful decks (in the current game) becomes a lot less clear cut. Example: Players A, B, C, D. C is the threat to the table (and refuses to deal), D has the potential to cripple C. B & A are just some "average" decks. 1.D reasons that he can cripple C such that B can oust him. By doing so though, D will also fall to B (who will then go on to take the table). 2.Alternatively, D can go madly forward in the hopes of gaining a a VP (A's) before dying to C (who will then go on to take the table). A.Currently, D has the option of cutting a deal with B. I'll give you C, you give me A and we'll withdraw (or fight it out, or whatever). B. Also, D may choose to deal with A. I'll give you B & C if you fold. Having no split deals available means that D is forced in to one of the initial scenarios (1 or 2). 2 is optimal as D at least gets a VP, but it also sucks because the the threatening deck, that the other players in this multi-player game of subtlties, diplomacy and intrigue :) should be working to halt, is left free to rampage the table. Does that make sense? I do like the suggestion (someone made) that players should always be aiming to maximise their VP's, even after the GW is obtained. Removes the possibility of someone just passing out VP's as they feel like it. I know it's unlikely, but I don't like the possiblity being there, not when it could be removed aso easily. Cheers, -scrote [ quoted text not captured ]

"scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1096462769.9...@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com... > Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good, > reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of > destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual > withdrawal. > > Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em. Perhaps this will be the new annual topic, now that the CL debate has finally gone extinct. :-) See last September's thread starting at article: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Trey Morita" <trey_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opse12fqimmy3wzv@trey_laptop.freightdesk.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Possibly. But not this particular bit of this particular offshore island. would benefit by seeing a > reduction or elimination of table-splitting deals. i think you are right. i think our Portsmouth games are technically better and also better-spirited now that we virtually all break our deals as soon as it is profitable to do so. Also, the deals are better. > > Trey > - I was the first deal-breaker in DC ;-) as was i in Portsmouth! i think there is possibly another factor apart from deals underlying the current discussion, or at least Orpheus'/Stefan's take on it, and that is weariness. It is true that finals are often disappointingly poor games marred by technical and diplomatic errors. In my view this is because almost no-one can concentrate for 8+ hours without making bad errors; quite coincidentally, an attempt to quantify this phenomenon forms part of the current [October 2004] !Gangrel NL. In that article's parlance both P and x are too high by the time the final takes place for there to be much expectation of a good game. If we want to get better finals, my suggestion is that rather than trying to mess with deals [IMO a TOTAL minefield of unenforceable edicts guaranteed to satisfy no-one but a rules lawyer] we put the finals on a different day from the heats and/or allow the finalists to change their decks for the final.

scrote wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] or that you just good at dealing. assumingly you know that 1 gw and 6 vps will get you to the finals (as it will in most 20-25/28 player tourneys) you could just seal your final ticket by offering 2 losing deals and gain the remaining vps here is a counter example who was better? the guy that sweep once having 1gw and 5 vps the guy that got one gw with 3 vps and one vp in each of the following rounds therefore having more TP than the other player? if you guys want more offense than we should only count the vps in a gamewin discouraging players from accepting a looseing deal and forcing them to go for more than just a gamewin. stefan stefan

LSJ wrote: > "scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1096462769.9...@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com... > >>Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good, >>reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of >>destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual >>withdrawal. >> >>Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em. > > > Perhaps this will be the new annual topic, now that the CL debate > has finally gone extinct. :-) > > See last September's thread starting at article: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net > just because it was ignored for such a long time doesn´t make this proposal less worth considering. LSJ why not try it out for a limited time as a field test and after e.g. 6 months and some opinions by tourney players and organizers decide if to keep the withdrawal or sratch it from the rules stefan

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415ac887$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > just because it was ignored for such a long time doesn´t make this > proposal less worth considering. A correct statement, but it is a non-sequitur and has an invalid premise to boot. > LSJ why not try it out for a limited time as a field test and after e.g. > 6 months and some opinions by tourney players and organizers decide if > to keep the withdrawal or sratch it from the rules By all means, experiment with different formats as you like (I do). If the test runs yield anything interesting, post the findings here. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: >>I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i >>do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in > > occurance. > >>i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals. > > > That makes me really think .... > > >>1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players >>that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for >>dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule > > > Probably a better idea than I thought in the beginning. > > >>2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and >>use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. >>so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than >>someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a >>losing deal for 2 in the final round. > > > A new idea. Will probably affect small tournaments a lot more than the large > ones (where you need 2GW anyway). > i think it does effect the large touneys too. if there are alot of players in the range of 2gw and 7-9 vps. the way they got it really counts. the system right now favours the players who score in each round (giving them better tp) just compare one guy has two gamewins with 4 vps each the other one 2 gw with 3 vps each and one losing deal with 2 vps. this guy ranks higher than the other guy. so right now the scoring system favours defensive decks that tend to stay at the table and gain 2-3 vps each round > >>3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between >>the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out >>on purpose. > > > Almost impossible to enforce. How can you say that someone looses > deliberately and not by mistakes? Will you point out the mistakes to him? > That would be rather unfair... > i know its a kind of a hard to enforce (stupid?!?) idea, but strict judging might enforce that fight it out play and players would stop doing deals which include the obnoxious "and then you can oust me" phrase. and very often there are cases that can easily be judged! (if its a good judge) stefan > -- > johannes walch > >

LSJ wrote: > "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > news:415ac887$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > >>just because it was ignored for such a long time doesn´t make this >>proposal less worth considering. > > > A correct statement, but it is a non-sequitur and has an invalid > premise to boot. > > >>LSJ why not try it out for a limited time as a field test and after e.g. >>6 months and some opinions by tourney players and organizers decide if >>to keep the withdrawal or sratch it from the rules > > > By all means, experiment with different formats as you like (I do). > If the test runs yield anything interesting, post the findings here. > i would wish that the vekn would try it out. (that would create better results) stefan

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2rvsblF...@uni-berlin.de... > "scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1096462769.9...@k26g2000oda.googlegroups.com... > > Sounds interesting. Off the top of my head I can't think of any, good, > > reasons to keep withdrawals. Not when you consider the benefit of > > destroying that annoying habit that some events produce...mutual > > withdrawal. > > > > Anyone got reasons for keeping it? I'd be interested to hear 'em. > > Perhaps this will be the new annual topic, now that the CL debate > has finally gone extinct. :-) > > See last September's thread starting at article: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net This suggestion is offered for rather different reasons than last year's, though. This time, the argument is that the withdrawal rule is bad for the game because it makes it easier for VP-splitting deals to be made. The major argument I expect to see for keeping withdrawal is that Brinksmanship requires it. Of course, personally I think Brinksmanship is not a good card to have in the game (and never should have worked outside the central-to-the-game "oust people by reducing their pool to 0" mechanic), so I'm not really swayed by that argument. The other argument - that the threat of withdrawal forces people to try to oust their preys - doesn't seem that substantial to me; withdrawal is very rarely (IME) used in that way and the game does not normally (IMO) lack incentives for ousting your prey. Josh not sure that removing withdrawal from the game would improve the deal situation all that much, though

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:415accaf$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > i would wish that the vekn would try it out. (that would create better > results) If the VEKN tried out every ad hoc variation put forth on this group, that would create worse results, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<415a8c0d$0$24064$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > Orpheus wrote: > > 1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players > that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for > dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule Not a bad idea at all. I find the whole rapid 'discard madly as a table so we can all withdraw for a vp!' routine silly. But it is logical if thats all they think they can get. Remove the withdrawl mechanic and force them to fight it out to the last. However, some special exception will have to be made for brinksmanship decks... > 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and > use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. > so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than > someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a > losing deal for 2 in the final round. This is already the case. Gamewins count for more than vps, so the 2gw player ranks above the 1gw player. > 3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between > the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out > on purpose. > This too is already the case in all but written rule. You must play to win, so any losing deal is illegal. If you are unable to win, then a losing deal is already in place as it were. The sticky point is when more than 1 player might grab that 'losing' last vp I guess. G

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2s02v5F...@uni-berlin.de... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > See last September's thread starting at article: > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=WO25b.10135%24Ly2.1568556%40cletus.bright.net > > This suggestion is offered for rather different reasons than last > year's, though. This time, the argument is that the withdrawal rule is > bad for the game because it makes it easier for VP-splitting deals to be > made. VP deals were brought up in that thread, as well, actually. > The major argument I expect to see for keeping withdrawal is that > Brinksmanship requires it. Of course, personally I think Brinksmanship > is not a good card to have in the game (and never should have worked > outside the central-to-the-game "oust people by reducing their pool to > 0" mechanic), so I'm not really swayed by that argument. The other > argument - that the threat of withdrawal forces people to try to oust > their preys - doesn't seem that substantial to me; withdrawal is very > rarely (IME) used in that way and the game does not normally (IMO) lack > incentives for ousting your prey. Withdrawal is rarely used, period. When used, it is used in the proactive sense a fair portion of the time (IMEIEIO :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040929023551...@mb-m24.aol.com... [Andrew Daley wrote] > >Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use the > >archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final > >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual > >techniques to distinguish. > I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will be brought up - > that a final table is more dramatic, that playing against your direct > competition for victory makes for a better tournament finale. Not necessarily > bad, but it's hard to argue one side when the other is never experienced. Yes, quite so. I do think it's true that having a final table is more dramatic, and fun for (a) the finalists (well, assuming that they're not burned out on playing finals by how final-playing tends to work) and (b) the spectators, since you get to have the dramatic finish instead of just everyone being in various games that all end at the same time. It probably would lead to better final games, as Legbiter mentioned, to hold the finals on a separate day from the preliminary rounds, since people wouldn't be as mentally (and often physically :-) exhausted then. But logistically that's not so simple, since just having people come to play for eight hours on one day is asking a lot of time commitment; two days for a single tournament is probably not feasible for anything other than major championships. I think it might be an interesting sub-approach here (at least from a tournament-running standpoint) to try some kind of Swiss system for tournaments, where each round players would be seeded by standing against other players with the same kind of record. This would lead to a de facto finals table at some point, and would make it so that players who are totally out of the running wouldn't so much be able to "mess up" the results in games that might determine the winner of the tournament. There are problems, though: one, it would probably be possible for some players in the "de facto finals" to already be mathematically unable to win the tournament while playing the final game (so they *would* end up lacking incentive to "play to win"). And two, seeding players this way would mean that you'd play games (except at really large tournaments) against the same opponents several times, especially if you're on the "winning" tables. That would probably reduce the fun of the repeated-opponents players. But overall, I think trying a "no finals, just three-round standings" (or four-round standings) approach might be worthwhile, sure. Another advantage of doing it in three rounds (with no "final" fourth round) is that the players wouldn't be as fatigued when playing their last game of the day... Josh gets cranky when tired

> i know its a kind of a hard to enforce (stupid?!?) idea, but strict > judging might enforce that fight it out play and players would stop > doing deals which include the obnoxious "and then you can oust me" > phrase. and very often there are cases that can easily be judged! (if > its a good judge) If something can be done but not in the open it will only increase collusion. Then you will still see these kind of "silent deals" but only among buddies. Is that better ? -- johannes walch

>I think it might be an interesting sub-approach here (at least from a >tournament-running standpoint) to try some kind of Swiss system for >tournaments, where each round players would be seeded by standing >against other players with the same kind of record. This would lead to >a de facto finals table at some point, and would make it so that players >who are totally out of the running wouldn't so much be able to "mess up" >the results in games that might determine the winner of the tournament. >There are problems, though: one, it would probably be possible for some >players in the "de facto finals" to already be mathematically unable to >win the tournament while playing the final game (so they *would* end up >lacking incentive to "play to win"). And two, seeding players this way >would mean that you'd play games (except at really large tournaments) >against the same opponents several times, especially if you're on the >"winning" tables. That would probably reduce the fun of the >repeated-opponents players. I don't think seeding players can work. By far the most important thing should be having players play as many different opponents as possible. One of the things about Swiss is that you aren't supposed to ever play the same opponent. There's not enough rounds to make sure seeding actually balances anything. Success is punished, which is good for people who don't start out well but doesn't seem fair. I'm sure more problems can be found.

Joshua Duffin wrote: >The major argument I expect to see for keeping withdrawal is that >Brinksmanship requires it. Of course, personally I think Brinksmanship >is not a good card to have in the game (and never should have worked >outside the central-to-the-game "oust people by reducing their pool to >0" mechanic), so I'm not really swayed by that argument. I like Brinksmanship. I think it's cool that it offers a new way to win. I also like the idea of seeing what removing the option to withdraw would do to touranement play. I think that we could have it both ways, by removing the withdraw option from the tournament rules, and changing Brinksmanship's text to introduce the option to withdraw to the table at which it was put into play, as well as keeping its current text. Jay Oh wait, my only VP at the NAC was from withdrawl! :(

>A lot of times we will simply rely on enlightened self-interest instead >of deals: >"I think you should rescue my vampire because all I'm trying to do right >now is survive and deny your prey a VP." >"You can block this hunt if you want but I'm just trying to gain pool >and be a wall for you." > >Quite a bit of the talking in our games revolves around manipulating >perception of who is the strongest/weakest, with everyone pointing a >finger at someone else and claiming that is the person who everyone >should be worried about. I'm going to ignore the whole dealbreaking element of the post since a) it bogs things down in something subjective and b) I don't think it relates to these critical comments above. Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when players don't play perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. But, the point is that dealmaking is contrary to good play. In good play, you help or hurt other people, as Trey states, out of enlightenend self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way for people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in their best interest. If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see doing it and people would have to think through their play rather than have people tell them what they should do and have the game turn into an exercise in personality management. I don't think anything can be done about people making deals. If something could be done, I'd focus on killing deals over VPs. But, as I keep saying, if you want to have people play the game right, one way is to reward them and the way to do that with this game is providing prizes strictly on the basis of table wins. That doesn't completely solve the problem. I'm actually not clear on why there's such a great problem in the European tournaments that have been brought up recently. With such large numbers, the need to play to win should be so high as to kill the desirability for throwing games. My concerns are mostly on the 2-3 table tournament where throwing games is perfectly reasonable for getting into the finals. I've managed to get off focus. Basically, I wanted to point out that dealmaking is a flaw in play, not some sort of necessary aspect to it.

>I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i >do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in >occurance. >i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals. > >1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players >that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for >dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule This should have been done ages ago, long before the table win method of scoring came into effect. Brinksmanship could get errataed to do something different, though I really don't care if the card ceases to see play. One possibility could be to have it deal 2 pool loss during a player's untap if that player has no library left. While that might be good enough to lead to obnoxious deck destruction decks, the greater good of eliminating withdrawing could be accomplished with less complaining. >2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and >use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. >so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than >someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a >losing deal for 2 in the final round. I'm pretty sure this is a bad idea. In theory, isn't it more impressive to rank as high as possible in every round? Why punish people who accomplished their VPs without dealmaking for them? Won't people move away from decks that can only barely get TWs? And, I'm sure people will come up with ugly deals under this system too. >3) maybe ban table splitting deals and force a "fight it out" between >the deal partners and issue warnings if someone loses these fight it out >on purpose. Can try to ban deals for VPs, but I don't see it being enforceable. The wink wink method of play can easily get around not having to clearly express illegal cooperation.

> > You're quite right. But it is a very big playgroup. ;-) And do you think > > there are no such deals in the US, Canada, Australia etc ? > > Deals tend to be kept in Oz as far as I have witnessed although > deal-breaking does go on. Reyda says in another response that there > are players in France who can trust each other to come to gentleman's > agreements. We have the same type of players here (of which i am one). Talking as part of the etc. (i.e., Brazil), AFAIK, most players I've encountered (from my city or not) do take deals in a way too serious manner. Once I was misunderstood when joking about it ("You're breaking the deal?" -"Suuuure, I am!" *ironic face*) and all the table ganged up on me INSTEAD of ganging on the other side of the deal - a Pander/weenie vote deck. Final result? The weenie deck won, of course. No matter if I was "breaking" a poorly made deal ("I can give you two or three turns", and proceed to oust on turn three after that) and was running a way weaker deck (a Choir one). In Sao Paulo, things are worse since the guy who arranged all Friday nights' games insists on bringing an "honor system" to the Jyhad. He induced most local players to keep deals above all else, even above your own ousting. The result is this: though it is not that common to see table-split deals, they do happen at finals between long-time friends - most of the time without a word being said. That's collusion. The "predatory" nature of the game has been thrown in the background, where it is difficult to be spotted, while everyone plays a façade of honor that is not applicable to most of them. And even if you know who they are, there'll always be someone at the table who is entranced by this façade of honor and falls for stupid deals. Oh my. So the same people keep winning with the same decks. That's boring. And because of that we're losing players to the *tournament scene* (thank God most players know better than to bring too-competitive decks for Friday Nights.) best, Fabio Sooner NC for Brazil

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<4159cff3$0$23943$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Possible, very easy rules (cumulative or not) : > > - No deals can be made involving giving VPs to another player Maybe, I dunno > - A player must optimize his VPs, no matter if he still has the Game Win I definitely vote for this one > - A player must optimize his VPs at any given time, even to the point of > breaking any deal made in other circumstances : if these circumstances are > changed in any way, the deal is de facto considered invalid. A very good idea > - There can be no deals involving material benefits of any sort, including > money, splitting the price, going to bed with anyone, or getting a signed > picture of LSJ in a wet swimsuit. ;-) A nice one, especially when considering the LSJ swimuit > Orpheus At least, I thank you for bringing this very interesting topic

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040929132255...@mb-m21.aol.com... > Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when players > don't play perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. But, the > point is that dealmaking is contrary to good play. In good play, > you help or hurt other people, as Trey states, out of enlightenend > self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way for people to capitalize > on other players' inability to realize what is in their best > interest. ... > I've managed to get off focus. Basically, I wanted to point out > that dealmaking is a flaw in play, not some sort of necessary > aspect to it. Wow! Suffice to say that such a view is an *incredibly* incomplete, insufficent summary of the relationship deal-making has to the concept of quality of play. Though I'd agree that participation in deals can often be a sign of flawed play, were that the beginning and end of the situation few or no good players would ever enter into deals nor even entertain consideration of them. To the contrary, excellent players are seen to offer and accept deals all the time and often benefit and win by exercise. How can you explain this and resolve it with the point of view expressed above? I don't think you can. Dealmaking simply involves the trading of short-term interests with long-term ones. In short, it's offering the medium of future considerations as currency for current services. The use of this medium of exchange is both the practice's strength and its weakenss: it allows two players to engage in activity to the mutual benefit and welfare of both (at the expense of others at the table) creating "goodness" out of thin air. But the "currency" is sometimes bogus, potentially causing a player engaging it far more harm than good. Like dynamite, it's a tool that can be very helpful or blow up in your hands. It's risk-taking, hardly to be equated with "flawed play". Fred

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040929023551...@mb-m24.aol.com... > >Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? Use > >the archon to record the scores and look up the results on a final > >standing table. If there are ties for positions you use the usual > >techniques to distinguish. > > > >What do people think? > > It's worth checking out. ... > I'm sure the arguments I've often heard for final tables will > brought up - that a final table is more dramatic, that playing > against your direct competition for victory makes for a better > tournament finale. Not necessarily bad, but it's hard to argue > one side when the other is never experienced. I asked LSJ why the final-less tournament rule was restricted to one-table tournaments. His answer was that it was considered desirable to require that the top players face each other directly in order to determine the outcome of a tournament. (Don't necessarily agree or disagree myself. Just FYI.) Fred

> They > > > know that if they seat at the same table, they will always be able to > > manage > > > a "gentleman agreement" and split the table no matter what happens, > since > > > they are part of the "trustful club". > > > > I beg to differ. I am n° 14 right now, and belong to no such fag club. > > don't tell me you don't deal VP in the prelims ;) I try to avoid it. And I sure as hell don't belong in any "trustful" club. I'm a Giovanni, remember ? ;-) -- ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

> Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when players don't play > perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. But, the point is that dealmaking is > contrary to good play. In good play, you help or hurt other people, as Trey > states, out of enlightenend self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way for > people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in their > best interest. This is the perfect wording to express my exact thoughts. Really. > If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see doing it and > people would have to think through their play rather than have people tell them > what they should do and have the game turn into an exercise in personality > management. You'll be able to do that in any Silent of Death tournie (including the one in Heidelberg the day of the EC). To Legbiter (who still didn't visited my Domain...) : > i think there is possibly another factor apart from deals underlying > the current discussion, or at least Orpheus'/Stefan's take on it, and > that is weariness. Although we have yet to hear Stefan's official opinion on this, I think we all have to agree on this. Andrea, who threw the towel when he possibly could have won, said it was in no small part due to tiredness. In many 3rd rounds or finals (especially after a long and tiring trip) I've done or seen mistakes due to fatigue. > It is true that finals are often disappointingly > poor games marred by technical and diplomatic errors. In my view this > is because almost no-one can concentrate for 8+ hours without making > bad errors; quite coincidentally, an attempt to quantify this Agreed. > phenomenon forms part of the current [October 2004] !Gangrel NL. In > that article's parlance both P and x are too high by the time the > final takes place for there to be much expectation of a good game. If > we want to get better finals, my suggestion is that rather than trying > to mess with deals [IMO a TOTAL minefield of unenforceable edicts > guaranteed to satisfy no-one but a rules lawyer] we put the finals on > a different day from the heats and/or allow the finalists to Not very feasible most of the time. Imagine, sunday, we went to Italy, it would have been a mess if we had to wait for the finalist one more day. Plus, when tournies last 2 days, you skip work if you're in finals ? It would be a good thing, but I think it's utopic. 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be an alternative official format. change > their decks for the final. I'm all against it. And it would be worse for tiredness : at least, the other deck you've played all day long, you should have it in mind better than any other. [ quoted text not captured ]

> No rules affecting deals are required, deals are very important in > the game, Purely subjective. I would agree or not depending on what you call "deals". > you can't just provoke the entire table and get away with > it. The will make a deal to go against you. Without deals, good players will also act to the best of their interests. They can also show "the way" to people if necessary. > I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not Ok about these : they are an interesting part of the game. You don't have to honour them, though. > the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game, > like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining > of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on > 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone > gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details. Agreed on the "they are crap" part. Even in THE example case of the decks that "can't win" if they don't deal, nominally 2 combat decks sitted as predator / prey, I am sure that there are other solutions then dealing together, and the games I have witnessed / played / judged have often proved me right on that point. > Deals should be straight-forward and once made, everyone involved > must stick to the deal and not back out. NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips : "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something which doesn't exist, right ? > After all we are methuselahs > involved in jyhad, but that doesn't mean we are without honor. Me and If you want to take examples from the roleplaying pov, please explain to me why a !Brujah would respect his word, or why even a Ventrue would hesitate to breakdeal with a lowly Sabbat ? The plans of the Methuselahs are not stopped by such a petty thing as honour. The only things that must be endorsed are the boons, represented by some cards with precise effects. > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in > the appropriate manner. You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to drown his goldfish ? > Deals can screw up the table, if a meth involved is stupid, but > because > jyhad is not for the unintelligent that is not something that cannot > be dealt with. I fail to get your point. > if meth A is unexperienced and meth B tries to lure him to screw > meth C, then meth C can simply explain to the unexperienced meth A why > he shouldn't do what meth B says, because it is not in his best > interest and will just screw the table. If a meth is just plain stupid > and cannot learn by any means to make deals that are in his interest > and always makes deals that screw the table and the game, then this > meth should be dealt accordingly Again with these Giovanni methods ? Want any tips from an expert ? > and if he just can't learn to play > and make deals based on intelligence and keeps screwing games for any > reason, then he must be removed. From the game ? Your playgroup ? The city ? This plane of existence ? > No need to remove deals from the game (or deteriorate them), > remove the stupid ones, whose acts are based on stupidity and anger. > Jyhad is not for the stupid, no man can be allowed to ruin a 4-5 or 6 > men's game. Yeah, let's kill all stupid players !! We'll get some Blood Brothers to do it... Now let's be serious two seconds (one... one and a half...) Good players don't need deals to do what they must. Bad players don't need deals to screw a table. But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games for one meager VP. Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal" should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not take the other players' potential for VPs away. (rest of post snipped because it's another subject completely) [ quoted text not captured ]

> I think that we could have it both ways, by > removing the withdraw option from the tournament rules, and changing > Brinksmanship's text to introduce the option to withdraw to the table at > which it was put into play, as well as keeping its current text. Yes, if necessary. > Jay > > Oh wait, my only VP at the NAC was from withdrawl! :( LOL. Bad boy, you've been !! (and only one VP ?! what, didn't get any sleep the night before ? what's the name of the sportive girl ?) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:GPD6d.1507$mS1.378@fed1read05... > it allows two players to engage in activity to the mutual benefit > and welfare of both (at the expense of others at the table) creating > "goodness" out of thin air. you mean creating boreness and tireness for others =) > But the "currency" is sometimes bogus, > potentially causing a player engaging it far more harm than good. > Like dynamite, it's a tool that can be very helpful or blow up in > your hands. It's risk-taking, hardly to be equated with "flawed > play". > > Fred it's absolutely no risk taking since the "gentleman agreement"/"honor system" is here to ensure the dealers they risk nothing =)

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<2rv8fkF...@uni-berlin.de>... > Chris Arthur wrote: > >> More, those players (there are many) that are not so good at > >> conversation, and so have little persuasive power with words, are > >> disavantaged at the very beginning in matter of deals (having them > >> all the power to change a game outcome). > > > > Vtes is a social game. Players without good social skills will not do > > as well as those with good social skills, all things being equal. That > > is the nature of the game and for one I like it like that. I don't > > want to play with introverted nerdy dweebs who can't string a sentence > > together. > > > > I don't understand why points must be extremized to paradoxicals > extents.... :-\ > Without going to your extent, i'm saying that the conversational aspect > of the game is becoming too relevant, above all in tournaments - > You can't reasonably accept to loose in front of a table split > only because the other player talks and has better english than you. > Our situations are obviously different as i live and play in an english speaking country which is a long way from anywhere and therefore does not attract foreign vtes players (with the occasional exception). English language proficiency is not a problem at tournaments. I am happy that social skills are important because it makes for more enjoyable games to play with people who have skill in interacting with one another. I don't know how to solve your problem of english language proficiency at tournaments. Chris.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2s030nF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Stefan Ferenci" <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > news:415accaf$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > > i would wish that the vekn would try it out. (that would create better > > results) > > > If the VEKN tried out every ad hoc variation put forth on this group, > that would create worse results, however. I couldn't agree more, usualy experiments on a possible new rule are being made, before implementing the new rule and this is the correct thing to do. If you implement a new rule, before playtesting it first, then there will be some that will complain and some who will be in favor, afterwards if the new rule proves to be ineffective and you withdraw it, then again there will be some who complain and some who will be in favor. So, you end up having disturbed the peace of mind of many players and the games of more. That is why you first playtest (experiment with) every new rule and implement it after, if it proves to be effective for a purpose.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<415b2f7a$0$6620$626a...@news.free.fr>... > > Without deals, good players will also act to the best of their interests. > They can also show "the way" to people if necessary. > exactly, but if you deteriorate the deal-making procedure by making rules that allow some deals and ban some others, then it will be difficult to rule which deal is according with the rules and which is not. This would make players fight over which deal is legal and which is not and they will start using their lawyer skills to support their case, instead of playing the game. In the end, all will get bored and dissapointed of such a procedure, the deals will die. e.g. Yesterday we were playing, again. We play 4-5 times a week! So, my setite predator had an Ivory Bow on Qufur, he tried to "lure" 1 of my Warghouls and Velya intercepted him, so i tell him: "Don't use the Ivory Bow and i won't deal aggravated damage to you either". It wasn't in my best interest to have Velya torporized and send Qufur to torpor and it wasn't in his best interest to have Qufur torporized and be left with only Count Ormonde. So he accepted the deal... a mistake!, because a wise/experienced player would also add the following to the deal "...and you will also not rush me with your Warghouls for 1-2 rounds". He didn't propose this (which i would have accepted), so in my turn i rushed him with 2 warghouls, i torporized his ivory bow-holding Qufur and finaly i got the game win and he got nothing. Because by torporizing him i had only one minion to watch for (his Count Ormonde), so i just left Velya untapped to guard my 5 pool and had "The Rose", "Little Tailor", 3 Warghouls and the gregory winter making actions to oust my prey and my next prey. > > I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not > > Ok about these : they are an interesting part of the game. You don't have to > honour them, though. > i know, but i am talking about the ethical aspect, if everyone starts breaking the deals, then people will cease making deals and then this good part of the game will cease to exist. > > the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game, > > like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining > > of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on > > 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone > > gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details. > > Agreed on the "they are crap" part. Even in THE example case of the decks > that "can't win" if they don't deal, nominally 2 combat decks sitted as > predator / prey, I am sure that there are other solutions then dealing > together, and the games I have witnessed / played / judged have often proved > me right on that point. > I am mostly talking about regular, fun play and not tournaments. My point was that i like best the deals that are made in the duration of the game that concern little "things" that come up in the proccess, like "rescue me from torpor and i will rescue you from torpor, so the 99+raven spy-holding cailean cannot intercept us rescuing our vampires from torpor". An not the kind of deals that define a certain combined strategy since turn 1. > > Deals should be straight-forward and once made, everyone involved > > must stick to the deal and not back out. > > NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips : > "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should > be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something > which doesn't exist, right ? > Again i am talking about non-tournament play, i gain fun and pleasure winning a game that i have managed to win by my skill, good-deck building and clever dealmaking, not by fooling another meth in a deal and not keeping my part of the deal. Do you find pleasure in luring your prey to tap all his minions ("don't worry, i won't bleed you this turn, rush your prey...") and then in your turn play a Palla Grande and oust him ????? i surely don't! If the other players know that there is good chance that you won't keep your word, then in a situation like the above described, your prey will never rush his prey, because he will be afraid of your 4-8 !toreador and a Palla Grande. Thus he will just play defense, rush you or block you, beat you, his prey will remain unharmed and will have a great chance of winning the game! And all these just because you are known not to keep the deals you are making and your prey left his prey unharmed due to fear of you breaking the deal. How about that, would you like that to happen ? If you make him a deal not to bleed him and let him weaken his prey and he knows that you can be trusted, then he can do it and you will both gain from the deal, as afterwards, after letting him weaken his prey, you can surely find a turn in which he recklessly tapped a minion he shouldn't have tapped. And thus oust him and oust easier your new (and his former) prey, that he had the chance to weaken. > > After all we are methuselahs > > involved in jyhad, but that doesn't mean we are without honor. Me and > > If you want to take examples from the roleplaying pov, please explain to me > why a !Brujah would respect his word, or why even a Ventrue would hesitate > to breakdeal with a lowly Sabbat ? The plans of the Methuselahs are not > stopped by such a petty thing as honour. The only things that must be > endorsed are the boons, represented by some cards with precise effects. > i am not talking about the roleplaying aspect of the game, i am talking about wining due to skill, clever dealmaking and deck superiority and not wining due to deal-breaking. Do you want to be praised of your skills in jyhad or of your skills in betrayal. > > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences > > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in > > the appropriate manner. > > You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to > drown his goldfish ? > i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told him to do it... After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from others to keep theirs..." i believe this is fair enough... > > Deals can screw up the table, if a meth involved is stupid, but > > because > > jyhad is not for the unintelligent that is not something that cannot > > be dealt with. > > I fail to get your point. > If a meth is stupid then i (and everyone else) can convince him to rush my prey, by fabricating a stupid reason. Like, look!!! my prey has 4 minions, he will win the whole game, we have to rush him!! or something more stupid... If he is stupid he will fall for this and he will help me win the game and deprive from my prey the pleasure of playing... Which is the most important thing in jyhad, the pleasure of playing the game you love... > > if meth A is unexperienced and meth B tries to lure him to screw > > meth C, then meth C can simply explain to the unexperienced meth A why > > he shouldn't do what meth B says, because it is not in his best > > interest and will just screw the table. If a meth is just plain stupid > > and cannot learn by any means to make deals that are in his interest > > and always makes deals that screw the table and the game, then this > > meth should be dealt accordingly > > Again with these Giovanni methods ? Want any tips from an expert ? > why not, give me some tips... and i will give you some in return, e.g. how you can burn down a traitor's house... "The familia will never tolerate any kind of betrayal..." > > and if he just can't learn to play > > and make deals based on intelligence and keeps screwing games for any > > reason, then he must be removed. > > From the game ? Your playgroup ? The city ? This plane of existence ? > From the Jyhad... Do you know a methuselah (in the World of Darkness) that participates in the eternal jyhad and he/she is stupid ??? I don't know any either... > > No need to remove deals from the game (or deteriorate them), > > remove the stupid ones, whose acts are based on stupidity and anger. > > Jyhad is not for the stupid, no man can be allowed to ruin a 4-5 or 6 > > men's game. > > Yeah, let's kill all stupid players !! We'll get some Blood Brothers to do > it... > no need to take such measures.. We can just convince the stupid ones that they are realy vampires and that will remain unharmed if they are run over by a truck or bus. This will do the trick... don't you agree ? > Now let's be serious two seconds (one... one and a half...) > > Good players don't need deals to do what they must. > disagree, if another good player convinces 2 more stupid ones, and all 3 work against the 1, then the 1 shall fall even if he is the most skillful. > Bad players don't need deals to screw a table. > yes, but they can screw the table better and more often, if they are lured in making every kind of ridiculous deal by the other players. > But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games > for one meager VP. > i agree, this is what must be wiped out. > Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal" > should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right > ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not > take the other players' potential for VPs away. > > (rest of post snipped because it's another subject completely) > -- it is a similar subject, but i forgive you... By the way, do you happen to own a goldfish ???? I would really like to know... <evil grin>

>>> Dealmaking, then, is a way for > > > people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in > > their > > > best interest. > > Which, it seems to me, is a good skill to have/acquire. You can use that skill without having to deal for VPs. > > This is the perfect wording to express my exact thoughts. Really. > > Hard cases make bad law is a good old saying amongst the legal > fraternity, and here i think you are both in danger of throwing the > baby out with the bathwater. Deals, politics and social interaction > are completely integral to the VTES game and the World of Darkness > background; some such interactions are actually MANDATED by the cards > [eg games/pranks, politics, auctions of various kinds and the Succubus > club]. It's an aspect of VTES which i personally like; YMMV but if it > does you have to accept that a HUGE chunk of VTES is going to have to > be ditched to achieve your aims. I love this aspect of the game too, as long as it doesn't get overly simplified / reduced by the deals for VPs. In the W.O.D., alliances change and shift all the time, depending on the evolution of one's interest, and that has always been my vision of the CCG too. > However, i do understand the frustration with table-splitting cliques > and i sympathise with the wish to break them up, because like the > other posters here i think this would be good for the game in the long > term. The issue is how to achieve this. Should we go for an American, > individualistic, bottom-up solution as Trey proposes, or for a > European, legalistic, top-down solution a la Orpheus? On this issue i > am for the American way because i do not think the European way would > work, and i know the American way does work. It's awfully easy. Just > go along with the deals, and then break them when you see that by > doing so you can win. LOL. Love your analysis. So, Old Continent Vs New it is, eh ? :-) Seriously, the difference is that you can break deals all you want, if you're alone all you'll gain will be an accusation of (how dire ! do I dare say it ?) dealbreaker. And you'll throw some of your games away, in favor of the guys who will take profit from it. It's like with AR or Smiling Jack : everyone knows they've got to be removed, but no one want to bother doing it. Hence my suggestion of a precise ruling (if only : gotta optimize your VPs at all time during the game : it doesn't even mention deals, and is quite clear anyway). > > > If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see doing > > it and > > > people would have to think through their play rather than have people tell > > them > > > what they should do and have the game turn into an exercise in personality > > > management. It would, I think, take away one of the aspects you prefer in the game. > > You'll be able to do that in any Silent of Death tournie (including the one > > in Heidelberg the day of the EC). > > Interesting concept! What about signing? Is that allowed? You mean singing I suppose ? MADNESS OF THE BARD !!! > > To Legbiter (who still didn't visited my Domain...) : > > But i DID drink a LOT of pastis in your honour in Corsica! Ok, so maybe you'll be forgiven this time. Last chance next year. After that I send the Shamblings. > > > we want to get better finals, my suggestion is that rather than trying > > > to mess with deals [IMO a TOTAL minefield of unenforceable edicts > > > guaranteed to satisfy no-one but a rules lawyer] we put the finals on > > > a different day from the heats and/or allow the finalists to > > > > Not very feasible most of the time. Imagine, sunday, we went to Italy, it > > would have been a mess if we had to wait for the finalist one more day. > > Plus, when tournies last 2 days, you skip work if you're in finals ? It > > would be a good thing, but I think it's utopic. > > Right, though maybe it could work at the bigger conventions. > > > > 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be an > > alternative official format. > > i think that's a good idea and could be the solution if coupled with > seeding. Another possibility would be to cut the heats to 1 hour, or > 1.5 hours, maybe standardising on 4-player tables. Humm, I'm quite sure i wouldn't like that. 4-players isn't half as interesting as 5, and 2 hours is necessary for many decktypes, which would then get penalised. And probably some of the most interesting and less archetypal. > > change > > > their decks for the final. > > > > I'm all against it. And it would be worse for tiredness : at least, the > > other deck you've played all day long, you should have it in mind better > > than any other. > > You're right, that was a fairly crap idea. LOL. I love people who recognize their mistakes. KNow when they're right, know when they've been wrong. Me, I wouldn't know : I'm always right. ;-) Cheers from the depths of my Mausoleum. Orpheus

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Damnans wrote: [...] >>As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not the >>problem, >>but players and judges: >> > > As i pointed there too, you can't just expect good things if the players > starts to use table splitting deals on regular basis - As long as the player takes the GW, and the other is maximizing his VPs... > being a matter of evaluating the game state, it's pretty subjective: > a single judge could consider losing a position while another not, so > no matter how the judging is, the deals usually ends up screwing > the game for the player(s) that are on the "losing side" of the involved > deal. V:TES has a default subjectivity factor which can be seen in issues like collusion, playing to win, stalling, etc. Judges are there to give a final word on those subjective issues. And judges must be educated enough to be as less subjective as possible. Notwithstanding, I also think (as others have suggested on this thread) that forcing players not only to get the game win but to maximize their victory points as well, would be a good way to avoid many subjective situations involving table-splitting deals. If there the rules enforce maximizing your VPs, then it will be illegal for you to give them away (in the case you have reasonable chances to get them). > We have no real guidelines besides the general "evaluate game state", "go > for > GW, if you can reasonably go for it, then maximize VP, if you can't > reasonably even maximize vps fell free to kill yourself" - those points are > too vague, too open to subjective evaluation to give a real reference. That's why players don't have the final word about them, but judges. > More, the aspect of deals and their over-power on games outcome, > is at disavantage of all the players that are not good at conversation - > those players usually can't convince anyone of their vision about game > state, and usually always ends up on the losing side of deals. All players should know that English is the official language in V:TES international tournaments. Therefore, if they want to play in such events at the same level as other players, they must speak English fluently. Otherwise they'd better play autistic decks >:-) > This aspect was clear in the final of the last italian qualifier: > Stephan got the better english and conversation > at the table, and it was able to convice almost anyone - Mirko tried to > deal with Sebastien, but he was too weak with the international language, > and so the vision of Stephan prevaled over Sebastien ("ehy, don't have > the upveal end up with me as prey of weenie horde, i will not do > the dirt work for you... " :-)). > This way, language is becoming too important in this card game, > ending up somewhat in talking/conversation abuse. English should be counted among a V:TES player's strategic skills. If a V:TES lacks that particular skill, well, then that player is flawed. Turning V:TES into a mute game (as others have suggested) is contrary to the game itself, where table talk is an inherent factor. Greetings, Damnans -- http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips : > "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should > be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something > which doesn't exist, right ? If we assume that that premise is true (which I'm not commenting on for now), how would you propose to rule against deals? As LSJ pointed out recently, there are many different kinds of deals and the ones which seem to cause most problems are the ones that are perceived as spoiling other people's "fun, or somesuch". Additionally, it's intrinsic to some facets of the game - politics particularly - that deals of some kind will have to be struck. If I don't split my KRC three to my prey and one to your prey (perhaps, on a five player table, you're my grand-prey and he's my grand-predator), you're going to vote it down, particularly if you're suspecting that (say) I'm going to Cryptic Rider it. At least you get something out of it this way. I'll leave to one side the problem of situations where I do sacrifice something short term, but for a similarly short term gain e.g. I'll pass that KRC for you, even though it does hurt me a bit now, but it lines me up for a kill on my prey. Or even "Okay, I'll give you those votes." But... it's worth bearing in mind that some of these can be seen as deals, and if you want to draw a line between a "deal" and cross-table negotiation, you're going to need to start drawing general principles for some judgement-oriented help. Where does that line get drawn? So, as two political decks, we're going to need to have some sort of long term negotiations. Now, you could say that a good player would be including Closed Session (or similar) - but that's not necessarily the point. Perfectly reasonable situations can occur where two people are, in fact, playing largely contradictory styles. Say, we're both playing a 1/2 Ventrue Law Firm. We may well need to co-operate over votes, we may well need to co-operate over who brings out which vampires. "Hey, is that Arika? She's got nine blood on her. It's just I have two vamps here, and one's Queen Anne and the other's Arika and I don't want to contest or waste my transfers." Of course, the other VLF player can lie through their teeth and try and screw me over (or feign innocence - the "Bugger, I've been transferring to the wrong vampire" face is worth practising). But if he doesn't - and he's possibly of the opinion that working together where it's mutually beneficial is better than clash of the titans - then we have a long term negotiating point going on. The point of all this setup is... Is that a deal that spoils other people's fun, or is that a deal which doesn't, or is it a deal in the first place? After all, repeated negotiation may *not* be a deal. (The above strikes me as good play, totally valid. But that's just my opinion.) Would it make any difference if the two of us were playing, say, Euro-ish-Brujah and I negotiated to bring out Donal and Anvil, and you to bring out Constanza and Volker? Would it make a difference if we started negotiating over which targets to take out? Perhaps you and I are both playing the Euro-Brujah and my prey/your predator is being particularly troublesome. Perhaps he's killing us in diablerie Blood Hunt situations. (Perhaps we're trying to keep each other alive in them, rather than just burning each other's vamps to mutual destruction.) Perhaps he's brought The Slow Withering into play and it's annoying the hell out of us and we need him gone. Or perhaps he's just brought Recalled to the Founder into play and I want to bring another Brujah into play, but have some weenies doing other work for me. (If it helps, pretend it's a multi-rush deck, Fatima style, and my weenie-types are some of the same clan as me.) I want him dead, so I want to get rid of that vampire - but I want to know if you can oust him next turn, or if I need to wait to bring out Volker. Is what I've just described a deal? We really are setting out to spoil someone else's fun now - by ousting him, with the two of us ganging up to destroy him. But if we don't, we're going to get screwed over a barrel. Now, these things could be set-up as open deals. But is the difference between a discussed long-term deal any different from a repeated negotiation - or just two experienced players with an unvoiced understanding, because they're both smart cookies. "Look, he's going to kill us, right? So let's see if we can avoid that." No explicit deal made. So where can you rule against these "deals" in general? > Good players don't need deals to do what they must. > > Bad players don't need deals to screw a table. I think these are both invalid premises, in that they're generalised principles which fail to take into account individual situations. I'm on a table playing, say, a Baltimore Purge deck. Eat vampires, destroy them. Now, this is going to incur the wrath of the whole table most likely (save for a few ally decks, but leave that out of it - it's very unlikely, but it's still a remote possibility). So you could say that as a "good" player, I shouldn't have played that deck. But, move on to a far more innocuous deck. It just happens that it's the antithesis of my predator and prey - for a casual example, let's say I'm playing a very fast combat deck, and they can't deal with it at all. So they need to get me ousted. First, is that a deal from their point of view? As the prey, I really, really, really don't care that my grand-predator gets a VP out of this - I need that deck off the table, RIGHT NOW. Here, we can't really say that it's my fault per se. As a good player, I just happened to have picked a deck and two average players (though their skill doesn't necessarily come into it) happen to have decks that are very vulnerable to it. So two players really need me off the table. It would seem churlish - counter-productive, even - to prevent those two players from doing so. Situations in which a judge is going to say "Yes, I know you both need this to happen. Yes, I appreciate you're probably going to die if you don't. No, you can't do it," are going to end with much flouncing, pouting and acrimony. But then I, the good player, am really going to need some help to survive. Two people battering me as hard and fast as they can is really going to kill me. I can take one, but not two. I might want to go to my grand-predator and point out that he doesn't want me dead, or else his prey will have six pool more to get through. I might also point out that with my prey going backwards a lot, my grand-prey (my grand-predator's predator) is going to have an easy ride and be a lot stronger at ousting him. So, we seem to have a situation where the following things seem to be true. (Feel free to break the assumptions if I'm wrong.) 1) As a player, I'm playing a deck that wouldn't ordinarily incur the wrath of the entire table but which, against these players, exploits particular holes in their decks. This might be, for instance, an event deck (or a deck with at least some events) that just really screws their deck a lot. (I have some reservations about some events, but there are certainly some mostly innocuous events that would happen to annoy certain decks. Or some master cards that do similar - some strategy altering/hosing type cards, say.) So it's not that I'm a "bad player" who's picked the wrong deck. I'm a good player who picked a deck, aiming to do everything myself. 2) It can reasonably be seen that - for my prey - it is in his interests to have me killed. (Pick any other player on the table, if necessary.) He needs me dead to survive. Similarly, my predator wants me dead - perhaps for similar reasons, perhaps not. But I now have two players who really, really, really want me dead. I don't think that - so far - that's my fault. So I'm not being a bad player. I also don't think that - so far - we can really blame either of the other players. Every deck has holes, right? You only have 90 cards, 12 or so vampires, and 7 cards in hand at once. You can't cope with EVERYTHING properly. Some things will need to be dealt with in different ways - like being able to destroy a vampire with a combat deck, if you don't have bleed bounce in that combat deck, or whatever. Creative use of what's at your disposal to deal with general situations of badness that would otherwise kill you. Which seems reasonable, anyway. 3) Those two players may have a deal, or they may not. In either event, it would seem weird to have some sort of rule that stopped them from co-operating, overtly discussed or understood, or just simply co-operating by both killing me, even though they haven't planned who's doing what or anything like that. It's in both their interests to kill me, so they are playing to win. My predator wants his VP. My prey wants to survive. I don't think this is an uncommon situation. We've all sat down next to a deck we just want to kill because it's destroying our ability to play. An alternative situation might be a Malkavian Dementation deck, going backwards round the table. I still have two people who want me to die, only this time there's no deal AT ALL. 4) I now have two people trying to screw me over. As a "good player" (for the purposes of the example), am I really expected to be able handle two decks both trying to oust me at once? Obviously, my prey will sometimes hit back at me in any situation - but two decks properly trying to oust me at once is a different level to that. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that I am very likely to die. (Sure, they could get hand jam and do unthinkably stupid things. But it's very likely I'm going to die.) 5) If my prey isn't killing me then there's a very good chance he's doing something wrong, because his deck needs mine to die. Bear in mind that you didn't specify that my *prey* needed to be a good player - just that good players don't need deals to win. So we're both allowing for the fact that other people can be bad players, clearly. He could've made the wrong deck. But also, he could be a bad player in general. You can't legislate against bad play. Perhaps he does have a way to survive that doesn't involve going backwards at me, but there's not a hope of convincing him of that. (Perhaps he misjudges odds, or doesn't know how likely or unlikely something is, or doesn't realise (and can't be convinced of) what a strong position his grand-predator, my predator, will be in once I'm dead too, with him on six extra pool and fewer resources dead than he should have. Whatever.) 6) But for whatever reason, I now have two people going against me. What "good play" would you suggest I use that allows me to do what I want that *doesn't* involve a deal. Invent any scenario you want but the crucial points are that two other people on the table want me dead either because my deck will neuter them/destroy them first or one of them is my predator and the other my prey who has no other defence to the particular strategy I've enacted. (He's got bleed bounce, combat defence and vote cancellation, but I'm playing nasty vampire stealing with Mind Rape or Obeah or something.) Bad play from one of the other players involved is also an acceptable option, or someone waiting to move in with a Dramatic Upheaval is also a possibility, as is the Dementation back-bleed above. But if you want to stick to people doing things for 'good play' reasons, rather than necessarily having an off-the-wall deck, that's fine too. Now, there are many sorts of deal here. Obviously, getting my grand-predator to help is a possibility (as detailed above). Or going for threats on my prey ("I'm going to die, but I'm going to make sure you die first") is also a sort of deal - not all deals are made because both sides are sweetness and light about it all, but because players are forced into it. Which can get nasty. Various threats can go around the place, getting people to back off, help them out temporarily, or whatever. These all result in deals of a sort - they're just not the "Well, you do this, I do that and we both win, isn't spring pretty and don't you look FABULOUS today, dahlink?" sort of deal. > But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games > for one meager VP. It can. But what about the situations where the *right* decision is to go with that deal? How do you propose to stop people winning through good play? > Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal" > should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right > ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not > take the other players' potential for VPs away. No, this isn't true in either respect. (There may be some situations where it is - probably lots - but it's not universally true.) The classic example of this has often been two hard combat decks sitting next to each other. (Indeed, this was one of the situations that brought about the Table Win rulings, based on much bitching about such situations. The TW rule provides incentives for both of the combat decks to want to be on the 4 side of that deal, however, which may make the deal harder to broker.) I have a combat deck, you (my prey) also have a combat deck. I need to bleed through you, and to do that, I want to destroy your vampires. (There's nothing wrong so far, this is classic rush deck stuff.) However, to destroy your vampires, I need to go into combat. You can hit back. You probably will hit back. Now, assuming that we're both playing a combat deck that's largely offense with only a little defence, it could work out that we'll mutually annihilate each other. (The canny Gangrel fortitude player may be in a very different situation, of course.) Say, it's two (very different) Brujah combat decks that are going to destroy each other. You're playing Euro-Brujah mostly, I'm doing something fun with Group 3, say. Or Brujah vs Tzimisce - we both have a little damage prevention/avoidance floating around (e.g. Sideslip, various little bits of Vicissitude), but we're both conscious that the deck probably doesn't have a whole lot. However, the specific example doesn't matter too much - we can both find situations where combat decks next to each other will annihilate each other. Now, if they're the last two decks on the table, it's likely that one will last a little longer than the other and find itself able to bleed out the other player with a copy of Hasina Kesi over multiple turns and a well-timed copy of Fame. But on a five player table, both of us will probably die and my predator will destroy me, then you. 0 VPs each. And you probably can't get a single VP because I'm killing your vampires. So, we're both in a situation of 0 VP. (This can happen.) If I can convince you to take the deal whereby you oust your prey, then I sweep the table, I'm playing for a TW. You can't get a TW, so the deal still allows you to maximise your VPs. (Of course, someone else might be able to offer you a *better* deal - but you're not obliged to take it, if you think they're lying etc.) So, from 0 VPs you get 1 VP. From 0 VPs, I get a TW and 4 VPs. Classically, it gets split 3-2 (you get the rest of the table and roll over for me to get my pound of flesh), but various reasons might convince you to take my deal, which is still an improvement on 0. You don't have to take the deal, but if we allow that we're both pretty sure we're going to kill each other (small tournament, played each other before, single table tournament etc.) which is far from impossible with two meaty combat decks, the deal isn't illegal. And - as above - you try explaining to the player that he can't get a TW that way, and has to get 0 VP instead, even though an in-game, non-collusive piece of play allows him to do so without requiring another player to worsen their expected outcome based on the table at hand. Also, hello and stuff. -- James Coupe

Curevei wrote: >>I was not to long ago an avid defender of table splitting deals, but i >>do realize that they are bad for the game. and should be reduced in >>occurance. >>i think with a few simple rules we could stop the rising tide of deals. >> >>1) remove withdrawl from the game. this rule intended to let players >>that used up their decks bow out of the game is only abused for >>dealmaking. nobody except the dealmakers will miss this rule > > > This should have been done ages ago, long before the table win method of > scoring came into effect. > > Brinksmanship could get errataed to do something different, though I really > don't care if the card ceases to see play. One possibility could be to have it > deal 2 pool loss during a player's untap if that player has no library left. > While that might be good enough to lead to obnoxious deck destruction decks, > the greater good of eliminating withdrawing could be accomplished with less > complaining. > > >>2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and >>use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. >>so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than >>someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a >>losing deal for 2 in the final round. > > > I'm pretty sure this is a bad idea. In theory, isn't it more impressive to > rank as high as possible in every round? Why punish people who accomplished > their VPs without dealmaking for them? > people claimed the wanted more offense in the game, so this would enforce offense. this rule would not suit my play style, because i am a defense first player (ask any predator of mine) but i think it would enforce offense in the game and make GW愀 more important and discourage players to accept a losing deal. stefn

In message <c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: > Do you find pleasure in luring your prey to tap all his minions >("don't worry, i won't bleed you this turn, rush your prey...") and >then in your turn play a Palla Grande and oust him ????? i surely >don't! > If the other players know that there is good chance that you won't >keep >your word, then in a situation like the above described, your prey >will never rush his prey, because he will be afraid of your 4-8 >!toreador and a Palla Grande. Thus he will just play defense, rush you >or block you, beat you, his prey will remain unharmed and will have a >great chance of winning the game! Then your prey is a fool who is not attempting to win, and your deck is inferior because it did not include a means of dealing with a prey who chooses to leave all his minions untapped -- such as Pentex Subversion, Anarch Troublemaker, Mind Numb, etc. You cannot legislate against poor play; and you do not require a deal in order to win from this situation. You just need to build your deck in a fashion that it can WIN. > And all these just because you are known not to keep the deals you >are making and your prey left his prey unharmed due to fear of you >breaking the deal. How about that, would you like that to happen ? I call this collusion, and think players who do this are weak and unskilled. You should learn to play, not learn to cheat. >> > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences >> > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in >> > the appropriate manner. >> >> You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to >> drown his goldfish ? >> > i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the >traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said >"you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to >burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told >him to do it... Collusion, clear and obvious. I would call you out on it on the spot. If you can't win on your own, get your friends to help you cheat? I don't think this is the proper way to play V:TES, and that's all there is to it. You and the other player cheated and colluded. > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will >teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from >others to keep theirs..." > i believe this is fair enough... I believe you are all a bunch of colluders, in violation of the rules. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:415be33f$0$23937$626a...@news.free.fr > >>> Dealmaking, then, is a way for > > > > people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize what is in > > > their > > > > best interest. > > > > Which, it seems to me, is a good skill to have/acquire. > > You can use that skill without having to deal for VPs. No argument there. What worries people like me and Chris is that if you try to get the judges ruling on what is and isn't an allowable deal to the extent that you seem to believe is necessary, you will reduce this aspect of the game and make it less fun. You will also, i believe, fail to address the real problem you have identified. > <snip> Deals, politics and social interaction > > are completely integral to the VTES game and the World of Darkness > > background; some such interactions are actually MANDATED by the cards > > [eg games/pranks, politics, auctions of various kinds and the Succubus > > club]. It's an aspect of VTES which i personally like <snip> > > I love this aspect of the game too, as long as it doesn't get overly > simplified / reduced by the deals for VPs. In the W.O.D., alliances change > and shift all the time, depending on the evolution of one's interest, and > that has always been my vision of the CCG too. It's that "overly" which is the crucial point of difference between us. We both know what it means. But i do not think you or i or anyone can define it well enough to prevent the abuses you are worried about. To do so one would need a watertight definition of acceptable and unacceptable table talk and deal making for every conceivable situation. This is impossible, and even if it were possible it is undesirable, because it would be a check on people's creativity and freedom. > > > However, i do understand the frustration with table-splitting cliques > > and i sympathise with the wish to break them up, because like the > > other posters here i think this would be good for the game in the long > > term. The issue is how to achieve this. Should we go for an American, > > individualistic, bottom-up solution as Trey proposes, or for a > > European, legalistic, top-down solution a la Orpheus? On this issue i > > am for the American way because i do not think the European way would > > work, and i know the American way does work. It's awfully easy. Just > > go along with the deals, and then break them when you see that by > > doing so you can win. > > LOL. Love your analysis. So, Old Continent Vs New it is, eh ? :-) ;-) Maybe a bit of old Europe versus New, also - see Nikolaj Wendt's post elsewhere. Actually one of the ironies here is that when French people first came to Britain to play Jyhad they were APPALLED at the extent of our table-dealing. But, being the clever adaptable chaps and chappesses they are, and judging by Reyda's comments, they obviously beetled off back to France and became MUCH better at it than we ever were. Additionally, the British scene has in the meantime pretty much completely moved away from the table-split. Something similar to what happened over railways, really. > > Seriously, the difference is that you can break deals all you want, if > you're alone all you'll gain will be an accusation of (how dire ! do I dare > say it ?) dealbreaker. You won't be alone for long, if you pick the right moments to break your deals. And the accusation you DON'T want is not "dealbreaker" but "broke deal and STILL lost", cos that just makes you look STUPID. And you'll throw some of your games away, in favor of > the guys who will take profit from it. <snip> Yes you will, but you will become a better player and you will have more fun. Understand that i am NOT saying "break your deals and win more tourneys". In the old days when i used to table split and deal i was on paper a better player than i am now [British number 2, at one point]. But whatever the ratings say, the fact is i am now a better, more careful and more creative player than i was then, and consequently i have more fun. Thinking about it i guess that the meta-problem here is ratings. No-one should care about them but people do. And getting rid of them, or even tinkering with them, is also IMO not the answer, because we need a tourney system and that element of competition to act as window dressing for the game. > > Hence my suggestion of a precise ruling (if only : gotta optimize your VPs > at all time during the game : it doesn't even mention deals, and is quite > clear anyway). i think this would have no effect at all on the phenomena you describe. The only ruling that might achieve the effect you want is to make table wins the only relevant factor in determining tourney success. Actually i think that would not work either, but i really don't want to get dragged into an argument about this because i think Trey's way is the right way. > > > > > If it was possible to play with no talking whatsoever, I could see > doing > > > it <snip> > > > > You'll be able to do that in any Silent of Death tournie (including the > one > > > in Heidelberg the day of the EC). > > > > Interesting concept! What about signing? Is that allowed? > > You mean singing I suppose ? No, i really do mean signing. Sign language, like deaf people and poker cheats do. <snip> > > > To Legbiter (who still didn't visited my Domain...) : > > > > But i DID drink a LOT of pastis in your honour in Corsica! > > Ok, so maybe you'll be forgiven this time. Last chance next year. After that > I send the Shamblings. ;-) we get those whenever term starts. i will check the cheap flights to Marseilles the moment i have finished this reply. > <snip> > > > > > > 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be > an > > > alternative official format. > > > > i think that's a good idea and could be the solution if coupled with > > seeding. Another possibility would be to cut the heats to 1 hour, or > > 1.5 hours, maybe standardising on 4-player tables. > > Humm, I'm quite sure i wouldn't like that. 4-players isn't half as > interesting as 5, Indeed, in fact it is 6/10ths as interesting as 5 [6 possible dyad interactions for a 4-player, 10 for a five player]. and 2 hours is necessary for many decktypes, which would > then get penalised. And probably some of the most interesting and less > archetypal. Any reform has a cost, a fact that our cheap and intellectually debased political debate tends not to acknowledge. But fortunately we are not doing politics on this forum, so this is something that has to be thought about whenever a reform is proposed, and that is what i am doing here. How bad is the abuse? Not too bad is my judgement, and likely to ameliorate still further. What are the downsides of any proposed reform that might address the abuse? Considerable, i suggest, but largely unforseeable. i recognise the phenomenon you are talking about but i think it is only a stage in the evolution of your Jyhad scene; the evidence for this view is that such things used to occur here, and now they pretty much don't. If i'm right this will happen because players will follow Trey's model, and you will not have to implement any reform whatsoever, so you will incur no downside costs. <snip further merry badinage> -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

<snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with> > > Also, hello and stuff. Hey, brother! Good to have you back! [ quoted text not captured ]

> i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the > traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said > "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to > burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told > him to do it... > > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will > teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from > others to keep theirs..." > i believe this is fair enough... That is such a sack of raw horseshit, it makes me want to vomit. If you are going to give someone the shaft then do it. Don't be Polly Pretentious, and after you have given them the shaft give them a lesson in morality. It was a risk; he took it; he got burned. That sort of attitude would drive players away from a playgroup. No one likes a player who is condescending to them. Just because this is a gentleman's game (i.e. no money involved), it doesn't mean you have to play like a gentleman. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Ec...@mail.ru (Ector) wrote in message news:<d6c82c73.04092...@posting.google.com>... > "Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message news:<cjd0a7$462$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > > Strange. We don´t have these problems around here ... > > These problems are very common in Minsk, since the level of players > (and their decks) here is very different. Most of our players > (including myself) are newbies, and, IMHO, the main problem isn't the > newbie's frustration from the inevitable loss but his/her inability to > find the way to improve. > If I've lost due to my mistake or lack of some cards, I should avoid > making the mistake and search the needed cards. But what can I do if > several strong players decide to include my head as a part of their > agreement? The true answer is "become strong myself", but it isn't > quite obvious. > If a player feels himself strong, he or she may attempt to break the > offending deal to suggest a more appealing one, and (s)he can also > make another deal with the "sentenced to death" players. The simplest > way to make other players respect your strength is playing a rush > deck... take two Brujah precons and see others trying to make a deal > with you :) Interesting! And further fodder for my belief that this is a playgroup evolution thing. But i think you might live to regret giving new players rush decks. VERY strong forward decks would be my INFINITELY preferred solution!

<snip> if everyone > starts breaking the deals, then people will cease making deals and > then this good part of the game will cease to exist. > Not so, brother. Rather, people will make better deals, relying not on trust but on mutual benefit. Try it! You'll be pleasantly surprised.

[ quoted text not captured ] This has been my experience playing in deal-breaking DC. We make deals all the time. We don't break them very often, but we consider deal-breaking to be an acceptable way to win. I had the experience recently of a player being shocked to learn that I'm not above breaking a deal here or there (or as I prefer to think of it, I'm above refusing to break deals). This player loudly (but not unkindly) spoke of how I should never be trusted and there would be no deals... ...and then proceded to make a mutually beneficial deal with me about 10 minutes later. Matt Morgan

> > > > > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences > > > in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in > > > the appropriate manner. > > > > You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you remember to > > drown his goldfish ? > > > i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the > traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said > "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to > burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told > him to do it... > > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will > teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from > others to keep theirs..." > i believe this is fair enough... Boy you sure taught him a lesson? Do we NEED to put in the rulebook that the game is supposed to be FUN? anyway lighten up. your games might be a little more fun to play. i'm also jealous that you get to play so often. *anxiously awaiting CCG workshop's version* jds

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:2b7d6dca022d9b4e397...@mygate.mailgate.org... > <snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with> > > > > Also, hello and stuff. Yeah, what's this I see before my eyes???!!!! A post from The Dreaded Coupe, Under Whose Irod Shod Boot the Kindred of England Formerly Groaned? Post more, old friend... You've been missed. We haven't had anyone except Derek to properly take people to task since you left for university... ;-) How goes the pursuit of a higher intellect? DaveZ Atom Weaver

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2b7d6dca022d9b4e397...@mygate.mailgate.org... > <snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with> > > > > Also, hello and stuff. > > Hey, brother! Good to have you back! What the ... ? Who opened that coffin in the first place !? =D

> > No rules affecting deals are required, deals are very important in > the game, you can't just provoke the entire table and get away with > it. The will make a deal to go against you. > > I am talking about deals which go for 1-3 rounds in the future, not > the kind of deals that some people do at the beggining of the game, > like in a 4-meth game where the 2 meths make a deal from the begining > of the game to oust the 2 others and then solve their differences 1 on > 1, these kind of deals are crap, if you ask me, and usually someone > gets screwed. I can analyse why, but i don't want to get into details. > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some way... or just broken more regularly.. Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the player to actually play to win. Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now". Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals... and the vp deals that actually survive would make more sense. Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference.. only a matter of time. BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules. Lord of the Betrayers (<--- my new nickname around here) Prince of Copenhagen

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:415b4a3c$0$22258$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de > news:GPD6d.1507$mS1.378@fed1read05... > > > > it allows two players to engage in activity to the mutual benefit > > and welfare of both (at the expense of others at the table) > > creating "goodness" out of thin air. > > you mean creating boreness and tireness for others =) I suppose you can call it "boring". All a defeated player can do is go off to the bathroom, get something to eat, or watch the rest of the game in sullen silence. Heh. > > But the "currency" is sometimes bogus, > > potentially causing a player engaging it far more harm than good. > > Like dynamite, it's a tool that can be very helpful or blow up in > > your hands. It's risk-taking, hardly to be equated with "flawed > > play". > > it's absolutely no risk taking since the "gentleman > agreement"/"honor system" is here to ensure the dealers they > risk nothing =) If players choose to maintain a reputation, that's true. Doesn't mean there's no risk. Your partner might choose this moment to let it go (as Mike Curtois did during the Southwest Qualifier in order to insure himself of a qualification position). In any event, even if there's no risk in breaking the deal, there's always a risk to someone agreeing to do something later on down the road that circumstances will change considerably from how he envisioned the game going - making his agreement much more harmful to him to keep. There's _always_ risk to dealing. Fred

Damnans wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> Damnans wrote: > [...] > >>> As I have already pointed out on the Italian forum, deals are not >>> the problem, >>> but players and judges: >>> >> >> As i pointed there too, you can't just expect good things if the >> players starts to use table splitting deals on regular basis - > > As long as the player takes the GW, and the other is maximizing his > VPs... > I think that you can't reasonably affirm that telling "when a player is acting to take the gw..." etc it s always doable for sure. That involves also playing style taste, and a judge can't be really objective about that. > V:TES has a default subjectivity factor which can be seen in issues > like collusion, playing to win, stalling, etc. > > Judges are there to give a final word on those subjective issues. And > judges must be educated enough to be as less subjective as possible. > You really can't educate for the best with a general guideline such as "evaluate the game"... that's is too generic, too open to subjective vision of the game state, metagame and style of play. > Notwithstanding, I also think (as others have suggested on this > thread) that forcing players not only to get the game win but to > maximize their victory points as well, would be a good way to avoid > many subjective situations involving table-splitting deals. I think almost the same and already proposed some time ago here, but that proposed new goal (maximizing anyway vps) was defined "spurious" :-) > > If there the rules enforce maximizing your VPs, then it will be > illegal for you to give them away (in the case you have reasonable > chances to > get them). Yes, i completely agree here <snip> > English should be counted among a V:TES player's strategic skills. If > a V:TES lacks that particular skill, well, then that player is flawed. > Sorry, i think i didn't explained well my point - i'm talking of general skill language, not about using international idioms to be understood by foreign people at (big) tournament - i was saying "english" just because is the common language on this NG - A player that is good at conversation may just manipulate other average (at conversation) player in agreeing in a table split deal, and so on. greets Emiliano

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20040930050153...@mb-m16.aol.com... > >> Dealmaking isn't necessary. Dealmaking only matters when > >> players don't play perfectly. Okay, that's all of the time. > >> But, the point is that dealmaking is contrary to good play. > >> In good play, you help or hurt other people, as Trey states, > >> out of enlightenend self interest. Dealmaking, then, is a way > >> for people to capitalize on other players' inability to realize > >> what is in their best > >> interest. > >... > >> I've managed to get off focus. Basically, I wanted to point out > >> that dealmaking is a flaw in play, not some sort of necessary > >> aspect to it. > > > >Wow! Suffice to say that such a view is an *incredibly* > >incomplete, insufficent summary of the relationship deal-making > >has to the concept of quality of play. Though I'd agree that > >participation in deals can often be a sign of flawed play, were > >that the beginning and end of the situation few or no good > >players would ever enter into deals nor even entertain > >consideration of them. To the contrary, excellent players are > >seen to offer and accept deals all the time and often benefit and > >win by exercise. How can you explain this and resolve it with > >the point of view expressed above? I don't think you can. > > First, to get it out of the way, dealmaking and cooperation aren't > the same thing. Dealmaking is a formalization of cooperation. Such a distinction doesn't seem meaningful. The alternative to "formalized cooperation" - which must necessarily reference any deals made verbally and deliberately - would be tacit cooperation, such as a predator refraining from bleeding a prey in order to allow him to bleed his prey (the predator's grandprey) when both clearly view the latter as the major threat in the game. While this happens occasionally, it's hardly worth noting for purposes of this discussion, as far as I can see. It seems unlikely that there'd be any confusion about such a point. > Say you end up doing what you wanted to do in the absence of a > deal. Then, there was no reason to have a deal to formalize > whatever cooperation you and another player may have come up with. Sure there is. Sometimes you can threaten an opponent with some other behavior and affect his play, gaining you something in the process. You can sometimes do this and gain from it because in some situations: 1) he can't be sure that you'd decided to do what you've chosen to do but haven't acted on yet; and 2) the deal seems worthwhile to him given his imperfect knowledge of the state of the game. (He may not know that, for instance, you're not holding that Sensory Deprivation you're threatening him with and that you possess no more of them in the deck.) > So, a deal is only relevant when it changes behavior. But, why > would you want to change behavior when you think you are doing > what's in your best interests all of the time in the first place? > On the face of it, it would seem obvious that you make deals to > change the complexion of a game that's going against you. Since your premise seems faulty, I assert that your conclusion is faulty. > You may have equal options and the way to resolve which to choose > is by offers tendered. Except, once you assume the people > tendering the offers are doing what is in their best interest, > what to do should be solvable again without having to worry > about whether a deal is in place. Again, faulty premise ==> faulty conclusion. The attractiveness of options will vary depending on what positive and negative consequences are attached to each option. These, in turn - at least sometimes - vary depending on what effects they will have on the future behaviors of other players. Which in terms depend on negotiations: what you can get them to agree to and/or what each will threaten as implications of your actions. In turn once again, this may well depend on what they reckon they can acheive by affecting your behavior through threats and offers in terms of their current and future behavior. "Doing what is in their best interest" is highly dependent on the outcome of verbal bargaining - not just the other way around. > What is dealing but an opportunity to distort their strategy? The question seems posed to beg a particular answer. "Distorting" strategy, if I understand your meaning correctly, affects what is in your best interests and the potential gain. I think you are oversimplifying by pretending there isn't a payback loop in operation here. > >Dealmaking simply involves the trading of short-term interests > >with long-term ones. In short, it's offering the medium of future > >considerations as currency for current services. > > There are no short term interests to the rational player. Every > decision has to come back to "how do I achieve my game goal?" - a > long term interest. I think you're mistaking my meaning here. Of course short term interests (or "short term goals" if you will) are stepping stones to long term interest. I meant that you sacrafice your near term progress towards your overall goal in hopes of gaining more progress in the long run. Or you may offer something to another player that down the road will assist him in his long term interest (thus ultimately harming yours at that point) in exchange for something you need immediately that you deem more important in the long term. The way you're defining "short term" above is ultimately meaningless and (deliberately or not) is an attempt to sabotage my point through semantics. By defining it as you do, you obviate any need to ever consider the short term vs. long term. Assuming you don't think that's silly (and I don't think you do), the true meaning of a player's "short term interest" and how it can sometimes be reasonably exchanged in one direction or another with his "long long term interest" ought to be clear. > The point of cooperation is to help yourself. For, if you aren't > helping yourself, why engage in the behavior. Similarly, it has > to be assumed that a rational partner is also cooperating to > achieve something in his or her best interests. So, why formalize > it? Well, for one thing you do so because clearly players are seldom going to automatically agree on what is in one another's best interests such that cooperation can eternally be tacit in nature. You don't know what is in one another's libraries, crypts, and hands (unknown information). You may each reckon differently in terms of what third parties will do when confronted by a given set of circumstances. Other differences in perspective. A much BETTER reason, however, is that although the benefits of cooperation in a certain respect may be clear to both parties, it frequently requires each player make choices to do so at discrete points in time. Even if the questions of trust and shared perspective don't exist, both players still may need assurances that the other views their cooperation in the same light and that the nature of the mutually advantageous behavior is understood to be the same by both parties. This is formalizing cooperation: aka "dealmaking" by your own definition. > You formalize cooperation because of information inequities or > because some players aren't (always) rational. To some extent, > the former is unavoidable as opponents won't know how you built > your deck or what you have in hand. But, quite a bit of the > inequity comes from the difference in ability of players to > read the game state. By capitalizing on that difference, you > make the formalization of cooperation relevant and produce flawed > play on the part of the person who shouldn't have made the deal. > And, obviously, irrational players produce flawed play. Although I obviously agree with some of your conclusions above, I don't agree with your overall conclusion. The issue is hardly comes down to "flawed play" because: 1) both players may well benefit from the cooperation; and 2) even if it turns out to be a mistake on the part of one player due to lack of knowledge he can't possibly have (what's in other players' deck and how each deck is ordered), that's hardly what I would call "flawed". Sometimes a bad deal is due to the result of a poor choice on the part of one or even both players. I would say that isn't the rule. > What I'm getting at is that good play removes any need to > formalize cooperation since it's ... good play. Having a > deal in place to do what you should have been doing in the first > place is redundant. Having a deal in place to do what you > shouldn't be doing is flawed play on someone's part. I disagree. It seems clear to me that players can and often do increase their chances of winning through explicit cooperation and furthermore, they do so in ways that are *not* zero sum in nature. That is, both players increase their chances of winning in the end. Thus, such explicit cooperation cannot be termed "flawed". Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<q8vnl0hgha4e5f3nb...@4ax.com>... > In message <c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>, > geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: > > > Then your prey is a fool who is not attempting to win, and your deck is > inferior because it did not include a means of dealing with a prey who > chooses to leave all his minions untapped -- such as Pentex Subversion, > Anarch Troublemaker, Mind Numb, etc. > Pentex Subversion, Anarch Troublemaker, Mind Numb, e.t.c. mean nothing in the long run, they can give you a small "edge", not oust a prey who is devoted to play defensively due to fear of mass 0-stealth bleeding. i am talking about general strategy, if you can ever understand what this is. > You cannot legislate against poor play; and you do not require a deal in > order to win from this situation. You just need to build your deck in a > fashion that it can WIN. > I know how to build a good deck, i don't think you can teach me. Dealmaking should be based on intelligence not on back-stabbing. > I call this collusion, and think players who do this are weak and > unskilled. You should learn to play, not learn to cheat. > cheat????????????? can you explain WHAT facts are supporting this conclusion of yours ? That is because if you can't support this claim of yours, then you are just a plain, pathetic slanderer. > >> > > i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed the > >traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. He said > >"you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my votes to > >burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i never had told > >him to do it... > > Collusion, clear and obvious. I would call you out on it on the spot. > Oh my god, you are so stupid, you are one of those stupid ones i was refering to, that is why you are so offensive and unfair with me.... Everybody involved in the above incident is very good friend to each other, we usually play for fun and it was during fun play and not tournament play... So, none had colluded with any other, we all had a laugh after the game and all your above accusations are fabrications of your twisted thing you call "brain". You should apologize to me for all the false accusations you have sent against me in your posting, i never did anything to provoke your childish behaviour. Then i will also apologize for calling you stupid, even when i am sure that you are. > If you can't win on your own, get your friends to help you cheat? I > don't think this is the proper way to play V:TES, and that's all there > is to it. You and the other player cheated and colluded. > You continue to falsly accuse me, based on the incident i have described, which incident involved me and my close-friends during fun play and not tournament play. You are so stupid you didn't got it, right ? > > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will > >teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from > >others to keep theirs..." > > i believe this is fair enough... > > I believe you are all a bunch of colluders, in violation of the rules. > Again, i shall only say that we are all friends, it was NOT tournament play, just ordinary-everyday-fun play, none had colluded with anyone else, we all had a laugh in the end and you continue to be stupid and crappy. Finaly and seriously, my conclusion is that you totaly misunderstood my posting, maybe you are not clever enough to understand what i was talkig about or maybe you are jumping on conclusions or maybe you just were in a mood to pick a fight. I am never in the mood of picking a fight, don't continue this "fight" and just know that i have responded in this manner to you, because i get furious when someone i don't know accuses me falsly of thing he has no knowledge of.-

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04093...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] we are all (the 4 playing) close-friends, it was an ordinary-fun-play and not tournament play and we had a laugh afterwards. If you break your deals often, then you should expect that others who contact deals with you will break them, too. I don't see anything wrong with this... Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep my word when i conduct my deals. Me and my playgroup are the only people playing jyhad in Thessaloniki, we have devoted a lot of time and more money in jyhad and we have decided to keep our word when we make a deal, because we like the game best this way. We don't have to play like a gentleman does, bu because we are, we do. It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So, please stop.

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0409...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, i have already thought of it, but i didn't want to mention, because i am in favour of keeping a deal. Additionaly this is not the case each time, e.g. an imaginary example, 3 players left in a game, each with one minion, so meth A torporizes meth's B minion and asks meth C, will you abstain at the forecoming blood-hunt if i diablerize meth's B minion ? meth C responds "yes". meth A diablerizes, then meth C "breaks" the deal and votes in favour of the destruction of meth's A only minion, so he wins... meth A and meth C had mutual benefit of the removal of meth B, but meth C had an additional benefit of the removal of both minions, so he could have won (if this wasn't an imaginary example) by betrayal... What do you think ?

"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com... > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<415b2f7a$0$6620$626a...@news.free.fr>... > > > everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 > > > occurences in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, > > > that were dealt in the appropriate manner. > > > > You killed the meth and burned his house to the ground ? Did you > > remember to drown his goldfish ? > > > i ate it, AND... in a game afterwards, a fewllow player screwed > the traitor in the same manner that the traitor had screwed me. > He said "you are free to diablerize this vampire i will not use my > votes to burn you..." and he did! he burned the traitor... And i > never had told him to do it... Had this been a VEKN tournament, this would be an indisputably clear case of collusion and (were I the judge) at least your friend and - if you had appeared to put him up to it or encourage it in any way - you would have been ejected. In fact, even had YOU been the one to screw the guy over again in a later game for no good "in-game" reason, you would be at risk of that penalty. (At lest that is my understanding of the collusion-to-alter-the- results-of-a-game rule.) Of course, that would be all dependent on making it clear that the reason for burning the traitor had to do with retribution and was not done for "in-game" reasons. IMHO, the declaration he made would be more than ample evidence of it, however. I only point this out FYI. I suppose if your playgroup chooses to play that way and thinks it's OK, who are we to say you can't. It always seems bad to me to practice in environments that are substantially different than the standard tournament environment. Fred

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.040930...@hagbard.io.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Remember that i am talking about fun-play and not tournament play, why spoil the game of 2 or more people by breaking a deal when you play just for fun... If in a playgroup deal-breaking is common, then i suppose that everyone has gotten used to it (be a stinkin traitor) and no harm is done. Personaly if this was the case with my playgroup, i would get angry, wouldn't make any deals and construct nasty Malkavian-dominate bleed decks to oust each and everyone just for fun. So, maybe that would teach some people, that when playing for fun, you should avoid behaviours that deprive the game's fun from others. As my Malkavian-dominate bleed deck, would oust in 5-6 turns my Brujah prey and deprive him of the fun of playing his deck, a meth breaking a deal and betraying me just to win a fun game, when i have never betrayed anyone would get me going... Remember it is a game, it is all about fun... That is why i don't like tournament play... i like everyday-fun-games better...

freak...@gmail.com (freakdrivr) wrote in message news:<5b657965.04093...@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will > > teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from > > others to keep theirs..." > > i believe this is fair enough... > > Boy you sure taught him a lesson? > > Do we NEED to put in the rulebook that the game is supposed to be FUN? > > anyway lighten up. > > your games might be a little more fun to play. > > i'm also jealous that you get to play so often. > > *anxiously awaiting CCG workshop's version* You misunderstood me... I didn't do anything, another guy betrayed the "traitor" that had betrayed me in a previous game... We are all good friends and we had a laugh afterwards...

In message <c6a50f81.0409...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: >"fight" and just know that i have responded in this manner to you, >because i get furious when someone i don't know accuses me falsly of >thing he has no knowledge of.- Cheater. Colluder. I hope I never play with you. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:<Hy27d.3592$mS1.2899@fed1read05>... [ quoted text not captured ] Your point of view is respected, but it was everyday-fun-gameplay and not a tournament. Something like this would never happen in a tournament.

niko...@hotmail.com (Nikolaj Wendt) wrote in message news:<22f564b8.04093...@posting.google.com>... > > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP > deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some > way... or just broken more regularly.. > you are right about the Vp deals, but one can't really "judge" a deal, because one would be really subjective and inspire a lot of complaining. > Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust > afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops > blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts > when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the > player to actually play to win. > maybe in some way, inspire offensive game by some means. > Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal > when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now". > Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to > actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals... > and the vp deals that actually survive would make more sense. > > Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he > still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to > honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference.. > only a matter of time. > BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to > oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules. > > It is very difficult to "rule" if one is possible to oust another. There's always a chance, some times marginal, but i am sure that you as I and as many others have witnessed some near miraculous ousts, that seemed impossible but was made. As if it was a Direct Intervention of God or Caine...

[ quoted text not captured ] I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of another player in detriment of your own position. From the description, I fail to see how this example qualifies, the 'avenging' player lost nothing by burning the 'traitor'. In fact in most cases it is a good idea to burn a diablerist at the blood hunt: you get rid of two opposing minions at no cost to you (and remember that even your current 'allies' are your future prey). OTOH, there are two main reasons not to do it: to maintain some kind of 'table balance', and to extract some kind of reward from the diablerist later on (even if it is not formalized as a deal). If the diablerist is a known deal-breaker, that's one less reason to keep him alive. I think one problem is: the rules say you can only make play decisions based on the current game, but it is unavoidable that the character of your opponents influences your decisions. This applies to deals most clearly, but also to other play decisions. Flux

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>... > Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep > my word when i conduct my deals. ... > It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your > deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my > playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So, > please stop. I think you are critisized because you feel superior because you dont break deals. If you betray someone because you want to win, its in the goal of the rules. If you betray someone because you want to punish him for breaking a deal (the last game, a year ago), its unsportsmanlike behaviour.

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0409...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Absolutely right. Write it on the walls: Dealbreaking is good for the game.

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.0409...@posting.google.com>... > Remember that i am talking about fun-play and not tournament play, > why spoil the game of 2 or more people by breaking a deal when you > play just for fun... Because most dirty deals arent fun for the other players. They are mostly impossible with the possibility of deal breaking. The most extreme example is the succubus club deal, to switch all vampires and the club every round with your ally. Thats the most dirty deal possible, its really NO fun for teh other players. And it is not possible, if you cannot trust the other player absolutely. Players that dont break deals ruin the game by making the most dirty deals possible.

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Good example. Lets see two diffenrent cases: 1st. Absolutely trustful players. A will diablerize B. No fun for B. 2nd. Backstabbing players. A will not agree with the deal, because he will fear to be betrayed. So B is not diablerized and can play. What is the better case.

niko...@hotmail.com (Nikolaj Wendt) wrote in message news:<22f564b8.04093...@posting.google.com>... > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP > deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some > way... or just broken more regularly.. Even VP Deals are sometimes necessary. Remember my first game in the Barcelona EC. I had Nosferatu/FOR combat, my prey Truejah. After two fights with him playing Lapse, me Skin of steel, we should have made a table splitting deal. We didnt, so Orpheus with Powerbleed won the table. Will you really disallow such a deal. > Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust > afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops > blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts > when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the > player to actually play to win. Abolish Withdrawing and some strange deals arent longer possible. Or tehy will not have the same points like regular play. BTW. We are judges, not gods. We can not force players to win, and we cannot play their game. > Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal > when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now". > Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to > actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals... You cannot force a player to make a deal, you cannot force him to break it. Sorry to say it, but its an absurd proposition. > Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he > still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to > honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference.. > only a matter of time. > BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to > oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules. Rules that cannot be forced, should not exist.

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> writes: > Yeah, what's this I see before my eyes???!!!! A post from The Dreaded > Coupe, Under Whose Irod Shod Boot the Kindred of England Formerly Groaned? > Post more, old friend... You've been missed. We haven't had anyone except > Derek to properly take people to task since you left for university... ;-) > How goes the pursuit of a higher intellect? Actually, it was a course change (English to Computer Science) to one where I had to pay attention that screwed things up mostly.[0] Then trying to catch up on a year of rgt-cj in a vaguely sane fashion is similarly fun. Good lord, you did have some fun arguments, didn't you? And I moved to London a couple of weeks a go and got a job and things. -- James Coupe [0] This is, in fact, a partial lie. But that's not important right now.

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] i've actually done almost exactly this [Meth B was Michael Eichler and Meth A was Rob Treasure], thereby winning a storyline tournament. Actually it was still a five-player table at that point and the diablerie was done by Amaranth, but these technical details need not obscure the main point. So, the answer to your question is that i think it can be a jolly good idea. Furthermore, Michael and Rob are amongst my very best vampiric friends, which is not to say that there wasn't the TEENSIEST little hiccup in our brotherliness over that particular piece of treachery ;-)

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.0409...@posting.google.com>... > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.040930...@hagbard.io.com>... > > On 30 Sep 2004, legbiter wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > if everyone > > > > starts breaking the deals, then people will cease making deals and > > > > then this good part of the game will cease to exist. > > > > > > > Not so, brother. Rather, people will make better deals, relying not on > > > trust but on mutual benefit. Try it! You'll be pleasantly surprised. > > > > This has been my experience playing in deal-breaking DC. We make deals > > all the time. We don't break them very often, but we consider > > deal-breaking to be an acceptable way to win. > > > > I had the experience recently of a player being shocked to learn that I'm > > not above breaking a deal here or there (or as I prefer to think of it, > > I'm above refusing to break deals). This player loudly (but not unkindly) > > spoke of how I should never be trusted and there would be no deals... > > > > ...and then proceded to make a mutually beneficial deal with me about 10 > > minutes later. > > > > Remember that i am talking about fun-play and not tournament play, > why spoil the game of 2 or more people by breaking a deal when you > play just for fun... Because if you break deals, the standard of play and of deal-making will both rise. Better games = more fun for all. If in a playgroup deal-breaking is common, then > i suppose that everyone has gotten used to it (be a stinkin traitor) > and no harm is done. Yep, there is a kinetic barrier to cross but the teritory beyond is worth attaining. > Personaly if this was the case with my playgroup, i would get > angry, wouldn't make any deals and construct nasty Malkavian-dominate > bleed decks to oust each and everyone just for fun. > So, maybe that would teach some people, that when playing for fun, > you should avoid behaviours that deprive the game's fun from others. > As my Malkavian-dominate bleed deck, would oust in 5-6 turns my Brujah > prey and deprive him of the fun of playing his deck, a meth breaking a > deal and betraying me just to win a fun game, when i have never > betrayed anyone would get me going... The other players would build better decks and crush your nasty deck. More fun for all! > > Remember it is a game, it is all about fun... > > That is why i don't like tournament play... i like everyday-fun-games > better... TOTALLY with you on this one, except that i like my fun games to be utterly ruthless and treacherous with the world's best players in tip-top form fielding their fiercest decks. Exception: it isn't desirable that everyone play cutthroat when testing new deck concepts, so if we are doing that we tend to spell it out in advance.

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<vkY6d.11996$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>... > "legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message > news:2b7d6dca022d9b4e397...@mygate.mailgate.org... > > <snip lengthy and elegant exposition of stuff i agree with> > > > > > > Also, hello and stuff. > > Yeah, what's this I see before my eyes???!!!! A post from The Dreaded > Coupe, Under Whose Irod Shod Boot the Kindred of England Formerly Groaned? <nitpick> that would be The Hated Coupe, Under Whose Iron Heel the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan <end nitpick> > Post more, old friend... You've been missed. Indeed! We haven't had anyone except > Derek to properly take people to task since you left for university... ;-) Ooooh boy .... and there are SOOO many new people on here now .... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<415c5722$0$23643$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] That's no coffin - it's a Fully Armed and Operational Deathstar!!!!!!

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: > I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding > this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of > another player in detriment of your own position. No, it doesn't. Collusion is: "Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the results of a game." This *does not* mean that they have to play to their detriment, necessarily. However, it can be extremely difficult to detect collusion if it isn't in such a fashion. After all, two players working well together to mutual benefit can look like perfectly reasonable play, whereas if I go hell for leather to give you all my pool and minions, it's going to be a little more obvious. Now, the difficult thing is whether "establish the results" can be applied to an interim thing, or just "Make that player lose" or even "Teach that player a lesson." The judge, of course, has discretion to rule on these things and may feel that outside conspiring to take retribution on a player for previous behaviour might constitute collusion. However, a player intentionally playing to oust someone other than his prey because (e.g.) he has a personal grudge against him of a serious nature (stole his girlfriend, killed his dog, whatever) would, to me, be more like Unsportsmanlike Conduct. By extension, I would be tempted to rule that a multiple player version of such would still be Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major. Example C is "refuses to play a game", this seems to be about the same level particularly given the co-operative (even if not necessarily collusive) nature of it. Obviously, a given situation would demand handling it based on the situation at the time. But, if challenged, I'd be unsure about being able to defend a Collusion allegation, whereas I would be much more certain of an Unsportsmanlike Conduct ruling. -- James Coupe

In message <fb7de752.04100...@posting.google.com>, x5m...@gmx.de (Decebalus) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] And, he's bragging about his unsportsmanlike behavior. Screwing one of your friends in a later game to "punish" him for breaking a deal, even if you weren't the one hurt by the dealbreak,... that's just weak, and it's lame, and it's all bad. And he pretends that it is the best thing ever and should be enforced by the rules? Oh, hell no. Someone does that to me, I probably never play with that person again, EVER. It's one thing to backstab me in a game to gain a VP; it's another thing entirely to front-stab me in a LATER game and say "It is because of what you did last Tuesday!"... and then pretend you have some moral high ground. Plleeeeeeease. Let's get perspective, folks. It's a game in a gothic, dark setting, about ancient vampires, intrigue, treachery, and betrayal. It is NOT a suitable game for those who must be Pillars of Honour(tm). And finally, we can look at Succubus Club: "...None are enforced by the rules." How much more clear can you be? Deal-breaking is encouraged. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3yhdpe7...@newred.gradwell.net>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: >Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: > >> I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding >> this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of >> another player in detriment of your own position. > >No, it doesn't. > >Collusion is: > >"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally >establish the results of a game." And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured about it." I feel quite justified in my assessment of 'collusion'. And I don't care if this happened in a tournament or in friendly play; I'd consider it to be WORSE in friendly play, because I, ya know, like to keep my friends and don't like pulling petty revenge out of my hat just because one of them made a good play to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >Collusion is: > > > >"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally > >establish the results of a game." > > And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place > that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later > games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured > about it." As I say, I'm merely worried about the term "results". It is perfectly arguable that "We will make him lose" is just as valid a collusive plan as "We will let you win and share the money when you win the final." I'd be extremely unlikely to really quibble over the finer points of the discipline with another judge who ruled that way, I might merely be a little more cautious in my own ruling. Of course, were it truly blatant rigging ("We will make him lose") rather than something a little more "We'll take a few pops at him, to show him what's what and how we do things round here", I'd probably move much more happily towards a ruling of collusion as the term "results" would clearly figure in my response. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

"Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message news:c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think it is great that you play with your friends. I honestly hope you build your group. The problem is that by socially rewarding and socially punishing players for plays in the last game is overt manipulation not related to the game itself. Let me ask you, if you don' t mind, how many new players do you have? > Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep > my word when i conduct my deals. If you didn't think you were going to be criticized, then shouldn't have piped up here. ;P But in all seriousness, maintaining strick adherance to deals and punishing "dealbreakers" creates a culture that is actually anti-"new player" or "visiting player". When you play with people from other playgroups, you trust your own playgroup's players more than you do the other playgroup's players. Intentional or not, this is a form of collusion. > Me and my playgroup are the only people playing jyhad in > Thessaloniki, we have devoted a lot of time and more money in jyhad > and we have decided to keep our word when we make a deal, because we > like the game best this way. I think that is good that you enjoy the game. I think you would enjoy it more and would grow your group if you took that gentleman's rule and tossed it out the window. > We don't have to play like a gentleman does, bu because we are, we > do. > It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your > deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my > playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So, > please stop. Can't....stop....must.... The problem is that I am more than willing to take any criticism you can dish out about being a "dealbreaker", but in the light pseudo-honesty that you espouse, I must be critical, because my silence could be construed as an endorsement of your position. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <3yhdpe7...@newred.gradwell.net>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: > >>Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >> >> >>>I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding >>>this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of >>>another player in detriment of your own position. >> >>No, it doesn't. >> >>Collusion is: >> >>"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally >>establish the results of a game." Right, I apologise for the error, I was thinking from a pratical point of view only. LSJ: >>>>> Collusion is, in my estimation, making pre-game deals or making "losing" deals. >>>>> As you stated in your post, it is very hard to prove collusion when none of the players sacrifice anything by the deal, so in pratice most cases of collusion are judged by my definition above. > And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place > that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later > games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured > about it." There was no predetermined agreement. The action was taken unilaterally by a single player, the remaining players had no weight no that decision. Another LSJ quote: >>>>> > >Making (and honoring) deals (or not) based on some idea > >of trustworthiness of a given player (which may be > >impacted by a reputation as a deal-breaker)? Yes. > > So that what happens in a game is not just based upon the game itself, > it is also based upon conversations which took place prior to that > game. Collusion. Incorrect. There is no a priori arrangement => no collusion. At any rate, it is impossible (not merely difficult) to regulate how players evaluate trustworthiness of other players, assuming one would want to (which, IMO, is a bad idea to begin with). >>>>> This seems to be the case here: one player broke a deal based on his idea of untrustworthiness of another player. It may be ruled unsportsmanlike in some cases, but given that the player most likely got some game advantage out of his actions, I don't think even in a tournament setting you could clearly call this play illegal. I certainly don't see how you can be sure of that judgement from the posted description. > I feel quite justified in my assessment of 'collusion'. And I don't > care if this happened in a tournament or in friendly play; I'd consider > it to be WORSE in friendly play, because I, ya know, like to keep my > friends and don't like pulling petty revenge out of my hat just because > one of them made a good play to win. And what makes you assume the original play was a 'good play to win' and the repeat wasn't? Flux

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>... > freak...@gmail.com (freakdrivr) wrote in message news:<5b657965.04093...@posting.google.com>... > > > > > > > > > After he voted to burn the traitor's Gratiano, he said... "this will > > > teach you to keep your word and if you don't, then don't expect from > > > others to keep theirs..." > > > i believe this is fair enough... > > > > Boy you sure taught him a lesson? > > > > Do we NEED to put in the rulebook that the game is supposed to be FUN? > > > > anyway lighten up. > > > > your games might be a little more fun to play. > > > > i'm also jealous that you get to play so often. > > > > *anxiously awaiting CCG workshop's version* > > You misunderstood me... I didn't do anything, another guy betrayed > the "traitor" that had betrayed me in a previous game... > We are all good friends and we had a laugh afterwards... i understood you and i appreciate you taking a lot of flak for what you wrote what i don't think is right at all is that another guy betrayed the traitor because the traitor betrayed you in a previous game that is plain wrong deals and deal making and deal breaking are part of V:TES i understand you all are friends and that's great that you have that comraderie however, if those 2 games were tournament games that move (betrayal) would be an out of game consideration meaning he burnt gratiano because the "traitor" broke his deal in a previous game jds

> Good example. Lets see two diffenrent cases: > 1st. Absolutely trustful players. A will diablerize B. No fun for B. > 2nd. Backstabbing players. A will not agree with the deal, because he > will fear to be betrayed. So B is not diablerized and can play. > > What is the better case. 1st case is better why just because stefan

(snip stuff that is becoming too personnal, both ways) > Let's get perspective, folks. It's a game in a gothic, dark setting, > about ancient vampires, intrigue, treachery, and betrayal. It is NOT a > suitable game for those who must be Pillars of Honour(tm). Right ! Dammit. Anyone who played RPG or, worse, LRPG will know that. I'll quote the Great Will : "- What is Honour ? - A Word. - Who hath it ? - He that died of wednesday." If that is true in Shaekspearian setting, it is even more so in the W.O.D. The Methuselahs ally themselves only when constricted to, and change alliances as soon as necessary. Picture, if you will, the Italian Court under the Borgias, or the intrigues under Louis XIV, and you will get a nice view of how trustful we can be of other vampires... > And finally, we can look at Succubus Club: "...None are enforced by the > rules." How much more clear can you be? Deal-breaking is encouraged. > > -- Derek If only everyone understood it like that and didn't introduce alien and stupid notions to it !! Nonetheless, I believe that a stronger incentive to earn every VP (like a "maximize your VPs to the end" modified rule) we'd see less useless deals (the ones for VOs, the ones that kill the games). The rest, I guess, is up to every playgroup. And the eventual "roleplay" they want to introduce. But one thing must be understood : WE ARE NOT WHAT WE PLAY !!! In real life, I am not a manipulative bastard who won't hesitate to stomp on anyone to achieve his goals. Quite the opposite, AAMOF. Which is why it's so great to play VTES... ;-) ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

> TOTALLY with you on this one, except that i like my fun games to be > utterly ruthless and treacherous with the world's best players in > tip-top form fielding their fiercest decks. I don't remember ever playing at your place ??? ;-) ------------ Modest Orpheus

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7dlpl092stj5pk5rv...@4ax.com>... > In message <c6a50f81.0409...@posting.google.com>, > geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: > > >"fight" and just know that i have responded in this manner to you, > >because i get furious when someone i don't know accuses me falsly of > >thing he has no knowledge of.- > > Cheater. > Colluder. > > I hope I never play with you. > If you play with me, you will lose and i won't even have to make any deals with anybody to manage that. I hope i play with you, someday :) until we meet then, in the battlefield...

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:3yhdpe7...@newred.gradwell.net... > Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: > > > I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion > > regarding this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to > > the benefit of another player in detriment of your own position. > > No, it doesn't. > > Collusion is: > > "Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally > establish the results of a game." > > This *does not* mean that they have to play to their detriment, > necessarily. However, it can be extremely difficult to detect > collusion if it isn't in such a fashion. After all, two players > working well together to mutual benefit can look like perfectly > reasonable play, whereas if I go hell for leather to give you all > my pool and minions, it's going to be a little more obvious. > > Now, the difficult thing is whether "establish the results" can be > applied to an interim thing, or just "Make that player lose" or > even "Teach that player a lesson." Oh, I don't think that's a difficult choice at all! You absolutely can NOT have players doing stuff like that in a tournament and here's why: if people are made to feel that their chances of winning games and tournaments are distinctly screwed over BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS, that's very bad! If your tournament environment permits this, then it will discourage participation ("Why should I even play if players are gunning for me before the game's even started?") for no good reason. In the situation described (assuming it had been a tournament, not in informal play), the "victim" would have good reason to feel his chances of winning subsequent games were diminished. There's no question that tournament organizers/ judges have to protect against that kind of thing. The nebulous issue might come up if the 'punisher' had not declared his reasons for doing what he did when he did it. Of course, had he not done so, than the efficacy of his 'punishment' would have been considerably diminished if not completely obvlivated. > The judge, of course, has discretion to rule on these things and > may feel that outside conspiring to take retribution on a player > for previous behaviour might constitute collusion. It's clearly collusion. The judge has latitude about whether it consititutes illegal collusion, i.e. "collusion to alter the results of a game" (which is rather ambiguous in certain respects). But I think it really has to in order to avoid a potentially very bad situation and maintain the integrity of VEKN tournaments. Fred

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04100...@posting.google.com>... > "Jyhad_addict" <geo...@for.auth.gr> wrote in message > >> > >> Just because this is a gentleman's game (i.e. no money involved), it > >> doesn't mean you have to play like a gentleman. > > > > we are all (the 4 playing) close-friends, it was an > > ordinary-fun-play and not tournament play and we had a laugh > > afterwards. > > If you break your deals often, then you should expect that others > > who contact deals with you will break them, too. > > I don't see anything wrong with this... > > I think it is great that you play with your friends. I honestly hope you > build your group. The problem is that by socially rewarding and socially > punishing players for plays in the last game is overt manipulation not > related to the game itself. Let me ask you, if you don' t mind, how many > new players do you have? > that happened only once, we were just us and word of it never got out, because none of us took it for an important "story" to share with anyone, so you can't claim that this particular incident can discourage new players. We don't have many new players, but the jyhad community in thessaloniki counts almost 15 members, maybe more, while in Athens (the capital of Greece) jyhad is dead. Also consider that Thessaloniki has a population of almost 1 million including the superbs and Athens almost 6. The fact that there are not many new players is due to other factors and i need a vast posting or multiple ones to explain what these factors are. > > Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep > > my word when i conduct my deals. > > If you didn't think you were going to be criticized, then shouldn't have > piped up here. ;P > ok, no problem, criticize me. I will keep honouring my deals when i make them, because i can see in the future with a lot of success and agree only to deals that help me seriously. You can keep breaking yours in order to gather some more VPs, there is no problem with me, i don't really mind. > But in all seriousness, maintaining strick adherance to deals and punishing > "dealbreakers" creates a culture that is actually anti-"new player" or > "visiting player". When you play with people from other playgroups, you > trust your own playgroup's players more than you do the other playgroup's > players. Intentional or not, this is a form of collusion. > The collusion is only in your mind, i choose to trust whoever i want and i don't need anyone to tell me what kind of deal i will make and with whom, because "there are no rules concerning deals". true or false ? The deals i make are beneficial to all parties involved, i always keep my word and i play by the rules, trying to maximize my VPs and not make crapy deals to earn a VP and then just stand there doing nothing waiting for my predator to oust me, because he proposed me a deal to get a VP and then practicaly lose the game. I would never accept a deal to get a VP and then let him oust me, i have done many unbelievable ousts, when other players watching never bewlieved that could be made. It takes patience, cunning, good timing and skill. And i am not the only one who has these qualities, there are a lot out there. Maybe more than you think. If one has not confidence in his skill and decides to accept a deal to gain 1 VP and then be ousted, when he can use a different strategy and risk getting from zero to 3 VPs (and a GW), then it is not my problem. i just don't think in this way, i try to win in every situation, until my pool is zero. > > Me and my playgroup are the only people playing jyhad in > > Thessaloniki, we have devoted a lot of time and more money in jyhad > > and we have decided to keep our word when we make a deal, because we > > like the game best this way. > > I think that is good that you enjoy the game. I think you would enjoy it > more and would grow your group if you took that gentleman's rule and tossed > it out the window. > I and none other has ever enforced such rules, you have got the wrong idea, we haven't even discussed the "deal" subject. We just never break "deals", so i suppose that every single player has decided by his own to play this game like a "gentleman". I guess we like to win in such a way this game, maybe next time we meet to play (we play 4-6 days/week) i'll bring on the subject and ask anyone how he feels about breaking-deals, i'll inform you. > > We don't have to play like a gentleman does, bu because we are, we > > do. > > It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your > > deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my > > playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So, > > please stop. > > Can't....stop....must.... > My above comment was just to play with the "words", i don't mind playing with players that i know that they sometimes break deals, however don't expect from me to easily make a deal with him. And if i make one, i'll make sure that he believes i will keep my word, back-stabbing him when i can benefit from it and gain the GW. Yeah, i would turn these "dirty" tricks against him... > The problem is that I am more than willing to take any criticism you can > dish out about being a "dealbreaker", but in the light pseudo-honesty that > you espouse, I must be critical, because my silence could be construed as an > endorsement of your position. it is not pseudo-honesty, i keep my word when i know that the player i am dealing with, keeps his. it is not pseudo-honesty, it is the logical thing to do. A screwed (by a deal-partner) meth can be easily enraged and ruin the "traitor"'s game by some means.

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:2s5404F...@uni-berlin.de... > There was no predetermined agreement. The action was taken > unilaterally by a single player, the remaining players had no > weight no that decision. Yea, but unfortunately, what's important about it is that it's a predetermined thing. Everyone's chances of winning a game need to be essentially equal (apart from their choice of decks, strategy, and abilities that is - stuff that is _supposed_ to decide the outcome of a game) before it starts. If it isn't, you have a distinct problem. Doesn't matter that the intent is not specifically to bring advantage to one or more of the players. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:3ybrfm7...@newred.gradwell.net... > Of course, were it truly blatant rigging ("We will make him lose") > rather than something a little more "We'll take a few pops at him, > to show him what's what and how we do things round here", I'd > probably move much more happily towards a ruling of collusion as > the term "results" would clearly figure in my response. I don't see how you can conclude that it's OK to take *any* 'pops' at another player before the game begins. Fred

x5m...@gmx.de (Decebalus) wrote in message news:<fb7de752.04100...@posting.google.com>... > geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.04093...@posting.google.com>... > > Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep > > my word when i conduct my deals. > ... > > It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your > > deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my > > playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So, > > please stop. > > I think you are critisized because you feel superior because you dont > break deals. If you betray someone because you want to win, its in > the goal of the rules. If you betray someone because you want to > punish him for breaking a deal (the last game, a year ago), its > unsportsmanlike behaviour. I agree with you, but i will also point out that in the incident i have described, both the "1st traitor" and the "2nd traitor", always keep their word, but they "broke the deal" just so everyone else could have a look at the "???????" in the "screwed" meth's face and we really laughed a lot. That is because none expected it, as there were and they are not any other such incidents. You just got wrongly what i described and you misunderstood the incetives of the persons involved. Lighten up...

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3kiql05gnsgbq5j5v...@4ax.com>... > In message <fb7de752.04100...@posting.google.com>, > x5m...@gmx.de (Decebalus) mumbled something about: > > > And, he's bragging about his unsportsmanlike behavior. Screwing one of > your friends in a later game to "punish" him for breaking a deal, even > if you weren't the one hurt by the dealbreak,... that's just weak, and > it's lame, and it's all bad. And he pretends that it is the best thing > ever and should be enforced by the rules? Oh, hell no. Someone does > that to me, I probably never play with that person again, EVER. It's > one thing to backstab me in a game to gain a VP; it's another thing > entirely to front-stab me in a LATER game and say "It is because of what > you did last Tuesday!"... and then pretend you have some moral high > ground. Plleeeeeeease. > You still don't get it, do you ? I didn't "punish" the other player, nor the person who did it, did it to punish him. They both "broke" the same kind of deal, just so they could look at the "screwed" meth's face and we could all laugh, as none of this ever had happened or has happened before. You keep on bringing on stupid accusations and saying stupid things, if you read my previous postings, you'll see that i have already said that my opinion on this thread is: "Don't make any rules concerning deals, leave the current rule, that states that there are no rules concerning deals, as it is". I just said that i enjoy playing with players that keep their part of the deal. That's they way i like it, so stop pissing me off with your childish behaviour. > Let's get perspective, folks. It's a game in a gothic, dark setting, > about ancient vampires, intrigue, treachery, and betrayal. It is NOT a > suitable game for those who must be Pillars of Honour(tm). > > And finally, we can look at Succubus Club: "...None are enforced by the > rules." How much more clear can you be? Deal-breaking is encouraged. > Not encouraged, just allowed. If you like to Role-play your deck then you got it all wrong. Play Vampire the RPG, not jyhad. The fact that vampires betray each other in the RPG and their alliances are fragile, doesn't mean that you are encouraged to do so. You are allowed to do this and you are free to, i don't mind, just know that i will get extremely great pleasure to hear that you lost a tournament, because your deal-partner fucked you up, broke the deal and got the GW. :)

In message <c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: > You are allowed to do this and you are free to, i don't mind, just >know that i will get extremely great pleasure to hear that you lost a >tournament, because your deal-partner fucked you up, broke the deal >and got the GW. :) I do not make foolish deals, nor do I put myself in positions where someone can break a deal to oust me. I must cheer Nikolaj Wendt here, however, for seeing that he was about to be dealt off the table, making a better offer, and then CRUSHING his opponents who forgot that it was a card game, and were too trusting. Plus, I build decks that can win. One of the questions you must answer when building your deck is: What will I do if my prey leaves all his minions untapped? If your deck cannot answer that question, it is weak. If its only answer is "make deals", it is weak. Play like you got a pair, not like you've got to collude. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

[ quoted text not captured ] But a level playing field almost never happens. In any game where players have some previous knowledge of their opponents this knowledge will influence the way they play. It's an unavoidable part of the game. Flux

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<quiql0d0b0tjh4eov...@4ax.com>... > In message <3yhdpe7...@newred.gradwell.net>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> mumbled something about: > > >Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: > > > >> I am somewhat surprised to see all the calls of collusion regarding > >> this event. Collusion means intentionally playing to the benefit of > >> another player in detriment of your own position. > > > >No, it doesn't. > > > >Collusion is: > > > >"Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally > >establish the results of a game." > > And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place > that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later > games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured > about it." > were you an eye-witness ? am i missing something here ? i told you, that we all laughed afterwards in both cases, stop being a bitch. We never punished any player, both did it to bring some laughs to the company. > I feel quite justified in my assessment of 'collusion'. And I don't > care if this happened in a tournament or in friendly play; I'd consider > it to be WORSE in friendly play, because I, ya know, like to keep my > friends and don't like pulling petty revenge out of my hat just because > one of them made a good play to win. > (he didn't win) I believe you are just being bitchy, because i called you stupid for jumping to conclusions (like a monkey) and falsly accusing me of collusion. Anyway, call it what you like, but i hadn't any part in it, so i might as well "bring" you the guy, a friend of mine, who burned the "traitor" and "lectured" him in order to give us a laugh. And when i bring him in front of you, you and the rest like you, who are easy to judge and eager to condemn just to look supperior, are free to wear your special JJC (Jyhad Judges' Clan) hoods, judge him, condemn him for collusion and then torch him in the name of your wise insight of the incident... what do you say ?

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:2s6b2sF...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] In the purest sense, it is an unavoidable part of the game, I agree. If you know from prior play that one guy will break a deal at the drop of a hat but another guy will keep one to the death, you will play differently against each when he is one of your opponents. Still, there's a distinction between such things as how much you will trust a person vs. deliberately deciding that you will attempt to do something bad to that person before you've even started the game. The unavoidable things are, well, unavoidable. But the other stuff can and should still be illegal for reasons I gave in my previous post. Fred

On 1 Oct 2004 17:36:52 -0700, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Guilty. Burn, heretic.

On 1 Oct 2004 13:03:15 -0700, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So, now he did it, not to poke the other guy for his earlier behaviour, but to see his face when he is screwed? I cant help laughing, no.

> "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > > > NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips : > > "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should > > be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something > > which doesn't exist, right ? > > If we assume that that premise is true (which I'm not commenting on > for now), how would you propose to rule against deals? I and some other people have already made several proposals in this thread. Maybe you didn't have to time to read them yet. > As LSJ pointed out recently, there are many different kinds of deals > and the ones which seem to cause most problems are the ones that are > perceived as spoiling other people's "fun, or somesuch". As far as I'm concerned, the only deals that make me throw up are the deals for VPs, because of their "final" aspect (if respected, which seems very important to some people). I have no trouble whatsoever with temporary deals, which always give you the possibility to change your mind and always the necessity to optimize your VPs. > Additionally, it's intrinsic to some facets of the game - politics > particularly - that deals of some kind will have to be struck. If I > don't split my KRC three to my prey and one to your prey (perhaps, on > a five player table, you're my grand-prey and he's my grand-predator), > you're going to vote it down, particularly if you're suspecting that > (say) I'm going to Cryptic Rider it. At least you get something out > of it this way. See above. It would be stupid to take away this great part of the game, which may be the single reason why it is the greatest of all CCGs. > I'll leave to one side the problem of situations where I do sacrifice > something short term, but for a similarly short term gain e.g. I'll > pass that KRC for you, even though it does hurt me a bit now, but it > lines me up for a kill on my prey. Or even "Okay, I'll give you those > votes." But... it's worth bearing in mind that some of these can be > seen as deals, and if you want to draw a line between a "deal" and > cross-table negotiation, you're going to need to start drawing general > principles for some judgement-oriented help. Where does that line get > drawn? To where people start not optimizing, even if they have already won the GW ; or where two or more players collide "legally" to ruin the game for all the others towards a predestined ending ; or where people start discarding cards without playing them, or not playing the game and waiting for time limit. In other words : I want to play this game, not a silly caricature of it. > So, as two political decks, we're going to need to have some sort of > long term negotiations. Now, you could say that a good player would > be including Closed Session (or similar) - but that's not necessarily > the point. Perfectly reasonable situations can occur where two people > are, in fact, playing largely contradictory styles. Say, we're both > playing a 1/2 Ventrue Law Firm. We may well need to co-operate over > votes, we may well need to co-operate over who brings out which > vampires. "Hey, is that Arika? She's got nine blood on her. It's > just I have two vamps here, and one's Queen Anne and the other's Arika > and I don't want to contest or waste my transfers." > > Of course, the other VLF player can lie through their teeth and try > and screw me over (or feign innocence - the "Bugger, I've been > transferring to the wrong vampire" face is worth practising). But if > he doesn't - and he's possibly of the opinion that working together > where it's mutually beneficial is better than clash of the titans - > then we have a long term negotiating point going on. > > > The point of all this setup is... Is that a deal that spoils other > people's fun, or is that a deal which doesn't, or is it a deal in the > first place? After all, repeated negotiation may *not* be a deal. > > (The above strikes me as good play, totally valid. But that's just my > opinion.) It is mine also. Under the condition that no table split is made. Then, when and if it comes to that, those two players will clash anyway and one will remain once the dust settles. Two political decks uniting, players avoiding contest, players agreeing to get the Malk out of the table, voters / bleeders getting rid of the rusher, all that is perfectly valid game : because it is acting temporarily together for a common goal. Anyone can and will change its mind at any time, and, more important, the game remains suspenseful and everyone can keep on playing to the best of his ability. > Would it make any difference if the two of us were playing, say, > Euro-ish-Brujah and I negotiated to bring out Donal and Anvil, and you > to bring out Constanza and Volker? No. (snip lots of precise examples of non-table-splitting deals) > So where can you rule against these "deals" in general? I think by now you understand what I mean. If you wish more precisions, feel free to ask. > > Good players don't need deals to do what they must. > > > > Bad players don't need deals to screw a table. > > I think these are both invalid premises, in that they're generalised > principles which fail to take into account individual situations. > > I'm on a table playing, say, a Baltimore Purge deck. Eat vampires, > destroy them. Now, this is going to incur the wrath of the whole > table most likely (save for a few ally decks, but leave that out of it > - it's very unlikely, but it's still a remote possibility). So you > could say that as a "good" player, I shouldn't have played that deck. BP decks are, I know from experience, very hard to play : getting the win and not just screwing the table requires careful setting and good play. You'll notice I said nothing about incurring table wrath being a proof of a bad deck. Risky, but it can sometimes be worth it. > But, move on to a far more innocuous deck. It just happens that it's > the antithesis of my predator and prey - for a casual example, let's > say I'm playing a very fast combat deck, and they can't deal with it > at all. So they need to get me ousted. First, is that a deal from > their point of view? As the prey, I really, really, really don't care > that my grand-predator gets a VP out of this - I need that deck off > the table, RIGHT NOW. Agreed. As I said, it's perfectly valid play : both player will get somthing out of this. Dealing with each other will wait until then. Now, if there was a deal for VPs at this point, we'd get on to a planned and annoying game. OTOH, I would find it normal to ask of the future predator a few turns a respite, or some kind of payback ; of course nothing prevents him from not accepting or not keeping his word. > Here, we can't really say that it's my fault per se. As a good > player, I just happened to have picked a deck and two average players > (though their skill doesn't necessarily come into it) happen to have > decks that are very vulnerable to it. So two players really need me > off the table. Agreed. (snip more examples towards same end ; sorry, I just don't have the time, and I don't think it's necessary to explain these specific examples as you now have a more precise idea of my real thoughts on the matter). > > But deals certainly encourage making wrong decisions and ruining some games > > for one meager VP. > > It can. But what about the situations where the *right* decision is > to go with that deal? How do you propose to stop people winning > through good play? I don't know if we're talking table-splitting here. I'll never want to stop people from playing well !! But I want them to play to the end. > > Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal" > > should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, right > > ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and not > > take the other players' potential for VPs away. > > No, this isn't true in either respect. (There may be some situations > where it is - probably lots - but it's not universally true.) > > The classic example of this has often been two hard combat decks > sitting next to each other. As a matter of fact, it is the classical "only" example where deals seem totally necessary. Well, let me tell you that as a judge I ruled against a splitting deal in just such a situation. The players wanted to deal VPs in the first 15 minutes of the game. I ruled against it again later in the game. And I was proved right : they played well with temporary deals, and at one point one was able to sweep (but didn't because he had promised one turn of respite) and later on it was the other that won (although the second combat deck finally made 0). How did they achieve that ? By careful and intelligent play rather than predetermining the issue of the table in the first rounds of the game, which would have been boring for everyone. So : deals are not always a fatality. > (Indeed, this was one of the situations > that brought about the Table Win rulings, based on much bitching about > such situations. The TW rule provides incentives for both of the > combat decks to want to be on the 4 side of that deal, however, which > may make the deal harder to broker.) Sometimes they will have to work together towards that goal. No need to split the table. Also, shit can happen (anti-deck etc) where you won't make a single VP without deal, but then that, as you pointed earlier, can happen to any deck. There are of course safeguards : you may, depending on your deck, include ways to change places, to immobilize or burn a vampire, a few stealth cards in a fight deck (Swallowed for Assamites), etc. Good players always include a Plan B. Great players can include a Plan C and sometimes D without de-optimizing their decks. > I have a combat deck, you (my prey) also have a combat deck. I need > to bleed through you, and to do that, I want to destroy your vampires. > (There's nothing wrong so far, this is classic rush deck stuff.) > > However, to destroy your vampires, I need to go into combat. You can > hit back. You probably will hit back. > > Now, assuming that we're both playing a combat deck that's largely > offense with only a little defence, it could work out that we'll > mutually annihilate each other. (The canny Gangrel fortitude player > may be in a very different situation, of course.) Say, it's two (very > different) Brujah combat decks that are going to destroy each other. > You're playing Euro-Brujah mostly, I'm doing something fun with Group > 3, say. Or Brujah vs Tzimisce - we both have a little damage > prevention/avoidance floating around (e.g. Sideslip, various little > bits of Vicissitude), but we're both conscious that the deck probably > doesn't have a whole lot. > > However, the specific example doesn't matter too much - we can both > find situations where combat decks next to each other will annihilate > each other. Agreed, of course. > Now, if they're the last two decks on the table, it's > likely that one will last a little longer than the other and find > itself able to bleed out the other player with a copy of Hasina Kesi > over multiple turns and a well-timed copy of Fame. LOL. > But on a five player table, both of us will probably die and my > predator will destroy me, then you. 0 VPs each. And you probably > can't get a single VP because I'm killing your vampires. > > So, we're both in a situation of 0 VP. (This can happen.) Yes. OR : you could agree to get soft for a while, and both build up. Depending on your decks, you'll each go your way, or pool, or whatever. Then, with play, some strange situations may arise : like one where you prey has tapped all of his vampires and has no way to Wake, or he has exhausted the Combat cards you were so afraid of against other players, or some cards go round and your way (Anarch Troublemaker ?) or a Vote deck changes places, or someone proposes an alliance (you'll notice I spoke of no deal here) to you towards a mutual goal, etc. This game is never frozen, especially with good players, and that's what I love so much about it. > If I can convince you to take the deal whereby you oust your prey, > then I sweep the table, I'm playing for a TW. You can't get a TW, so > the deal still allows you to maximise your VPs. (Of course, someone > else might be able to offer you a *better* deal - but you're not > obliged to take it, if you think they're lying etc.) > > So, from 0 VPs you get 1 VP. From 0 VPs, I get a TW and 4 VPs. > > Classically, it gets split 3-2 (you get the rest of the table and roll > over for me to get my pound of flesh), but various reasons might > convince you to take my deal, which is still an improvement on 0. > > You don't have to take the deal, but if we allow that we're both > pretty sure we're going to kill each other (small tournament, played > each other before, single table tournament etc.) which is far from > impossible with two meaty combat decks, the deal isn't illegal. Sure. But there can still be other ways. Say you both begin to destroy the table : some other players at some point may propose other solutions to you. Now, if you've already dealt for VPs, and, say, you want to keep your word, this possibility is over and the game is boring ; if you just agreed on some turn-after-turn strategies, you can trade alliances without even "breaking" your word. > And - as above - you try explaining to the player that he can't get a > TW that way, and has to get 0 VP instead, even though an in-game, > non-collusive piece of play allows him to do so without requiring > another player to worsen their expected outcome based on the table at > hand. Working for a while towards a common goal can be acceptable. Determining the fate of the table isn't. Welcome back, Orpheus

In message <2s5404F...@uni-berlin.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: > >> And in this case, there is clearly a predetermined agreement in place >> that "people who break deals will be punished by the table in later >> games, even at the cost of someone's own position, and then lectured >> about it." > >There was no predetermined agreement. The action was taken unilaterally by a >single player, the remaining players had no weight no that decision. The original poster's words: " Me and everyone in my playgroup always keeps his word, we had 2-3 occurences in the past, where a meth backed out from a deal, that were dealt in the appropriate manner." That, to me, sounds like a predetermined agreement that players who back out from deals Will Be Punished(tm). Put whatever pretty face on it you want, but it looks to me like a particularly bad form of social pressure. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com>, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: > And when i bring him in front of you, you and the rest like you, who >are easy to judge and eager to condemn just to look supperior, are >free to wear your special JJC (Jyhad Judges' Clan) hoods, judge him, >condemn him for collusion and then torch him in the name of your wise >insight of the incident... what do you say ? If he does that bullshit in a tournament I'm judging, ESPECIALLY following it up with his pretentious little speech about "you deserved it", he's ejected for out-of-game considerations and collusion. If he does that in a casual game, I never play with him again. I don't have time to waste on people who focus on petty revenge. That's what I say to that. How bout them apples, kid? [ quoted text not captured ]

geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote in message news:<c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com>... > I believe you are just being bitchy, because i called you stupid > for > jumping to conclusions (like a monkey) and falsly accusing me of > collusion. Relax. We are not "judging" your playgroup, we are not judging your behaviour. We are only discussing, what would be the case, if that behaviour happens in a tournament. You can call yourselfs "assholes" in private games, i dont care. But if you do it in a tournament i am judging i will give you a warning.

> that happened only once, we were just us and word of it never got > out, because none of us took it for an important "story" to share with > anyone, so > you can't claim that this particular incident can discourage new > players. > We don't have many new players, but the jyhad community in > thessaloniki > counts almost 15 members, maybe more, while in Athens (the capital of > Greece) jyhad is dead. Also consider that Thessaloniki has a > population of almost 1 million including the superbs and Athens almost > 6. > The fact that there are not many new players is due to other > factors and i need a vast posting or multiple ones to explain what > these factors are. I can tell you that unwritten rules are a major barrier to entry into VTES for many new players. You should examine how pervasive your "must uphold all deals" is. >> > Finaly, i never expected that i would be criticized, because i keep >> > my word when i conduct my deals. >> >> If you didn't think you were going to be criticized, then shouldn't have >> piped up here. ;P >> > > ok, no problem, criticize me. I will keep honouring my deals when i > make them, because i can see in the future with a lot of success and > agree only to deals that help me seriously. You can keep breaking > yours in order to gather some more VPs, there is no problem with me, i > don't really mind. Then you are handicapping yourself, don't handicap your group as well. >> But in all seriousness, maintaining strick adherance to deals and >> punishing >> "dealbreakers" creates a culture that is actually anti-"new player" or >> "visiting player". When you play with people from other playgroups, you >> trust your own playgroup's players more than you do the other playgroup's >> players. Intentional or not, this is a form of collusion. >> > > The collusion is only in your mind, i choose to trust whoever i > want and i don't need anyone to tell me what kind of deal i will make > and with whom, because "there are no rules concerning deals". true or > false ? This is True in the rulebook and False, apparently, in the Thesalonniki playgroup. >> I think that is good that you enjoy the game. I think you would enjoy it >> more and would grow your group if you took that gentleman's rule and >> tossed >> it out the window. >> > > I and none other has ever enforced such rules, you have got the > wrong idea, we haven't even discussed the "deal" subject. We just > never break "deals", so i suppose that every single player has decided > by his own to play this game like a "gentleman". > I guess we like to win in such a way this game, maybe next time we > meet to play (we play 4-6 days/week) i'll bring on the subject and ask > anyone how he feels about breaking-deals, i'll inform you. Sounds good. Skullduggery is fun. >> > We don't have to play like a gentleman does, bu because we are, we >> > do. >> > It's that simple... i don't cticisize you people that break your >> > deals, do what you like, but it is outrageous to criticize me and my >> > playgroup for being honest one to another when making deals. So, >> > please stop. >> >> Can't....stop....must.... >> > > My above comment was just to play with the "words", i don't mind > playing with players that i know that they sometimes break deals, > however don't expect from me to easily make a deal with him. If you are hinging your deals on the credability of the other player, then you should understand that you are going to be greatly upset when you offer a generous deal to a "trustworthy" player and get shafted. Forewarned is forearmed. > And if i make one, i'll make sure that he believes i will keep my > word, back-stabbing him when i can benefit from it and gain the GW. > Yeah, i would turn these "dirty" tricks against him... > > >> The problem is that I am more than willing to take any criticism you can >> dish out about being a "dealbreaker", but in the light pseudo-honesty >> that >> you espouse, I must be critical, because my silence could be construed as >> an >> endorsement of your position. > > it is not pseudo-honesty, i keep my word when i know that the > player i am dealing with, keeps his. it is not pseudo-honesty, it is > the logical thing to do. A screwed (by a deal-partner) meth can be > easily enraged and ruin the "traitor"'s game by some means. It is pseudo-honesty. You have now created two artificial classes of players "honorable" and "dealbreaker" when the reality is that they are all "dealbreakers" yourself included. Traitor is such a heavy-handed word, it implies loyalty and fealty which there are none in a game of JYHAD. You are crippling yourself. When you play outside of Thessaloniki, how do you know who is honorable and who is not? -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de (...) > If he does that bullshit in a tournament I'm judging, ESPECIALLY > following it up with his pretentious little speech about "you deserved > it", he's ejected for out-of-game considerations and collusion. > > If he does that in a casual game, I never play with him again. I don't > have time to waste on people who focus on petty revenge. You know, the guy jyhad-addict is talking about may still have the other guy diablerize and let him burn in a manner that serves him to achieve victory, and then add the "you should respect your deal" sentence *on top of that*.

x5m...@gmx.de (Decebalus) wrote in message news:<fb7de752.0410...@posting.google.com>... > niko...@hotmail.com (Nikolaj Wendt) wrote in message news:<22f564b8.04093...@posting.google.com>... > > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP > > deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some > > way... or just broken more regularly.. > > Even VP Deals are sometimes necessary. > Remember my first game in the Barcelona EC. I had Nosferatu/FOR > combat, my prey Truejah. After two fights with him playing Lapse, me > Skin of steel, we should have made a table splitting deal. We didnt, > so Orpheus with Powerbleed won the table. if he was really the big threat as you imply, why the fuck didnt you two fight him instead? I dont see any problems in working together against other players, as long as you dont divide the VP's in your deal. If you have to kill him to remove the threat entirely, then by all means.. do it. I would. But after hes dead the two of you shuld fight it out like normal. Its the ".. lets kill him so i get a VP, then ill selfoust and you get the gamewin" that sucks. > Will you really disallow such a deal. If in any way possible, yes i most surdenly would. Problem is that now there is no way to enforce it. > > > > Maybe just disallow deals where its clear that the guy will selfoust > > afterwards. Then if the players after fullfilling the deal stops > > blocking the other guys minions or taps out every turn but only hunts > > when he could have bled etc. etc a judge could be called and force the > > player to actually play to win. > > Abolish Withdrawing and some strange deals arent longer possible. Or > tehy will not have the same points like regular play. Wont be enough.. whats to stop people from selfousting after having received their precious VP? > > BTW. We are judges, not gods. We can not force players to win, and we > cannot play their game. I dont want you to tell people what to do.. just tell them what NOT to do. Like with any other rule... Pretty simple.. > > > Or maybe change the "you are allowed to keep a deal that was legal > > when made even though honoring it doesnt maximize your vps now". > > Forcing people to break the deal if they suddenly get a chance to > > actually win the game, would drastically lower the sick vp deals... > > You cannot force a player to make a deal, you cannot force him to > break it. Sorry to say it, but its an absurd proposition. Not absurd at all. The rule wouldnt be about forcing people to break deals. It would be about forcing people to ALWAYS play for more VP's, which is pretty simple. If someone have ousted their prey and then stops doing anything and transfers down to 1 pool while not blocknig any of his predators bleeds, I would say it was pretty obvious that he wasnt trying to maximize his VP's. > > > Example: In a 3 player end game i let my prey kill my predator. If he > > still has no chance of ousting me he should off course be allowed to > > honor the deal and kill himself, since it wont make a difference.. > > only a matter of time. > > BUT if the 6 pool and other circumstances makes it possible for him to > > oust me now, he should be forced to do so by the rules. > > Rules that cannot be forced, should not exist. Please explain what part of the "If you have any chance of getting more VP's you must try to do so, even if it means breaking a former deal" rule that you think is impossible to enforce? Nikolaj Wendt

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<q5dtl0d3gga5dqkup...@4ax.com>... > In message <c6a50f81.04100...@posting.google.com>, > geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) mumbled something about: > > > And when i bring him in front of you, you and the rest like you, who > >are easy to judge and eager to condemn just to look supperior, are > >free to wear your special JJC (Jyhad Judges' Clan) hoods, judge him, > >condemn him for collusion and then torch him in the name of your wise > >insight of the incident... what do you say ? > > If he does that bullshit in a tournament I'm judging, ESPECIALLY > following it up with his pretentious little speech about "you deserved > it", he's ejected for out-of-game considerations and collusion. > > If he does that in a casual game, I never play with him again. I don't > have time to waste on people who focus on petty revenge. > > That's what I say to that. How bout them apples, kid? > > -- Derek If anyone does something like this to get revenge for something, which is not the case in the situation i have described, then you have every right to do so and i would do the same. Behaviours like the one you describe are unacceptable for a game like Jyhad and can spoil all the fun and the game itself. What happened is not what you describe above, our whole "confrontation" was a mistake and a misunderstanding. I am sorry i have called you stupid, but i really get angry when people falsly accuse me by jumping to conclusions and i sometimes overeact. After all, we are all at the same team, we belong to the same community and this group is for us to discuss jyhad matters and not fight with each other. Again i am really sorry for the whole "confrontation", but i still believe that you were fast to judge me wrongly, without asking me first to tell you what really happened in detail.

x5m...@gmx.de (Decebalus) wrote in message news:<fb7de752.04100...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree and i respect that. I never said that a behaviour like this is acceptable, when you don't play with close-friends that you know they will not mind.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: Missing attribution line for my text. :( Most newsreaders include these by default to make a conversation easier to follow. > > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > > > > > NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' > lips : > > > "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there > should > > > be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something > > > which doesn't exist, right ? > > > > If we assume that that premise is true (which I'm not commenting on > > for now), how would you propose to rule against deals? > > I and some other people have already made several proposals in this thread. > Maybe you didn't have to time to read them yet. I have. I think they're misguided. Hence my post. The problem is not the proposition of "We want to ban this, this and this". The problem is whether you understand what such a proposal involves, and what the reality of implementing such things is. I would humbly submit that you haven't thought through what it means in reality, nor how you would actually enforce such a proposal. It is all too tempting to think "Well, we have these VP split deals in my group/my tourneys/my area, and we all know what we mean and we want them banned." This can work fine as a social obligation, since "everyone" knows what it is - in as much as any social obligation of that sort ever will. See Derek Ray's (and other people's) posts on the problem of enforcing things socially. There have been posts about it through the ages, there's no need to go over it all again. Essentially, social obligations of that sort are bad for the game. You have unwritten rules or unwritten/imprecise understandings that prevent new players understanding what on earth you're doing. But if these unwritten understandings and friendly agreements were so all pervasive, we wouldn't have buckets of rules, rulings, clarifications and so forth rolling round. Everyone would just "know" what the rules were, wouldn't they? After all, bear in mind Richard Garfield pointed out that one reading of the text "You lose next turn" by a player was "The opponent loses the game next turn" as opposed to "You skip your next turn". (It's in one of the Magic books - intro to the annotated fourth edition, I think, since that's the last one I read before I had to talk to someone about such things.) People play to win. And people want to know what they can do and what they can't do before they start. People often play to find "loopholes" - not actual loopholes, but being able to push the rules as far as they can go, creating new interactions and the like. The same is true of any other situation. You need to be able to tell players what a "VP deal" entails, if you're going to ban them. You haven't. > > As LSJ pointed out recently, there are many different kinds of deals > > and the ones which seem to cause most problems are the ones that are > > perceived as spoiling other people's "fun, or somesuch". > > As far as I'm concerned, the only deals that make me throw up are the deals > for VPs, because of their "final" aspect (if respected, which seems very > important to some people). I have no trouble whatsoever with temporary > deals, which always give you the possibility to change your mind and always > the necessity to optimize your VPs. So you have a problem. You have a *big* problem. What you have entirely failed to take into account is that what you're saying is that all people have to do is mention the VPs people can get out of a long term deal and, boom, you want to nuke their deal. There's a reason I picked some quite elaborate, realistic examples. Add to each of them an out-in-the-open consideration of "And that'll net you two VPs and me three VPs instead of us stalling each other completely" and the deal has suddenly switched from something you admit is perfectly legitimate to something you believe is the spawn of Satan. If adding a thirty second explanation to the end of a deal explaining how the table can/will fall to try and convince someone to take it renders it illegal, I think you have a major, MAJOR problem in your line of thinking. Which would you rather have? Players able to actually be honest when they want, or players who are forced to not actually say "Oh, and that'll get you two VPs and me three VPs" out of it? The difference is entirely in the fact that it's now out in the open. The table deal is still exactly the same. The effect is still exactly the same. Why the lack of objection to slicing up the table when you don't mention VP splits, but a major objection to it when someone does? > > Additionally, it's intrinsic to some facets of the game - politics > > particularly - that deals of some kind will have to be struck. If I > > don't split my KRC three to my prey and one to your prey (perhaps, on > > a five player table, you're my grand-prey and he's my grand-predator), > > you're going to vote it down, particularly if you're suspecting that > > (say) I'm going to Cryptic Rider it. At least you get something out > > of it this way. > > See above. It would be stupid to take away this great part of the game, > which may be the single reason why it is the greatest of all CCGs. But... as we all know, two political decks (by which I mean focused political decks, as opposed to say a vote/Archon combat deck, where the emphasis is different) can easily stall each other. You need to get VPs, I need to get VPs. Unless one of us can take an early lead, it's going to be very resource intensive if we fight it out - I need to blow Awe and Bewitching Oration on every vote, you need to do similar (using whatever method of vote push you have available). So we make a deal to aid each other. The result of that is to make it easy for me to kill my prey/your predator (same player), and you probably get an okay ride at your prey (my grand-predator) since I can probably convince you to throw some of your KRC points at my prey too, so he goes a bit more quickly. And if I explain this, and explain what VPs we're both hoping to get, does this deal become illegal? We've decided how we're slicing the table. If it does, you have a problem. If it doesn't, why isn't it a forbidden VP deal? We're dealing to split the table in a fashion whereby we allocate who gets what VPs. We're deciding how it will happen, which of us will get the TW (we hope). It certainly smells like a VP deal from here. But if it isn't - which it might not be, we don't have a sensible definition yet - you still have the huge problem that it both looks and smells like a deal which trades VPs for assistance. > > I'll leave to one side the problem of situations where I do > > sacrifice something short term, but for a similarly short term > > gain e.g. I'll pass that KRC for you, even though it does hurt me > > a bit now, but it lines me up for a kill on my prey. Or even > > "Okay, I'll give you those votes." But... it's worth bearing in > > mind that some of these can be seen as deals, and if you want to > > draw a line between a "deal" and cross-table negotiation, you're > > going to need to start drawing general principles for some > > judgement-oriented help. Where does that line get drawn? > > To where people start not optimizing, even if they have already won the GW ; Reasonably implausible. What does "optimising" mean? We can't stop bad play. People can and do play badly. The judge cannot step in and say "Take the pool for the edge, dummy" or "But you have Jake Washington you can block with!" or "If you'd done this and this, you could've got that VP on your own." Similarly, people also often get into situations where they could probably get the TW with your aid, but might, maybe, possibly get the TW on their own if they don't. Now, *you* might be able to get that TW on your own, you might be a better player. But he's not as good a player. It might have many, many moving parts. I might get confused, lost or not understand one of the finer points of something I can do, even though it's legally possible. Now, this is the best move *for me* because I'll probably screw up the other version. How am I not optimising here? I've got the GW both ways. One way involved me giving someone else two VP which needn't have happened. Not all players *can* optimise, though. We have all, I think, stood behind someone and thought "For Christ's sake, just get on with it and stop trying to do things which are too clever." (I've certainly posted about such things in the past.) I have several times felt that a player would be optimising by getting some VP now, because their deck is too fragile to try the table sweep they're trying to set up. Who is optimising now? Now I feel that letting someone else get a VP so that I can consolidate two for myself *right now* would be a much better "optimisation" because there are too many balls ready to fall. The "optimisation" here is to not play for all the VP. Perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment. How would you propose I prevent players who aren't optimising? > or where two or more players collide "legally" Assuming you mean "collude", collusion is never legal. You would do well to not use the term "collusion" to mean "currently legitimate deal making based on in-game considerations but where we discuss TWs and VPs". Collusion is entirely different! It involves out of game determinations, typically pre-game organising that I let you win or similar. This is nothing like making a deal based on the table at hand. Confusing "collusion" with "deal making" weakens your argument - it makes it look like you don't understand the difference. > to ruin the game for all the > others towards a predestined ending ; The political deck I describe does just that. It's trying to set up negotiation for us so that we can both do well to the detriment of others, because if we don't do well, we both die. The combat deck does the same. By not pressuring you, I can generate a better position for myself and for you. Any sufficiently complex deal is aiming towards ruining the game for all the others excluded from the deal. That's how you gain ground over them. In many ways, the *point of the game* is to ruin the game for all the others towards a predestined ending - you winning. It's not written that way in the rulebook, but the point is that you want to win. > or where people start discarding cards without playing them, or not > playing the game and waiting for time limit. This can be a problem. However, if you have a time limit (which we do, and need) and you have things which can happen (e.g. withdrawal) which can benefit players, it's the sort of thing that can and will happen. There are several ways of addressing this. It is rarely the case that arbitrary rulings banning such things are a good way forward. If withdrawal during the rest of the game gives you a VP, an arbitrary ruling that says that - even though it's in all your interests - you can't do it now is nonsensical. You are, again, sitting down with players and saying: - This is in your interests. - This is the way you can get the most out of this round. - You can't do it. A more useful tack - if such is a problem - is to provide a series of disincentives. For instance, it might be worth considering the implications of withdrawal not being worth a full VP. For instance, were it worth only half a VP, there would be no difference between it and timing out. In such an instance, it would be worth playing to the end in case you could oust someone, since withdrawing now would gain you nothing over timing out at the end. (Unless one of the people likely to die is you. But if you're that precarious, the other people on the table may have something to say about allowing you to withdraw instead.) Of course, there are several knock-on effects so such a proposal might not be perfect. Alternative proposals might be to, say, have any ties resolved by withdrawls counting after non-withdrawals. So if you have 1 TW, 9 VPs (a sweep and two twos) and I have a 1 TW, 9 VPs (a sweep and two twos) *but* in one of my games I withdrew to get the two VP and we're tied for last place into the finals (small tournament)... I lose, you get in. This then makes more aggressive gains of VPs count "better" than withdrawals. You then don't have to ban the deal itself. A withdrawal is an inherently worse way to gain a VP than a non-withdrawal/oust, then. Alternatively again, you might want to look at the withdrawal rule itself. If you decide you wanted to keep it (which you might not), you might want to change it. Picking a random idea from my Big Hat Of Random Ideas, only the first player to withdraw from a game receives a VP. Someone who has a legitimate need to get the hell out of the game can get a VP that way. But then it is *never* in the table's interests to mutually withdraw. Again, this is not perfect. (Though a couple of them have a certain sense of... something to them. I admit it's three in the morning, though.) But what isn't it? It's not telling players "These are the facts of the game, in-game. This is how you would get the best out of the game. But you can't do it." Telling players that you, as the judge, have to deliberately curtail the best play is inherently wrong. If the "best play" is wrong for some reason, fix that. > In other words : I want > to play this game, not a silly caricature of it. Why is it a silly caricature to find the best course of action (co-operating with that guy over there), discuss it, come up with a mutually beneficial way for us to play the game and go ahead with it? The point of the game is to win, right? And if you can't win, do the best you can. That's what I'm doing. As it happens, this means that you don't win. It is *completely designed* into the game that social factors are important. People are supposed to be able to do things like oust someone cross-table if they're being troublesome to them. As Garfield explains, you don't get the VP and/or pool for that because you got something else out of it. Destroying a troublesome predator might be that reason. Getting help from someone else towards a goal of you own might be it. A game set in the World of Darkness's Jyhad which details Machiavellian plots of treachery, backstabbing and trying to come out on top is going to necessitate these factors. People are *supposed* to deal with each other. Now, where deals are not entirely illegal (that is, they are based on out of game considerations and so forth, as defined under the collusion penalties, or similarly under the play to win rules), players are allowed to make them. Some players might be bad at making them. Others might be very good at making them. Similarly, some players can be good or bad at deck construction. Others might be good at gauging probabilities and card flow. Others might be good at having an amazing poker face and working the table that way. But social interaction and deal making is an inherent part of the game. If it's a problem in a given game, there are several ways of dealing with it: - have a sufficiently impervious deck that you can push through it. For instance, stealth and bleed can be remarkably resilient to being ganged up on. Someone gangs up on you, you curl yourself up in a bunker and do what you can fast. - have a significant threat. This might not be the same as above, but is sort of the next step down. Okay, I may not be able to win, but I can certainly make sure you don't. That's a *very* significant threat. You make that deal, I am going to make sure you die. This is perfectly legal play by the way. If you're going to die with zero VP, you can die in any manner you choose, right? My manner of play is that I don't give two hoots about my "honour" of making/breaking deals. But I want the same reputation system to work in my favour. Make a deal to cut me off the table? I'm going to do my best to obliterate you. Sure, two against one will kill me. But you'll know that I'll do everything I can to destroy you. Are you now having second thoughts about going through with it? Maybe you should be. It might not be the case, but if I'm going to cause that much trouble for you, is it going to be worth it? If you're my predator trying to get rid of me, it's going to give my prey an easy ride, say. Much harder to deal with him next... - fight fire with fire. People play combat, you play combat defence. People play bleed, you play bleed defence. Right? If people start playing alliances, do the same thing yourself. Get him before he gets you. Get the other players to help you just force them off the table. Point out that two people co-operating like that is going to kill them, too. Have sufficient things in your deck that you can offer some flexibility into the deck. Being able to, say, Parity Shift some pool to someone else is a good bargaining tactic. Or Consanguineous Boon. Things which aren't just devoted to being totally efficient to your deck. Give yourself something to do which is going to mean you can fight off alliances. You'd include bleed defence if you were scared of being screwed over by bleeds. Include some alliance defence the same way. The threat of being able to destroy someone, regardlesss of your own well-being, is a very specialised form of this. But sometimes, if someone out-maneuvers you on the table manipulation side of the game, you will die. But being able to manipulate the table is just as much a part of the game as being able to bleed. It's how the game was designed. Just like you need to improve your deck-building ability if you're not very good at that, if someone else is good at manipulating the table against you, you need to get better at dealing with that. > > The point of all this setup is... Is that a deal that spoils other > > people's fun, or is that a deal which doesn't, or is it a deal in the > > first place? After all, repeated negotiation may *not* be a deal. > > > > (The above strikes me as good play, totally valid. But that's just my > > opinion.) > > It is mine also. Under the condition that no table split is made. Then you're just legislating about words. And words can be changed. All I have to do is point out what's in my interests, what's in your interests, and how the game might go. And we haven't made a table split. We've just discussed some possibilities. Which any player can see as an invitation to go along with it. But then you need to prevent people ever discussing possible strategies and how the game might go. And that really is necessary to the game. I might need to be able to explain to a newbie what the long term implications of a move might be. Not only will they learn that way, but they could also make a major change to the game. Similarly, if you start banning people from being frank and open about what they really mean, this hurts several people. Non-natives to a culture, for instance - the nuance of subtlety, sarcasm, innuendo and body language, for instance, can vary a lot when you're not a native speaker. Also, pick anyone with Asperger's Syndrome, for instance, who are often very bad at picking up what other people are thinking and feeling. If you could just discuss the details, none of this would need to be a problem. > Then, when > and if it comes to that, those two players will clash anyway and one will > remain once the dust settles. Sure. So I just don't say. End-game scenarios, their likelihoods and how difficult they'll be are discussed, not split deals. Split deals benefit both the players involved. They are the best form of play for the players. They are going to end up needing to do them, whether they can legally discuss them or not. It means we both do better than we would otherwise. That's all that matters. It works for me, it works for the guy I'm dealing with. If that's the case - which in legal VP deals, it is, necessarily so - we're going to do it anyway. > because it is acting temporarily together for a common goal. Anyone can and > will change its mind at any time, If that's the case, you have nothing to fear from VP split deals. The end result is not determined. They can change their minds at any time, after all. > and, more important, the game remains > suspenseful and everyone can keep on playing to the best of his ability. As they can in a VP split deal. The game has taken a very hostile turn against you. You can still play to the best of your ability. Just like when you get complete deck jam and all your bleed bounce has shuffled to the bottom. The game is now very hostile for you. But you still play. You do whatever you can to win. It's no different when someone starts trying to deal against you. You just need to play to the best of your ability. And if that isn't good enough, the best players won - table manipulation is a skill in the Jyhad, and you got out-played. Hell, I get rings run around me by people being able to craft deals to do this, that and the other. But I also have similar issues with people building betters decks, or having better ideas. It doesn't mean I try to ban those. > > So where can you rule against these "deals" in general? > > I think by now you understand what I mean. If you wish more precisions, feel > free to ask. Sadly, I don't think you understand what you mean. You're not thinking this through. You're trying to ban vague concepts that you can't define. You're trying to use a ban to prevent the best play for a player ensuing because you don't like that best play. If the best play is inappropriate for the health of the game, it shouldn't be the best play. But telling players "You cannot play to the best of your ability, even though this would be the best thing for you to do" will never work. > > I think these are both invalid premises, in that they're generalised > > principles which fail to take into account individual situations. > > > > I'm on a table playing, say, a Baltimore Purge deck. Eat vampires, > > destroy them. Now, this is going to incur the wrath of the whole > > table most likely (save for a few ally decks, but leave that out of it > > - it's very unlikely, but it's still a remote possibility). So you > > could say that as a "good" player, I shouldn't have played that deck. > > BP decks are, I know from experience, very hard to play : getting the win > and not just screwing the table requires careful setting and good play. > > You'll notice I said nothing about incurring table wrath being a proof of a > bad deck. Risky, but it can sometimes be worth it. No, that's not a bad deck. Nor did I say it was. However, the distinction I drew was that a "good player" who couldn't handle the table wrath may have made an inappropriate choice. This is nothing about the deck itself. The deck itself is a very good one, potentially. I was hugely impressed last year by Beatrice During's play of one. As I said at the time, I felt she over-extended herself a couple of times when she should have gone for the early kill (see the optimization section above). But some of the play was amazing, both in choice of cards, table manipulation (the lack of wrath that came her way was quite surprising) and some of the plays she made was excellent to watch. The point here is that a "good player" might pick a deck that they can't handle. (Since this is a "good player", and not the best possible player ever.) In that instance, it would be possibly be their fault that they got table wrath. Then they'd be in a situation of their own making. Provocative deck combined with inability to handle it -> need for deal. So here we can argue that they made a bad choice and that a truly good player wouldn't have made that choice and so the good player wouldn't need the deal. (This may turn out to be wrong, but the point is that we're clearly dealing - in the next example - with a good player making a good choice, as opposed to a good player making a potentially questionable choice, as a Baltimore Purge deck could be, for instance.) > > But, move on to a far more innocuous deck. It just happens that it's > > the antithesis of my predator and prey - for a casual example, let's > > say I'm playing a very fast combat deck, and they can't deal with it > > at all. So they need to get me ousted. First, is that a deal from > > their point of view? As the prey, I really, really, really don't care > > that my grand-predator gets a VP out of this - I need that deck off > > the table, RIGHT NOW. > > Agreed. As I said, it's perfectly valid play You said: "Good players don't need deals to do what they must. Bad players don't need deals to screw a table." And then distinguish deals from "Deals for 1 VP should never exist". As is common on Usenet, this part of my response was prefixed by the relevant section to which I was responding. You claimed that good players don't need deals to do what they must. I disputed that. Since the above is valid play, but the deal is necessary, your premise that good players don't need deals to do what they must is wrong. I need to survive. I need to offer a deal. If I phrase the above as "Hi, James's predator, James is really, really, really killing me. I can do X, Y and Z if you can do A, B or C", apparently, you're okay with it. But I can also say things like "... and you'll get the VP out of it, so will you help me out?" Or I could say "And since you can't get through him on your own, it'll get you 1 VP and he's the only worry on the table, so I'll get the rest I think." The end result is the same. The means by which we get there is the same. It's a play I need to make, and it involves a deal which should "never exist". > : both player will get somthing > out of this. Dealing with each other will wait until then. Now, if there was > a deal for VPs at this point, Voiced or unvoiced? Intelligent players will be able to see the VP splitting available, even if no-one mentions it. Do you - in your games - ever see that if you make that deal, you'll be able to get a TW and he'll get a VP or two out of it (depending on how fast you go)? It's far from impossible to see them. I keep so-and-so in and fail that vote for you, it lines us up for X, Y and Z. Boom. Same ending, same process. No-one mentioned VPs though. > > It can. But what about the situations where the *right* decision is > > to go with that deal? How do you propose to stop people winning > > through good play? > > I don't know if we're talking table-splitting here. I'll never want to stop > people from playing well !! But I want them to play to the end. You haven't thought through your proposals. Banning a VP split deal *is* stopping people from playing well. It gives them the best outcome on the table. It's achievable through viable, legal, in-game means (i.e. not collusion, unsportsmanlike and so on). You are actively proposing to have a judge intervene and stop people from playing well, to the best of their abilities, you just haven't realised this. > > > Deals for 1 VP should never exist : the deck making the "winning deal" > > > should be able to win without the deal (if not, it would be illegal, > right > > > ?) ; the deck making the "losing deal" should just die painfully and > not > > > take the other players' potential for VPs away. > > > > No, this isn't true in either respect. (There may be some situations > > where it is - probably lots - but it's not universally true.) > > > > The classic example of this has often been two hard combat decks > > sitting next to each other. > > As a matter of fact, it is the classical "only" example where deals seem > totally necessary. I don't think this is true. Certainly, it is a very prominent example. However, a player can find himself in very deep problems, but could be rescued by intervention from someone else, to mutual benefit. If we're down to three people (perhaps it was a four player table to start, perhaps it's an 11 playertournament), let's say it's you, me, LSJ. LSJ is about to walk all over me. If the two of us combine forces, we can get rid of LSJ. It may be the case that with some help from you, I can stall LSJ long enough for you to oust him. But I really do need your help. Perhaps I need a point or two of blood to bring out Beast and rush his key vampire. Perhaps I need lots of things. I need your help, or you die too. However, the price for my help is that I request a VP split so that you oust LSJ and you roll over. You get 1 VP (which is better than the 0 VP you were going to get) and I get 2 VP (which is better than the 0 VP I was going to get) - maybe a TW, too. You have just banned this deal, and are banning players from playing as well as they can. Of course, you could choose to backstab me if you wanted, and I'd be aware of that possibility. The classical combat deck predator/prey possibility is one of it being in their interests *early* in the game, to prevent mutual annihilation. In the above situation, being able to at least offer the VP split deal is the only way I'm going to go through with it. I don't want to help you out for no reason - all that means is I get to let you win instead of LSJ, say. I can be Kingmaker. And in this instance, if you want any slice of the pie, I want to make you give me some too. > Well, let me tell you that as a judge I ruled against a > splitting deal in just such a situation. The players wanted to deal VPs in > the first 15 minutes of the game. I ruled against it again later in the > game. And I was proved right : they played well with temporary deals, and at > one point one was able to sweep (but didn't because he had promised one turn > of respite) and later on it was the other that won (although the second > combat deck finally made 0). There are two possible situations that spring to mind - there are certainly other possibilities, too: - This is quite possibily *not* the classical combat deck. The problem that the classical deck generates is that I am a combat deck. My prey is also a combat deck. For me to make forward motion, I have to attack your vampires. I can't get rid of you until they're gone. If I let you go round the table, I'll never get through anyway as you get extra pool. But if I rush you, we both implode. There isn't a short term deal we can make that's in my interest. All the short-term interests in the world can't give me anything I need. I NEED YOU DEAD. If this is the case, all you do is tell people that if they just make things *sound* like short term deals, they can make a long term VP split. - This is not the classical combat deck situation for other reasons. One or the other deck has an edge. Clearly, if one is sweeping, there's something of an edge! The classical situation is that I need to get through you, because you are my prey at the start of the game. If I let you get up a head of steam, I die anyway! So I'm going to try to kill you to get through you. If this situation does happen but one can survive and sweep, it's not the classical mutual annihilation situation, and hence isn't really an example of why the classical situation doesn't work, because it's not that situation. > How did they achieve that ? By careful and > intelligent play rather than predetermining the issue of the table in the > first rounds of the game, which would have been boring for everyone. So : > deals are not always a fatality. Sure, it could be boring. If you *let* them predetermine the table, you deserve everything you get. There's three players, two others you can ally with, on a five player table. Why are you letting them do this? > > (Indeed, this was one of the situations > > that brought about the Table Win rulings, based on much bitching about > > such situations. The TW rule provides incentives for both of the > > combat decks to want to be on the 4 side of that deal, however, which > > may make the deal harder to broker.) > > Sometimes they will have to work together towards that goal. No need to > split the table. Then you're just quibbling about words. If we're next to each other at the start, as in the classical example, I'm not going to help you without some payback. If that payback can only come by you dying, you're allowing people to do the same, you're just not letting them be honest about it. > Also, shit can happen (anti-deck etc) where you won't make a single VP > without deal, but then that, as you pointed earlier, can happen to any deck. > There are of course safeguards : you may, depending on your deck, include > ways to change places, to immobilize or burn a vampire, a few stealth cards > in a fight deck (Swallowed for Assamites), etc. Good players always include > a Plan B. Great players can include a Plan C and sometimes D without > de-optimizing their decks. Toolbox decks, for instance, can do such things very well. And some deck styles lend themselves very well to such things, by virtue of using a lot of dual-type cards. e.g. Distraction, which has two very different effects. But there are many different deck styles, and individual personal preferences about such deck styles aren't relevant. People play focused decks, toolbox decks, bruise-and-bleed, vote-and-bloat, ally decks and all sorts of decks. If the argument is that "My rules on deals work well when played by people I play with", you're missing the point. Your experiences of such things are going to reflect your play-group and tourney experience. Additionally, if the two combat decks are being diverse and having other alternatives, this does prove that the situation you're describing isn't the classical predator/prey combat deck situation where they have to destroy vampires to stand a chance. > > But on a five player table, both of us will probably die and my > > predator will destroy me, then you. 0 VPs each. And you probably > > can't get a single VP because I'm killing your vampires. > > > > So, we're both in a situation of 0 VP. (This can happen.) > > Yes. OR : you could agree to get soft for a while, and both build up. I don't want you to build up. It's not in my interests. You building up means it's easier for you to get through your prey. Which gives you more pool, which I can't get because I can't oust you, oh and a VP. If you really are doing nothing, you've just given your prey an easy ride too, which completely destabilises the table. This is not in my interests. > Depending on your decks, you'll each go your way, My way involves KILLING ALL YOUR VAMPIRES. This is how it works. I need you to die. > or pool, or whatever. > Then, with play, some strange situations may arise : like one where you prey > has tapped all of his vampires and has no way to Wake, Sure, people can do unthinkably stupid things. However, you're playing a combat deck. Even allowing for Computer Hacking, you typically can't do more than two pool damage. Oh, and the only pool damage you've taken is that coming from me, largely. Which is none, because I need your vampires to die. So you largely have a lot of control over how much pool you have, based on how much you've spent on vampires. > or he has exhausted > the Combat cards you were so afraid of against other players, Only I can't particularly cycle *anything* to use against people, so I'm lumped with a hand that isn't of my choosing. You've had the ability to cycle through the cards you want, keep the cards you wanted to keep in reserve. You know I'm on the table. Why would you be so stupid as to leave yourself entirely vulnerable to me killing all your vampires, save for deck-jam? > or some cards > go round and your way (Anarch Troublemaker ?) or a Vote deck changes places, > or someone proposes an alliance (you'll notice I spoke of no deal here) It amounts to the same thing. You just haven't mentioned it. I need your help to get VPs and if you don't want my help to get you VPs, why are you offering me anything? We're going to start slicing up sections of the table, and ruining the fun of others into predetermined fashions. You just think it's more fun if you're not allowed to be honest about this. > to > you towards a mutual goal, etc. The mutual goal of us destroying the rest of the table if we can? We are playing towards that. That's the goal. We both need VPs. > This game is never frozen, especially with > good players, and that's what I love so much about it. The rules aren't just made for "good players" using decks with Plans A, B, C and D. Changing the rules to fit your playgroup and expertise is not a good idea. > > If I can convince you to take the deal whereby you oust your prey, > > then I sweep the table, I'm playing for a TW. You can't get a TW, so > > the deal still allows you to maximise your VPs. (Of course, someone > > else might be able to offer you a *better* deal - but you're not > > obliged to take it, if you think they're lying etc.) > > Sure. But there can still be other ways. Say you both begin to destroy the > table : some other players at some point may propose other solutions to you. Sure, there are other possibilities. The classical situation, however, is that I need to get through you, so I need you dead. If someone else can't kill you right now, I'm mostly screwed. Additionally, it is a general truth that a loan combat deck on a table is in a difficult position. Lots of people have a smattering of combat defence. Two combat decks on a table can easily draw through that, whereas one can run up against enough to stall it a little. It's often not in a combat deck's interests to have the other combat deck on the table off the table - it's just one of those really, really frustrating sitautions when they end up sitting next to each other at the start of the game. This is the crucial point. Cross-table, fine. Sitting next to each other, I NEED YOU TO DIE IF I WANT TO GET ANYWHERE. Like I said, once you get down to the last two (one of us having one VP, the other having two), the two VPs can go either way. But if I want anything when we sit next to each other, I NEED YOU TO DIE. > Now, if you've already dealt for VPs, and, say, you want to keep your word, You don't have to keep your word. You might assume some people will. But that's not a valid assumption on which to base all rules changes, since plenty of other groups have realised that, when playing a game, breaking your word can be advantageous. So this isn't a valid assumption. > this possibility is over and the game is boring Why on earth are you assuming that VP splits mean that possibilities are over? People can backstab. People do backstab. Your group might not. But again, changes aren't made just on your group. > ; if you just agreed on some > turn-after-turn strategies, you can trade alliances without even "breaking" > your word. Why be so pointlessly hung up on keeping your word? If the problem is VP splits which can't be shaken because you won't do deals with the rest of the table and no-one will break their word, this is becoming sufficiently specific to a particular metagame that you're just never going to change the game for that. Other people make VP splits, backstab, ally, counter-ally, ignore deals and play with all sorts of weirdness and it seems to work. Why change the rules because your environment won't move beyond it? > > And - as above - you try explaining to the player that he can't get a > > TW that way, and has to get 0 VP instead, even though an in-game, > > non-collusive piece of play allows him to do so without requiring > > another player to worsen their expected outcome based on the table at > > hand. > > Working for a while towards a common goal can be acceptable. > > Determining the fate of the table isn't. The fate of the table hasn't been determined. What they *want* the fate of the table to be has been determined. By the way, this was already determined when you sat down at the table. You wanted to sweep the table. All that's happened is that that intended fate has changed. Making a VP split deal doesn't set a table in stone. If you think it does, it's your table that's the problem. The people who are winning on the VP split deals are simply playing better than you, and you haven't bested them yet. Deal making is part of the game. It's where you're losing. Have fun trying. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: 3yy8ios...@newred.gradwell.net... > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > > Missing attribution line for my text. :( Most newsreaders include > these by default to make a conversation easier to follow. Now I left all this unreadable stuff on top of the post. I hope your sense of netiquette is fullfilled. I just wanted to tell you that when I get the time I may answer your very, very long rambling. But I do hesitate to acknowledge a post where every sentence ends up with "you have a problem" and where you make preposterous assumptions of what I believe or not (if this... and if that... then this"). Just be certain of one thing : it's not lack of courage and arguments that will prevent me, this time or others, to answer you. Lack of time to waste in useless diatribes with someone who doesn't address the propositions he says he disagrees with, and seems to prefer the sound of his own keyboard, maybe. See you in the funny pages, Orpheus

> > > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP > > > deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some > > > way... or just broken more regularly.. > > > > Even VP Deals are sometimes necessary. Disagree. > > Remember my first game in the Barcelona EC. Quite well. Nice game. > I had Nosferatu/FOR > > combat, my prey Truejah. After two fights with him playing Lapse, me > > Skin of steel, we should have made a table splitting deal. We didnt, > > so Orpheus with Powerbleed won the table. > > if he was really the big threat as you imply, why the fuck didnt you > two fight him instead? My point exactly. I had killed my !Malk prey. The Nos and Krassimir could have worked together to kill all the vampires on the table, both mine and my !Malk predator (yes, I know, they're everywhere...). If we got new ones out, just go for the kill. Then, fight it out "like men" and we see whose combat deck is the best. And both of your combat decks needed a "killing" edge : I never saw a Fame hit the table ; I never saw your Nos Princes play a Parity Shift or a Anathema ; Krassimir didn't even include a Conditionning (his prey was at 2-3 when he died...) ; and no one even had a Laptop or a J.S. Simmons. All these cards could have taken between 2 and 4 slots in a fight deck and made it able to kill a prey (and not made much of a difference in real fighting power). These are the reasons why I won the table. Not the absence of a deal for VPs. (agree so much with the rest of the post I see no point in saying "yes" every two sentences). ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:415d9c89$0$18035$636a...@news.free.fr... > > TOTALLY with you on this one, except that i like my fun games to be > > utterly ruthless and treacherous with the world's best players in > > tip-top form fielding their fiercest decks. > > I don't remember ever playing at your place ??? ;-) > > ------------ > Modest Orpheus you still have a lot to learn,kiddo... with time and experience comes the white beard and the british flegm ;)

In message <415ec550$0$18158$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] That's possible, but I don't believe it's true. If it were, why would jyhad_addict hold it up as an example of how people who break deals in his group always get punished? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:eu00m0dssjhfdq680...@4ax.com... > >You know, the guy jyhad-addict is talking about may still have the other guy > >diablerize and let him burn in a manner that serves him to achieve victory, > >and then add the "you should respect your deal" sentence *on top of that*. > > That's possible, but I don't believe it's true. If it were, why would > jyhad_addict hold it up as an example of how people who break deals in > his group always get punished? because people always like bragging about how good they are ? =P

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:Api7d.4002$mS1.813@fed1read05... (...) > It's clearly collusion. The judge has latitude about whether it > consititutes illegal collusion, i.e. "collusion to alter the > results of a game" (which is rather ambiguous in certain respects). > But I think it really has to in order to avoid a potentially very > bad situation and maintain the integrity of VEKN tournaments. you know... i don't think it's collusion. Everybody knows you're supposed not to take previous games in account. But imagine this : I go to a tournament, and someone at my table agrees to a deal with someone else and then "betrays". And later in this tournament, i meet him again and he tries to propose me a deal... What should i do then ? refuse knowing there will be some betrayal at some point ? Or accept and backstab first using the useful information i had on the previous game, especially if the player acts the same manner (like, calling a parity shift and telling you you are his ally and will not take damage to convince you not to block) What if he proposes another player a deal then ? can i say "hey, i saw this guy break a deal two hours ago, pal !". Am I forced to act like i'm blind, deaf, and memoryless ? What if, after having accepted then backstabbed first, i say "now you know the bitter taste of betrayal". Does that make me a colluder and kicks me out of any vekn tournament ? I don't really understand your logic here. I don't see why Vekn players loose their integrity if they use some Zorro-type sentences to seal their acts.

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> a écrit dans le message de news:2s6b2sF...@uni-berlin.de... > But a level playing field almost never happens. In any game where players > have some previous knowledge of their opponents this knowledge will > influence the way they play. > It's an unavoidable part of the game. moreover, if you meet say, s. lavrut, his #1 ranking will make you extra cautious about his actions... He will be the target from the early beginning ! =)

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<eu00m0dssjhfdq680...@4ax.com>... > In message <415ec550$0$18158$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, > "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: > > > > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de > >(...) > > > >> If he does that bullshit in a tournament I'm judging, ESPECIALLY > >> following it up with his pretentious little speech about "you deserved > >> it", he's ejected for out-of-game considerations and collusion. > >> > >> If he does that in a casual game, I never play with him again. I don't > >> have time to waste on people who focus on petty revenge. > > > >You know, the guy jyhad-addict is talking about may still have the other guy > >diablerize and let him burn in a manner that serves him to achieve victory, > >and then add the "you should respect your deal" sentence *on top of that*. > > That's possible, but I don't believe it's true. If it were, why would > jyhad_addict hold it up as an example of how people who break deals in > his group always get punished? > i didn't say anything like this, you continue to say anything you like. There was only this incident and it wasn't about punishment. I mentioned the incident, because we are talking about deals. We are not talking about punishing the one who breaks a deal, which is wrong. I can't really understand why you are trying to convince everyone that what happened was for punishment. I was there, you weren't, so stop it.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:415fd3ce$0$8321$626a...@news.free.fr... > I just wanted to tell you that when I get the time I may answer your very, > very long rambling. FEEEAR the 42k post ! =D

Orpheus wrote: > > 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be an > alternative official format. > It's why 2 rounds + final has been the standard here in Los Angeles for years. Only for "official" tournaments like qualifiers do we run 3+1. best - chris -- chris shorb

Andrew Daley wrote: > > > Why not just make tournaments 3+ round events with no finals? It's like the Premiership in the UK. Not very dramatic, but does get rid of an even less dramatic, nay anti-climactic table-split-final. [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci wrote: > 2)let only vps made in game wins count for the preliminary standings and > use the vps made in losing efforts only as first tiebrakers. > so someone who won 2 rounds with 4 vps each is ranked higher than > someone who won 1 round with 4 vps,the second with 3 vps and cut a > losing deal for 2 in the final round. This won't solve a lot of problems, but I think it is a fair change to the current system, and does tend to focus more on GW. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jyhad_addict wrote: > > > Not so, brother. Rather, people will make better deals, relying not on > > > trust but on mutual benefit. Try it! You'll be pleasantly surprised. > > > [snip] > Personaly if this was the case with my playgroup, i would get > angry, wouldn't make any deals and construct nasty Malkavian-dominate > bleed decks to oust each and everyone just for fun. Now you're getting it! Do it, change your metagame. You will find that to be fun. And if you like winning, that's fun too. best - chirs -- chris shorb

Orpheus wrote: > My question to LSJ and staff is very simple : do you plan to legifere the > deals in any way (including forbidding them, or making a one-line rule, or a > 20-pages notebook...) in the time to come ? Finally read all the way through most of this thread, except for the tremendously long posts by Coupe. My suggestion is a simple one. There is already a rule against stalling. There is no rule supporting deal-making. If the discussion of a deal is taking too long, and it bothers you, make a stink, shut the deal makers up, and get the play moving again. Easier said than done. But if done enough, then deal making will revert back to the example LSJ gave. "I KRC" "Will I take damage?" "No" "No block". A table split deal IME takes a long time to explicate and come to terms. Also, Legbiter/Josh's suggestion that breaking deals leads to better play also dovetails in with Curevei's comments that deals are bad play; because deals that aren't mutually beneficial should, by evolution of a play group, lead to better play through cooperation that doesn't need a deal, or a deal with the implicit assumption that at some point, it will be broken, at that moment when it no longer is *mutually* beneficial. To make a short story long, there already are mechanisms in place for deals - collusion is illegal, stalling is illegal. Use either or both as a scalpel or a cudgel to keep the pace of play moving, and the goals focused on winning through smart card play, not the best talker. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<415fd428$0$8322$626a...@news.free.fr>... > > > > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP > > > > deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some > > > > way... or just broken more regularly.. > > > > > > Even VP Deals are sometimes necessary. > > Disagree. > > > > Remember my first game in the Barcelona EC. > > Quite well. Nice game. > > > I had Nosferatu/FOR > > > combat, my prey Truejah. After two fights with him playing Lapse, me > > > Skin of steel, we should have made a table splitting deal. We didnt, > > > so Orpheus with Powerbleed won the table. > > > > if he was really the big threat as you imply, why the fuck didnt you > > two fight him instead? > > My point exactly. > > I had killed my !Malk prey. I should have made the deal before. The Nos and Krassimir could have worked together > to kill all the vampires on the table, both mine and my !Malk predator (yes, > I know, they're everywhere...). If we got new ones out, just go for the > kill. Then, fight it out "like men" and we see whose combat deck is the > best. To make a deal to help my prey getting 3 (or 2) VPs and then fight it out, would be stupid. If my prey is the one who benefits from one part of the deal, i want the other part be in my favour. > And both of your combat decks needed a "killing" edge : I never saw a Fame > hit the table ; I never saw your Nos Princes play a Parity Shift or a > Anathema ; Krassimir didn't even include a Conditionning (his prey was at > 2-3 when he died...) I had all those cards. And a fame hadnt give me anything. But the argument is pointless. We are not talking about deck building, we are talking about a preadator-prey relationship, where it would be the best play to deal with your prey. Because power bleeders dont need teh same deals like combat decks, we dont have to change the rules.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<4159bb3a$0$23931$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the > question of deals arises again. > Just a quick notice on the idea that there are currently no particular rules concerning deals. There is a ruling that states that a player is free to ignore the PLAY TO WIN rule in order to respect a legal deal he made previously. Shouldn't this ruling be reverted ?

Chris Shorb wrote: > My suggestion is a simple one. There is already a rule against stalling. There > is no rule supporting deal-making. If the discussion of a deal is taking too > long, and it bothers you, make a stink, shut the deal makers up, and get the > play moving again. Easier said than done. But if done enough, then deal making > will revert back to the example LSJ gave. "I KRC" "Will I take damage?" "No" > "No block". A table split deal IME takes a long time to explicate and come to > terms. If a deal-making discussion is viewed (by the judge) as "attempting to stall to take advantage of a time limit", then she should step in (and, in all likelyhood, simply add back the time that was lost). But that remedy won't prevent deals from being made. The judge cannot masquerade behind the stalling rule to undermine legal play that she finds distasteful. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

e...@boursorama.com (Emmanuel Martin) wrote in message news:<10c2c156.04100...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] My point excactly (as stated above). It would IMO solve most of the issues i have with VP deals. Nikolaj

> And, he's bragging about his unsportsmanlike behavior. Screwing one of > your friends in a later game to "punish" him for breaking a deal, even > if you weren't the one hurt by the dealbreak,... that's just weak, and > it's lame, and it's all bad. Maybe the angle of "punishment" is poor. Try "illustration". Showing the other person what it is like to be backstabbed. In the given instance the "retributor" may have gained an advantage from betrayal, even if the real cause was to illustrate the down side to the formerly treacherous player. > And he pretends that it is the best thing > ever and should be enforced by the rules? Oh, hell no. Someone does > that to me, I probably never play with that person again, EVER. It's > one thing to backstab me in a game to gain a VP; it's another thing > entirely to front-stab me in a LATER game and say "It is because of what > you did last Tuesday!"... and then pretend you have some moral high > ground. Plleeeeeeease. In a game I once stole an AR from my prey's Fatima with one of my !Torries. By twist of fate, I had the same guy at my next table, only in a cross-table position. When I blocked his deflected bleed with my !Torrie who had a Bang Nakh, he stole it (and told me we were now "quits"). Took me a while to figure what he meant... ;) I couldn't really understand his motives. Specifics about games should not be remembered (but general conclusions may - in this case, I noted for further reference that the person can be erratic in his behaviour). > Let's get perspective, folks. It's a game in a gothic, dark setting, > about ancient vampires, intrigue, treachery, and betrayal. It is NOT a > suitable game for those who must be Pillars of Honour(tm). Words. A game about ancient vampires, yet we do not indulge in real blood drinking, nor do we actually kill people. It is about intrigue, but that does not mean we have to lie playing it. I would advise against taking the role too seriously (lest we arrive at the "I roll a d4 to see whom I bleed 'cause I'm a MALKAVIAN and MALKAVIANS are kray-Z and kewl!" issue). My take - I am a guy who sits down to play with a bunch of other guys. The game has a theme, yes, but we are the same guys nevertheless. If you lie to me "...because of this...", I will be inclined to assume that you are not above lying to me "...because of that...". Same with betrayal. For me this game is more about having the wits to win - or the guts to lose - with dignity. Twisting words can be fun, but outright lies are lame and not stylish enough for the theme. (Remember, we are the _players_.) > And finally, we can look at Succubus Club: "...None are enforced by the > rules." How much more clear can you be? Deal-breaking is encouraged. Strawman. The reminder text on Succubus Club reminds you that the card cannot enforce any additional terms. Thinking it over, it is obvious why. I would not equate the statement reminding you of the unenforcability of some terms of the deal with a hypothetical encouragement of breaking all non-enforced parts of said deal... -- Bye, Daneel

> > > > > Deals are necesary (and quite essential for the game). Its just the VP > > > > > deals that blow chunks, and should be changed/disallowed in some > > > > > way... or just broken more regularly.. > > > > > > > > Even VP Deals are sometimes necessary. > > > > Disagree. > > > > > > Remember my first game in the Barcelona EC. > > > > Quite well. Nice game. > > > > > I had Nosferatu/FOR > > > > combat, my prey Truejah. After two fights with him playing Lapse, me > > > > Skin of steel, we should have made a table splitting deal. We didnt, > > > > so Orpheus with Powerbleed won the table. > > > > > > if he was really the big threat as you imply, why the fuck didnt you > > > two fight him instead? > > > > My point exactly. > > > > I had killed my !Malk prey. > > I should have made the deal before. No. You should have acted more against your first predator, then me, before. > The Nos and Krassimir could have worked together > > to kill all the vampires on the table, both mine and my !Malk predator (yes, > > I know, they're everywhere...). If we got new ones out, just go for the > > kill. Then, fight it out "like men" and we see whose combat deck is the > > best. > > To make a deal to help my prey getting 3 (or 2) VPs and then fight it > out, would be stupid. If my prey is the one who benefits from one part > of the deal, i want the other part be in my favour. No one said : let him kill his prey for nothing. I said kill the vampires. You can agree on something like that rather than make deals for VPs. And he can break, or not, exactly in the same way. Also remember the game very nearly went to time limit. > > And both of your combat decks needed a "killing" edge : I never saw a Fame > > hit the table ; I never saw your Nos Princes play a Parity Shift or a > > Anathema ; Krassimir didn't even include a Conditionning (his prey was at > > 2-3 when he died...) > > I had all those cards. And a fame hadnt give me anything. Ok. > But the > argument is pointless. We are not talking about deck building, we are > talking about a preadator-prey relationship, where it would be the > best play to deal with your prey. Ok. > Because power bleeders dont need teh same deals like combat decks, we > dont have to change the rules. Deals aren't a part of the rules. Playing to win is. As with any sacred book, what needs to be re-thought isn't the text ; it's the interpretation of it (dogma if you will) that will give it the better justice. IMHO this includes enforcing the "play to win" rule a little more and getting rid of silly withdraws / sacrifices. ----------- Orpheus

"Chris Shorb" <chr...@vtesinla.org> a écrit dans le message de news: 4160EB22...@vtesinla.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, Chris, I think the whole issue is in the finals, not in the number of rounds ! If anything, I believe that 3 rounds allow for less "lucky" part : a deck will have more possibilities to prove its real worth. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Well, since this week tournie, on the italian forum and right here, the > > > question of deals arises again. > > > > > Just a quick notice on the idea that there are currently no particular > > rules concerning deals. Agreed, and already pointed out. > > There is a ruling that states that a player is free to ignore the PLAY > > TO WIN rule in order to respect a legal deal he made previously. > > Shouldn't this ruling be reverted ? > > My point excactly (as stated above). It would IMO solve most of the > issues i have with VP deals. > > Nikolaj I'm with you guys on this one. Nor do I think we're alone. If there are really no rules / rulings about deals, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever, and people will know that a deal that isn't anymore mutually beneficial will be broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > TOTALLY with you on this one, except that i like my fun games to be > > > utterly ruthless and treacherous with the world's best players in > > > tip-top form fielding their fiercest decks. > > > > I don't remember ever playing at your place ??? ;-) > > > > ------------ > > Modest Orpheus > > you still have a lot to learn,kiddo... > with time and experience comes the white beard and the > british flegm ;) But I already have the sicilian laziness and the marsilian "tchatche" !! :D Not to mention, as you well know, a baldness the size your whole body... ;-)) ------------------ Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > I'm with you guys on this one. Nor do I think we're alone. > If there are really no rules / rulings about deals, there is absolutely no > problem whatsoever, and people will know that a deal that isn't anymore > mutually beneficial will be broken. If a deal is set-up such that the player is required to backstab the moment the deal becomes detrimental to him, no player will ever "go first" in a deal and therefore such deals cannot be made in the first place. This would prevent the game from generating subtly crafted deals of depth and intrigue. (There are many posts on Google about this, over time.) Whilst it would be difficult to rule in a case of minor dealing over little bits of play of minor consequence, a general principle of "You must break a deal if it's in your interest" would apply to those too. Or is there some threshold over which a deal of that sort would be measured and things under the radar need not be examined? Would you care to define the general principle of when a player can keep a deal, even though they might be able to do something better with that minion (e.g. oust their prey instead of rescuing your vampire from torpor), and when they can't? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: > "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de > news:Api7d.4002$mS1.813@fed1read05... > (...) > > > It's clearly collusion. The judge has latitude about whether it > > consititutes illegal collusion, i.e. "collusion to alter the > > results of a game" (which is rather ambiguous in certain respects). > > But I think it really has to in order to avoid a potentially very > > bad situation and maintain the integrity of VEKN tournaments. > > you know... i don't think it's collusion. As I've said, it's aruably collusion - but possibly not. However, I'm unsure where Frederick has got the idea that I'd have to rule it collusion to maintain the integrity of a tournament. I've already pointed out one way of dealing with it without requiring it to be ruled as collusion - declaring it invalid under the Unsportsmanlike rules, for a start. >I go to a tournament, and someone at my table agrees to a deal with someone >else and then "betrays". >And later in this tournament, i meet him again and he tries to propose me a >deal... What should i do then ? refuse knowing there will be some betrayal >at some point ? Well, for a start, you don't *know* that. People do funny things all the time. People can, have and very probably will back out on deals with me, apologise for doing so but as we can both see, I'm going to do anyway so there's nothing they can do to help. Or turn round and backstab me in order to get a TW. Or whatever. However, that doesn't happen all the time. People don't just fall into categories of "deal honourer" and "deal breaker". You can - very easily - find a player who'll backstab when it's vitally important to them (they're about to be ousted, you're going to die, they get a better offer which will probably get them the TW or whatever) but not the rest of the time. You are, of course, allowed to refuse the deal. You can even explain why you're going to refuse the deal. You are never, ever required to make a deal by the rules. Nor are you ever required to keep a deal, by the rules. Nor are you required to play without a memory. As people have repeatedly pointed out, "honour" as a virtue in some players - that of keeping deals - is something they play with and remember. Will Reyda keep the deal? Hmm... probably he will, I think. So I'll take it over that one from the nasty Legbiter chap. The reverse is similarly true - he breaks his deals, so I don't have to go through with it. A canny player might choose to take the deal and break it later, to their advantage. (Assuming they're wily enough to do so.) For instance, he agrees to "lend" you The Rack in order to generate some blood, so you can push a vote with Awe, say. Except you don't give it back. Many better examples could no doubt be concocted. However, singling out a player based on out of game considerations ("He broke a deal in the last game", "He slept with my wife", "He's black and I'm racist") rather than in-game considerations ("He's about to oust me", "His deck is killing my ability to play" etc.) would be, in many people's view I'd hazard, "wrong" even if not written explicitly in the rules. As I've said, I'd view such attacks as potential Unsportsmanlike Conduct. All of which is very different to whether or not you choose to deal with a "deal breaker". [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41601b1e$0$16239$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message > de news:Api7d.4002$mS1.813@fed1read05... > (...) > > > It's clearly collusion. The judge has latitude about whether it > > consititutes illegal collusion, i.e. "collusion to alter the > > results of a game" (which is rather ambiguous in certain > > respects). But I think it really has to in order to avoid a > > potentially very bad situation and maintain the integrity of > > VEKN tournaments. > > you know... i don't think it's collusion. > Everybody knows you're supposed not to take previous games in > account. But imagine this : > I go to a tournament, and someone at my table agrees to a deal > with someone else and then "betrays". And later in this > tournament, i meet him again and he tries to propose me a deal... > What should i do then ? ... > What if he proposes another player a deal then ? can i say "hey, > i saw this guy break a deal two hours ago, pal !". Am I forced > to act like i'm blind, deaf, and memoryless ? Yea, I get what you're saying. No, of course you can't. Agreed - as I posted elsewhere - this kind of thing is unavoidable. But... > I don't really understand your logic here. I don't see why Vekn > players loose their integrity if they use some Zorro-type > sentences to seal their acts. I don't know what "Zorro-type sentence" is. But my logic is that there's a *difference* between not trusting a guy because he's broken a previous deal with you and actively screwing him over in a later game because you felt he screwed you over in a previous game. I'm not defending this distinction on any real logical grounds except that: 1) the difference between lack of trust and active revenge is very distinct (in the former case you are using past experience to increase your chances of winning the later game; in the latter case you are actually *sacrificing* your chances of winning a game by attempting to decrease another player's chances of winning) albeit if the player doing it doesn't verbally say what he's doing, you may have to read his mind to know; and 2) the former shouldn't really harm the interests of tournament participation and the latter may very do so. Is that at least reasonably clear? Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: 3yhdpan...@newred.gradwell.net... > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > > > I'm with you guys on this one. Nor do I think we're alone. > > If there are really no rules / rulings about deals, there is absolutely no > > problem whatsoever, and people will know that a deal that isn't anymore > > mutually beneficial will be broken. > > If a deal is set-up such that the player is required to backstab the > moment the deal becomes detrimental to him, no player will ever "go > first" in a deal and therefore such deals cannot be made in the first > place. No one knows how a situation on the game table can evolve, and there are often great surprises on what really happens a few turns after a given, apparently "frozen" gamestate. But the deals would certainly be more cautious, yes. > This would prevent the game from generating subtly crafted > deals of depth and intrigue. (There are many posts on > Google about > this, over time.) Then there is no need to discuss it again ? Still, I disagree : the game can be just as subtle without table-split deals. Keep in mind that this is what we're talking again here. > Whilst it would be difficult to rule in a case of minor dealing over > little bits of play of minor consequence, a general principle of "You > must break a deal if it's in your interest" would apply to those too. It may be in your interest to respect a small deal, and a judge has very few means to evaluate that, nor does he has the right to tell a player how to play. But if deals look like collusion, or a non-optimisation of Vps, he can judge and deal accordingly. > Or is there some threshold over which a deal of that sort would be > measured and things under the radar need not be examined? Would you > care to define the general principle of when a player can keep a deal, > even though they might be able to do something better with that minion > (e.g. oust their prey instead of rescuing your vampire from torpor), > and when they can't? Now you pose something interesting. You know, for me the core of the problem lies with table-splitting deals, formulated or suggested. You can, and often do, make timing choices : it may be wiser not to kill your prey right away, says, because you want her to weaken your next prey ; likewise, getting an ally, however temporary, can be a wise thing : you help me, I help you ; I keep my word, we may do it again (or not ; I may keep my word again ; or not). Such temporary deals do, as you say, add to the interests of this game (I would have stopped some years ago without these subtleties). You choose how, and in what timing, you will make those VPs. What counts is : do as many as you possibly can !! If you don't : it's collusion. Or bad play (I know a player who doesn't bleed to kill his prey and looses games he should win ; just because he panics). But the judge should be able to determine which one it is. And all of us who had to judge deals know that the guidelines are just that, and that ultimately it's the you, your logic and your conscience (there are no rules about deals). Hoping this will help you understand our viewpoint, [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:4161a8ef$0$24281$626a...@news.free.fr... > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: > 3yhdpan...@newred.gradwell.net... > > This would prevent the game from generating subtly crafted > > deals of depth and intrigue. (There are many posts on > > Google about > > this, over time.) > > Then there is no need to discuss it again ? > > Still, I disagree : the game can be just as subtle without table-split > deals. Keep in mind that this is what we're talking again here. That's what you had been talking about, yeah. Now you're in the "all deals" camp -- mowing down all deals with the "play to win overrides honoring deals" line of attack. If you want to limit it to just VP deals, then you need to phrase it that way (and come up with some way to define what is and what is not a "VP deal"). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:3yd5zyn...@newred.gradwell.net... > However, I'm unsure where Frederick has got the idea that I'd have > to rule it collusion to maintain the integrity of a tournament. > I've already pointed out one way of dealing with it without > requiring it to be ruled as collusion - declaring it invalid under > the Unsportsmanlike rules, for a start. What? You're quibbling that players actually need to *collude* in order to fall under "collusion"?!? How quaint! :-) I guess the reasons I feel it belongs under "collusion" rather than unsportsmanlike behavior is the "...to alter the results of a game" part of collusion, which is what the offender is attempting to do. I've always though of unsportsmanlike conduct as just that: generally hostile behavior of an uncalled for nature. That is, letting one's anger and frustration get out of control to where one is screaming at opponents, judges, or others making the environment generally unpleasant. But you can screw over an opponent with a smile and a kind word on the side and that doesn't seem to fall under unsportingmanlike behavior IME. Also, I vaguely recall (read, "where my long-term memory is concerned, all bets are off!" :-P ) LSJ generally grouping anything involving outside acting on motivations that stem from sources outside the game - including such things as feeling that one needs only a single victory point to qualify for the finals and so playing to get one sure VP instead of a game win - under the collusion rule. Bottom line, of course, is that I don't really care so much how you enforce this situation as long as you do. If you want to call "unsportsmanlike" instead of "collusion", I guess it's not that important. Fred

> > Still, I disagree : the game can be just as subtle without table-split > > deals. Keep in mind that this is what we're talking again here. > > That's what you had been talking about, yeah. > > Now you're in the "all deals" camp -- mowing down all deals > with the "play to win overrides honoring deals" line of attack. It has never been my proposal to "mow down all deals". It would be rather silly, limitating, not to mention impossible to define. > If you want to limit it to just VP deals, then you need to > phrase it that way (and come up with some way to define what > is and what is not a "VP deal"). Okay, then let's try again : these are guidelines (I'll let the exact phrasing to more expert rulers than me) that could be included in the rules booklet without any further modification, and could "mow down" a lot of what I consider "bad deals" (the ones that are bad for the spirit of the game, meaning most of the VP deals) : - modify ruling : a player must try to gain every possible VP at the table, to the best of his ability (this does not stop at the Game Win) - get rid of the Withdraw rule altogether (adapt text of Brinksmanship) ; after all, I don't see why people who get to Time Limit should by mutual agreement get 1 VP each instead of 0.5 : this was IMHO a loophole in the rules, and has no valid reason of being kept. Even people without a library can play, moreso at least than people without any ready vampire, and I don't believe there's any rule allowing these to leave the table, is there ? Withdrawing should allow no VP, or at the max 0.5, or not exist at all. - forbid "transfer out" ("a player does not have the right to play cards or influence minions in a way that will reduce his pool to 0 or less, or that will greatly reduce his pool without giving him a chance to keep on playing" or something like that). And there is always the proposal I made before : - A player must optimize his VPs at any given time, even to the point of breaking any deal made in other circumstances : if these circumstances are changed in any way, the deal is de facto considered invalid. (of course, this one is more subjective, and I understand that in your PoV it could break smaller, more subtle deals ; also, it takes deals into account, and we all know they don't exist in the rules... ;). Of course, these are just my 2-cents : I'm aware there's a big problem, and like many here I try my best to come up with ways to correct it. Now it's up to you and your team, if you wish, LSJ... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:4161bafd$0$24274$626a...@news.free.fr... > Okay, then let's try again : these are guidelines (I'll let the > exact phrasing to more expert rulers than me) that could be > included in the rules booklet without any further modification, > and could "mow down" a lot of what I consider "bad deals" (the > ones that are bad for the spirit of the game, meaning most of the > VP deals) : At least one has a side-effect having nothing to do with deals that I consider bad: ... > - A player must optimize his VPs at any given time, even to the > point of breaking any deal made in other circumstances : if these > circumstances are changed in any way, the deal is de facto > considered invalid. Never mind the part of the rules addressing deals. If you have the opportunity to go for a sure third victory point in a game in which you'd already gotten two ousts, it shouldn't matter that you may sacrifice fairly sizable chances at getting the sweep. The biggest objective of a game in a tournament is to win the game - period. That is the first and most important metric which determine who makes the finals. Rules should not be created that, if enforced, might risk a player his impending game win in the interests of forcing him to go after a sweep. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:Jth8d.12065$mS1.1020@fed1read05... > 1) the difference between lack of trust and > active revenge is very distinct (in the former case you are using > past experience to increase your chances of winning the later game; > in the latter case you are actually *sacrificing* your chances of > winning a game by attempting to decrease another player's chances > of winning) albeit if the player doing it doesn't verbally say what > he's doing, you may have to read his mind to know; and 2) the former > shouldn't really harm the interests of tournament participation > and the latter may very do so. > > Is that at least reasonably clear? yes, i understand your point of view now.

[ quoted text not captured ] It is obvious that risking losing the GW to get more VPs isn't optimizing !! But then, I'll tell you that gaining more VPs also is a way to get into the finals : usually, you need about 2/6 or 2/8 for a big tournie, so the Vps have their importance ; on a smallest one, even a GW could suffice, all the rest is the VPs you have. Furthermore, I believe that calculating the number of VPs you need / already have is an out-of-game consideration, right LSJ ? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<415b2f7a$0$6620$626a...@news.free.fr>... > NEVER !! There is absolutely no valid reason for that. And read LSJ' lips : > "There are no rules for deals". Which is part of the problem (there should > be rules *against* deals). But you cannot be forced to respect something > which doesn't exist, right ? I am absolutely against rules against deals. They start endless discussions about legal deals, they are mostly not judgeable and will open all problems of collusions. I agree that withdrawing should be abolished. You should not get the same VPs for staying alive then for killing your prey. That sure would make some dirty deals impossible. If you accept that deals are part of the game, you can start the possiblities to counter dirty deals in the game. 1st. Counter dealing. Usually three players should be able to stop two players splitting the table. 2nd. Making a better deal and breaking it. Like said before, if you could exspect more deal breaking the dirty deals would get less. (The Succubus Club deal is the classic example. Always accept it and break it, will kill that deal in the long run.)

> Okay, then let's try again : these are guidelines (I'll let the exact > phrasing to more expert rulers than me) that could be included in the > rules > booklet without any further modification, and could "mow down" a lot of > what > I consider "bad deals" (the ones that are bad for the spirit of the game, > meaning most of the VP deals) : You got me thinking. How about this modification to the Game Win tournament rule: After a given round the Game Win is awarded to the upper 25% of the players (meaning, that it is no longer necessarily tied to exactly 3 VPs). Maybe calling it "Game Win" would no longer suffice... This way people would no longer have a calculable cut-off point for the preliminary rounds. It would not affect finals directly, though. I'm not necessarily saying this is a good idea, as it would basically introduce more competition between tables, but it would also introduce a certain uncertainty that would make preliminary VP deals risky. -- Bye, Daneel

Frederick Scott wrote: > Also, I vaguely recall (read, "where my long-term memory is > concerned, all bets are off!" :-P ) LSJ generally grouping > anything involving outside acting on motivations that stem from > sources outside the game - including such things as feeling that > one needs only a single victory point to qualify for the finals > and so playing to get one sure VP instead of a game win - under > the collusion rule. No. I never have. I have, in fact, come down on the opposite side of things. In addition, I have also noted something similar in regards to the sportsmanship rule (how it serves as a blanket for many inappropriate behavior, including collusive-seeming behavior that isn't actual collusion). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: >>>Still, I disagree : the game can be just as subtle without table-split >>>deals. Keep in mind that this is what we're talking again here. >> >>That's what you had been talking about, yeah. >> >>Now you're in the "all deals" camp -- mowing down all deals >>with the "play to win overrides honoring deals" line of attack. > > It has never been my proposal to "mow down all deals". It would be rather > silly, limitating, not to mention impossible to define. The proposal you said you said "I'm with you guys on this one" on was to reverse the ability to honor a (legally-made) deal when it (the honoring) didn't conform to the play-to-win rule. Which mows down virtually all deals involving any future actions, in practice. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:3yhdpan...@newred.gradwell.net... > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > > > I'm with you guys on this one. Nor do I think we're alone. > > If there are really no rules / rulings about deals, there is absolutely no > > problem whatsoever, and people will know that a deal that isn't anymore > > mutually beneficial will be broken. > > If a deal is set-up such that the player is required to backstab the > moment the deal becomes detrimental to him, no player will ever "go > first" in a deal and therefore such deals cannot be made in the first > place. This would prevent the game from generating subtly crafted > deals of depth and intrigue. (There are many posts on Google about > this, over time.) Orpheus may have overstated a bit there. But what I do think might be useful - and I disagree that the game wouldn't generate enough depth and intrigue without as many deals, or as extensive deals, as it has now - is a rule, like Orpheus and others have suggested, that players must always attempt to get as many VPs as they reasonably can, regardless of other circumstances. That is, that you cannot make (and keep) a deal offering to not oust someone later in return for favors now. If you can get more VPs, even if you have already won the game, you must do so. I don't think that would eliminate most deals, since most deals (the mutually beneficial "I help you a little, you help me a little" kind) don't require anyone to promise to concede at the end of the game or promise to allow withdrawing from the game. I think the appropriate dividing line would not prohibit upholding a deal to rescue someone's vampire instead of getting an oust this turn, as long as you believe you'll still be able to get the oust next turn. If you're not going to get the oust at all - ie you'll be ousted first instead, or your prey will no longer be oustable - then you should get the VP instead of upholding the deal. I think most people (who aren't in the "death before dishonor!" camp) would not hold it against their deal-partner to take this course of action when such a situation arises. It is, after all, not a team game, and IMO it should have the maximum reasonable incentives for players to not form teams. Josh cause i don't like either side

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> writes: > Also, I vaguely recall (read, "where my long-term memory is > concerned, all bets are off!" :-P ) LSJ generally grouping > anything involving outside acting on motivations that stem from > sources outside the game - including such things as feeling that > one needs only a single victory point to qualify for the finals > and so playing to get one sure VP instead of a game win - under > the collusion rule. Leaving aside LSJ's rebuttal of his stance on this but... The Collusion rules seem pretty clear - to me - that they are referring to multiple players: "Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the results of a game." Compare, for instance, Cheating - Fraud: "A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information." Also, the "Play to Win" rules stem directly from the Sportsmanlike Conduct requirements: "That's what "play to win" means. Playing to win (i.e., not throwing a game) is a small subset sportsmanlike conduct." [LSJ 20031014] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F8BE4A7.9000704%40white-wolf.com So there is no need to bring into play Collusion as a ruling for 1VP vs Game Win - the Sportsmanlike Conduct requirements can be applied to the player. (Were I judging such, a verbal caution would probably be applied first, before going any further.) And since there aren't - in this case - multiple players involved, it's not Collusion, which requires multiple players, by my reading. Additionally, though somewhat as an aside, at least one form of "outside sources" is *not* handled as Collusion. Cheating - Bribery is one such instance. (Of course, were Collusion used for such purposes as you describe, you could simply regard it as a catch all in the absence of more specific points. This paragraph is mostly for information, rather than rebutting your point.) However, from the above, something like targeting a player because you don't like them due to them being a deal breaker by a single person would *not* be Collusion - Collusion requires more than one person, I feel. So I'd rule it Unsportsmanlike Conduct. And just adding more than one person to the situation doesn't - to my mind - make it always Collusion. For instance, two players who commit a Misrepresentation infraction, for instance, because they're both convinced that the rules say that Lucita Clan Impersonating to Lasombra makes her Sabbat wouldn't (necessarily!) be Collusion. So, I'd be more inclined to just rule a multiple instance of Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Of course, as I've said, if there was some evidence to suggest that the players had deliberately set out to, say, make the person lose (rather than just 'teach them a lesson' or somesuch), I'd be much happier to a move towards Collusion as a ruling. In either event, I'd be unlikely to question a judge's ruling on the issue either way, since it is their judgement as to which side of the line such a thorny issue lies, and I *do* agree that such behaviour needs to be dealt with. A judge being somewhat harsh (DQ rather than Game Loss) or somewhat lenient (Game Loss rather than DQ) would be unlikely to trouble me too much - they're both harsh penalties. (Based on ruling it Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major vs Collusion, where Game Loss and DQ are the recommended penalties.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> writes: > Orpheus may have overstated a bit there. But what I do think might be > useful - and I disagree that the game wouldn't generate enough depth and > intrigue without as many deals, or as extensive deals, as it has now - > is a rule, like Orpheus and others have suggested, that players must > always attempt to get as many VPs as they reasonably can, regardless of > other circumstances. That is, that you cannot make (and keep) a deal > offering to not oust someone later in return for favors now. If you can > get more VPs, even if you have already won the game, you must do so. The "Play to Win" rule can be - at least in part - determined based on what a player does and if there was an openly made deal. However, a rule of this kind either simply forbids actual words being spoken, or requires the judge to be able to intervene about things that weren't said - which is not an easy thing to do! That is, I can ask players, spectators and ousted players if such a deal was actually made currently. If there was one made, it all happens easily. If there wasn't, I can rule play illegal. If there is dispute, I can ask what each player thinks was said (and possibly ask a spectator or two for assistance on this matter) and rule appropriately, based on what seems reasonable from what people have said. Now, we can simply prevent the words being said (and so this isn't a VP splitting deal and move on). Or, if the judge has to intervene based on things which weren't said, this is much harder to clear up. I can't ask what *was* said. I have to ask what *wasn't* said. And since there's no single point of reference for me to say "Was a deal made?", I need to know what's gone on throughout the match. This is Hard (tm). Additionally, combine in the possibility for players to play badly anyway, making mistakes, miscalculations and so forth... Was that discussion earlier implying that I'd let myself be ousted, or have I just screwed up in the late game? As a judge, I'd rather be dealing with players who can play openly, frankly and honestly. As a player, I'd rather such discussions were open and honest, so I can combat them! Providing an incentive for players to go undercover about such things is... something I don't like. > I don't think that would eliminate most deals, since most deals (the > mutually beneficial "I help you a little, you help me a little" kind) > don't require anyone to promise to concede at the end of the game or > promise to allow withdrawing from the game. The rule Orpheus proposed - backstabbing when it wasn't mutually beneficial - does do that. It's not mutually beneficial for me to spend time doing something that helps you and not me. As you say, it is somewhat... overstated in its scope. (This is a big problem.) Unless we accept that the fact that I *can* aid you in the future in that fashion *does* aid me, because it gets your help. From this, it is a small step to "I don't reasonably believe I can get a TW, but I'm willing to help you get your TW if you aid me to getting 2VP out of it" - it's just the same principle, just on a larger scale. (And those believing that this predetermines the fate of the game are missing the point. Even in a deal which really, really, really isn't a VP split deal, but long term mutual co-operation to prevent mutual annihilation or stalling, it's in the interests of other players to ally against this if they feel it's going to ruin their game. (If it isn't going to ruin their game, it's not pre-determining the fate of the game anyway.) If it is pre-determining the fate of the game, it would be best to do something about it.) > I think the appropriate dividing line would not prohibit upholding a > deal to rescue someone's vampire instead of getting an oust this turn, > as long as you believe you'll still be able to get the oust next turn. > If you're not going to get the oust at all - ie you'll be ousted first > instead, or your prey will no longer be oustable - then you should get > the VP instead of upholding the deal. I think most people (who aren't > in the "death before dishonor!" camp) would not hold it against their > deal-partner to take this course of action when such a situation arises. > It is, after all, not a team game, and IMO it should have the maximum > reasonable incentives for players to not form teams. My readings of many posts on this subject suggest that there are quite a sizeable number of people who *would* hold it against their partner. "You agreed to this and damnit, you broke your word. I'm never speaking to you ever again." They may not be a majority, they may not even be a large minority, but they certainly seem to be out there. Bear in mind that not rescuing your vampire may mean that *you* die, and some players area little tetchy about such things, even if you were getting a VP out of the situation. (Add in a further complication that if I save you now, you'll still be on the table for later play - whereas letting you die might get me one VP, but prevent me from getting any others because I want to bargain for your help to help me vote someone down, or whatever.) However, when you say "should get the VP instead if upholding the deal", are you referring to sensible action on the part of the player, or something that the "play to win" rules should enforce? If the former, then I'd tend to agree - if it gets me a VP, I'd be inclined to do it and apologise. But that's a personal play preference. If we're saying that the player should - under the play to win rules - have to take the VP now if they can't get it next turn, that's more problematic. First of all, what if I can't get them next turn but *could* get them the turn after? For instance, if I don't oust them this turn, they'll be able to get out Hasina Kesi as a blocker. (Say, I have a +1 bleed vampire but have shown no stealth in my deck - my prey has gone through my ash-heap to check this multiple times.) They have two pool, so the one pool for Hasina Kesi isn't going to oust them. But *I* know that I have Beast sitting down here, because I played Effective Management this turn. (Or maybe he was just there.) So I decide to send my +1 bleeder to rescue your vampire. 4 pool to Beast. My prey brings out Hasina Kesi, ready to block me. My turn comes up. I can't oust her, because I can't get past Hasina Kesi. But now I transfer out Beast. The next-but-one turn, he rushes Hasina and then I oust you. Even without Beast, Hasina might block me, and then she taps the following turn so I oust her - but she might be playing Wake, so I can't oust her that turn. And how reasonable will this belief have to be? If there's a Folderol deck on the table, it could be doing cross-table reduction and, hey, it might make a deal with the Hasina deck to keep it in, whilst it gets a VP. (This table might be ordered Me - Hasina - Random Deck - You - Folderol.) The Random deck might be troublesome in some way, so the Folderol deck isn't unhappy to see it go away. (Anarch Revolt deck, say - that's why the Hasina deck is in such trouble?) I might not be able to oust you this turn, for that matter - so will I be sacrificing *anything* if I rescue your vamp? Or, perhaps, early on in the game, the Hasina deck was forced to play with an open hand via Aura Reading. Or someone looked at the hand and read out the cards in it (which might be lies, of course). If they'd said "And she's got a Blood Doll", how reasonable is my belief? It might not have been played, and if it is this turn, it'll get another blood and... But the guy reading out the cards was lying. A concrete "next but one" rule is therefore tricky, as is defining any sort of reasonable belief. And a judge coming along who has to rule "Yes, that play is legal" when a player objects to it (saying they should be taking the oust!) is going to be communicating a lot of information about a reasonable assessment of the player's situation - whether we move it from a concrete "next but one" to a "reasonable belief that they can still do it" option, or not. Whereas currently, a judge has to find out if a deal was made which was reasonable at the time (and if it was debatable, another player may well have called him across) and then allow or disallow the play based on that. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> writes: > No one knows how a situation on the game table can evolve, and there are > often great surprises on what really happens a few turns after a given, > apparently "frozen" gamestate. But the deals would certainly be more > cautious, yes. Read up to the first comma, and you'll see why a lot of your objections to VP deals can go away. No one knows how a situation on the game table can evolve. The table split deal isn't a table split deal - it's two players attempting to do that. Since there are clearly still other player(s) on the table, there's nothing to stop them from intervening in this cosy little arrangement. Of course, some players just curl up in a ball and say "Oh no, table split deal! Woe! Alas! I'm doomed! The future is written in stone!" They lose, based on the other players being better at exploiting that facet of the game than them. > Still, I disagree : the game can be just as subtle without table-split > deals. Keep in mind that this is what we're talking again here. But... you can't define what a table-split deal *is*. So how do you propose to remove them from the game? > > Whilst it would be difficult to rule in a case of minor dealing over > > little bits of play of minor consequence, a general principle of "You > > must break a deal if it's in your interest" would apply to those too. > > It may be in your interest to respect a small deal, and a judge has very few > means to evaluate that, nor does he has the right to tell a player how to > play. It may be in my interests to respect a much larger deal that we made, too! If I can't get any VPs at all currently, respecting the larger deal that gets me one or two VPs is in my interests. > But if deals look like collusion, or a non-optimisation of Vps, he can judge > and deal accordingly. If it's collusion, sure. But collusion is nothing to do with table splits. Collusion is a specific form of cheating. Table split/VP split deals are not collusion, so I'm unsure why you raise it here - collusion is illegal, everyone agrees on that. Non-optimisation of VPs is - as discussed elsewhere - extremely tricky to define. Bad play, for instance. Does the judge have to step in there? And if there is a deal and you do, honestly, play badly when trying to carry it out, why should the judge have to intervene to correct an honest bad play? (Now extend this to the judge having to decide if something is an honest bad play or not. Bear in mind that some players have terrific poker faces and a judge who is good at many aspects of the game may be bad at reading poker faces.) > > Or is there some threshold over which a deal of that sort would be > > measured and things under the radar need not be examined? Would you > > care to define the general principle of when a player can keep a deal, > > even though they might be able to do something better with that minion > > (e.g. oust their prey instead of rescuing your vampire from torpor), > > and when they can't? [snip - short term interest, choices and timing] > Or bad play (I know a player who doesn't bleed to kill his prey and looses > games he should win ; just because he panics). But the judge should be able > to determine which one it is. "Should be able to determine" is different from "Is able to determine". I can think of, without even trying, one player I've judged who seems to spend every tournament I've been at swinging between good play and shocking (in my view) mistakes. These aren't mistakes related to deals, necessarily. Just completely misjudging (again, in my view) what s/he should be doing next. If I see a bad play from him/her during the upholding of a deal I might need to intervene on, does he get more leeway than other players? If s/he does, that's a problem. Legbiter has posited the psychological aspects of making deliberate, but plausible, mistakes. (Including Thrown Sewer Lid in a low-but-not-zero potence Toreador deck.) If players can now get tangible judging benefits from making innocuous mistakes... If s/he doesn't, then how am I to rule which it is? I know s/he makes mistakes, I've seen it. But if I can't give him/her leeway, it's not a question of judging which it is - it's a question of upholding some standard of play below which I have to intervene. Which is obviously problematic! > And all of us who had to judge deals know that the guidelines are just that, > and that ultimately it's the you, your logic and your conscience (there are > no rules about deals). A player may uphold a deal that was legally made, even if making the deal again right now wouldn't be legal due to a change in circumstances. LSJ has spelled that out quite a few times. It's not a "rule" per se, but it's just as much a rule as any other ruling or interpretation he makes. If the deal was legal when it was made (in your reasonable judgement), it's legal to uphold it. This isn't necessarily simple to determine, but it's a very simple explanation of the subject. (I'm unsure where "conscience" comes into it. I'm not doing anything bad or wrong. I'm just making a judgment on whether I think something is reasonable or not. Possibly a translation issue.) > Hoping this will help you understand our viewpoint, It's not a question of viewpoint. You don't like VP split deals. I get that. What you don't get is that what you propose - regardless of its suitability or otherwise (which is also being discussed) - is highly impractical. You're asking for judges to read minds. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:y1v8d.490393$OB3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Also, I vaguely recall (read, "where my long-term memory is > > concerned, all bets are off!" :-P ) LSJ generally grouping > > anything involving outside acting on motivations that stem from > > sources outside the game - including such things as feeling that > > one needs only a single victory point to qualify for the finals > > and so playing to get one sure VP instead of a game win - under > > the collusion rule. > > No. I never have. I have, in fact, come down on the opposite > side of things. Well, that's certainly par for the course. But could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "come down on the opposite side of things"? Do you mean that you see nothing wrong with punishing an opponent in a subseqent game for his behavior in a previous game? Or do you just mean that you agree with James that it may be misbehavior but it's unsportsmanlike misbehavior, not collusive misbehavior? Fred

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:41623f63$0$29157$626a...@news.free.fr... > > Never mind the part of the rules addressing deals. If you have > > the opportunity to go for a sure third victory point in a game > > in which you'd already gotten two ousts, it shouldn't matter that > > you may sacrifice fairly sizable chances at getting the sweep. > > The biggest objective of a game in a tournament is to win the > > game - period. That is the first and most important metric which > > determine who makes the finals. Rules should not be created that, > > if enforced, might risk a player his impending game win in the > > interests of forcing him to go after a sweep. > > It is obvious that risking losing the GW to get more VPs isn't > optimizing !! But trying to create a rule around making people "optimize their VPs" doesn't actually say that. If you allow for a heirarchy of motivations - which is what you're doing - it becomes fuzzy when people need to be going for the one and when they must start taking the other into account. The only really concrete thing that can be accomplished without screwing anything up is to say that once a player has already acheived a game win for sure, then he should continue to go after as many extra VPs as he can get. But that shouldn't say anything about VPs he'd agreed to give away in order to nail down the game win. > But then, I'll tell you that gaining more VPs also is a way to get > into the finals It can be sometimes. But game wins are always the most important thing. A game win is worth more than infinity VPs. > Furthermore, I believe that calculating the number of VPs you need / > already have is an out-of-game consideration, right LSJ ? That has nothing to do with anything. This issue is a thing that comes up when you suspect a player of *sacrificing* his chance at a game win because you suspect he's only going for a set number of victory points. Doesn't work the other way around. If a player wants to go after a game win *instead* of optimizing his victory points, that's OK. In fact, current rules say that's what he's supposed to be doing. (Or such is my understanding.) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I mean that I have come down on the side that says it takes two (or more) players with an a priori deal/agreement/arrangement (spoken, written, or otherwise understood) to be collusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > "Chris Shorb" <chr...@vtesinla.org> a écrit dans le message de news: > 4160EB22...@vtesinla.org... > > > > > > Orpheus wrote: > > > > > > > > 3 rounds without finals wouldn't pose this problem. I think it could be > an > > > alternative official format. > > > > > > > It's why 2 rounds + final has been the standard here in Los Angeles for > years. > > Only for "official" tournaments like qualifiers do we run 3+1. > > > > best - > > > > chris > > Well, Chris, I think the whole issue is in the finals, not in the number of > rounds ! > Right. But people were saying that the reason for 3 rounds, no finals was so finalists wouldn't be tired and make stupid deals and huge errors. In other words, the reason is because finalists would be tired, either physically, mentally, or just sick of their decks. > > If anything, I believe that 3 rounds allow for less "lucky" part : a deck > will have more possibilities to prove its real worth. > ----------------- Maybe. best - chris -- chris shorb

LSJ wrote: > Chris Shorb wrote: > > My suggestion is a simple one. There is already a rule against stalling. There > > is no rule supporting deal-making. If the discussion of a deal is taking too > > long, and it bothers you, make a stink, shut the deal makers up, and get the > > play moving again. Easier said than done. But if done enough, then deal making > > will revert back to the example LSJ gave. "I KRC" "Will I take damage?" "No" > > "No block". A table split deal IME takes a long time to explicate and come to > > terms. > > If a deal-making discussion is viewed (by the judge) as "attempting to > stall to take advantage of a time limit", then she should step in (and, > in all likelyhood, simply add back the time that was lost). But that remedy > won't prevent deals from being made. The judge cannot masquerade behind the > stalling rule to undermine legal play that she finds distasteful. > There are long long looooong discussions when deals are being made. Since deal making is not supported by the rules, shouldn't a long discussion (aribitrary criteria to determine whether a discussion is "long", yes I know) be stopped and called stalling? And of course, none of this discussion helps the casual players of whence there are no judges. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> writes: > That has nothing to do with anything. This issue is a thing that > comes up when you suspect a player of *sacrificing* his chance at > a game win because you suspect he's only going for a set number of > victory points. Doesn't work the other way around. If a player > wants to go after a game win *instead* of optimizing his victory > points, that's OK. In fact, current rules say that's what he's > supposed to be doing. (Or such is my understanding.) They do. A player is never - for instance - required to play for a potentially difficult table sweep when they could play for a much more reasonable 3 VP TW. (Compare an F1 racing driver; he wants to come first but isn't under any rules-based pressure to have as big a lead as humanly possible, which may risk him crashing.) Of course, the reverse is pretty much true, since they're still playing to win. As is typically useful, the judge trying to explain to a player "You're not allowed to win that way" (barring collusion, unsportsmanlike conduct etc.) is largely avoided. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> writes: > There are long long looooong discussions when deals are being made. Since deal making > is not supported by the rules, shouldn't a long discussion (aribitrary criteria to > determine whether a discussion is "long", yes I know) be stopped and called stalling? In fact, LSJ's interpretation of the "play to win" rules have long accounted for various forms of deals. The "The rules say nothing about deals" side of the argument is technically true but not entirely useful. However, if you look at the examples for Cheating - Stalling we get: "(A) A player has no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends several minutes "thinking" about what to do." If a player really has no options, the deal will probably not take very long at all. (And lengthy discussions of "Well, should I hunt with him first or him? And which will you give me more help over?" will quite possibly be declared stalling.) If a player has several significant options available to him, discussing with another player as to which is best to achieve mutually beneficial goals seems to run counter to this example. Additionally, Stalling is: "A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit." Making a lengthy deal may well have nothing to do with the time limit at all. (It would be hard, for instance, to decide that a long discussion at 30 minutes into the game was trying to take advantage of this.) A "Slow Play" infraction might be appropriate if the players really are taking a lot of time discussing nothing, but Stalling is generally something more devious, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No. See above. Only stalling should be called stalling. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> writes: <snip long and accurate analisys> > Whereas currently, a judge has to find out if a deal was made which > was reasonable at the time (and if it was debatable, another player > may well have called him across) and then allow or disallow the play > based on that. That word is the achille heel of ruling a deal - "reasonable" - It implies "reasoning", and every people reason in a different way from the other - thats what just happened in the last italian qualifier (from which deal discussion come back again) - on the first deal at the final, me as judge and the qualifier's head judge got 2 different opinions about the table split deal proposed by Andrea Ravera - i was against it, while Federico was agreeing with it - so, beside the long discussion of the players at the table, we,as judges, found ourselves discussing about the deal too; after some little debate of our own, to no slow further the tournament final (which got already pretty slowed due deal discussion at the table), i yielded and agreed with the head judge analisys (which is the final word, after all). You see, two judges can have a different "reasonable" viewpoint, so VP/table split deals not only end up with player discussing endlessy at tables, but they can see even judges discussing their opinions about different way of consider a position "reasonable" for doing/not doing X (X = to win, to score 2 vp, to score 1 vp and so on). regards Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Orpheus wrote: > >>- forbid "transfer out" ("a player does not have the right to play >>cards or influence minions in a way that will reduce his pool to 0 or >>less, or that will greatly reduce his pool without giving him a >>chance to keep on playing" or something like that). >> > > > That would be the easiest modification to rules and would be great if put as > official. An easy modification that doesn't correspond to an easy implementation. This just foists additional headaches on the judge with no real gain -- it's already illegal to violate the "play to win" rule. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> Orpheus wrote: >> >>> - forbid "transfer out" ("a player does not have the right to play >>> cards or influence minions in a way that will reduce his pool to 0 >>> or less, or that will greatly reduce his pool without giving him a >>> chance to keep on playing" or something like that). >>> >> >> >> That would be the easiest modification to rules and would be great >> if put as official. > > An easy modification that doesn't correspond to an easy > implementation. This just foists additional headaches on the judge > with no real gain -- it's already illegal to violate the "play to > win" rule. Which headache ? The headhache comes when the judge is called to rule if a player has no other mean to maximize his position, therefore (by "ruling") being free to oust himself (maybe to force some other player at the table giving away to him a VP in exchange to not self-oust and giving away the game to his actual predator). Negating self-ousting would just eliminate some very common lenghty debates at the tournament tables, at least in my experience. greets Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] The additional rulings/explanations required for no gain -- see above. "greatly", "a chance". Is paying 1 of 2 "greatly"? 1 of 3? 2 of 3? What's the line? Why introduce the artificial longetivity goal on top of the game goals? [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] By implementing this new rule, you would add another headache to judges, since they'll have to interpret whether a player is self-ousting or not. Note that there are many ways in which a player could self-oust besides transferring out ;-) Greetings, Damnans -- http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net

> > Which headache ? > > The headhache comes when the judge is called to rule if a player > > has no other mean to maximize his position, therefore (by "ruling") being > > free to oust himself (maybe to force some other player > > at the table giving away to him a VP in exchange to not self-oust > > and giving away the game to his actual predator). > > Negating self-ousting would just eliminate some very common lenghty > > debates at the tournament tables, at least in my experience. > > By implementing this new rule, you would add another headache to > judges, since they'll have to interpret whether a player is self-ousting > or not. > > Note that there are many ways in which a player could self-oust besides > transferring out ;-) Yes, there are : withdraw, not trying to survive and letting yourself be bled, etc. Which is why this was one proposal among many others. But the headaches are already here. Just ask today's judges. There have been many deals to judge, some very, very hard for the judges, much talking, and more than a few players wondering if they'll ever come back to a tournament where most of the game is done in waiting and without playing a single card. This cannot be good for the VTES scene. So I made my suggestions, as many others did. Apparently (judging by how LSJ didn't rule out all the propositions but tries to see which ones would work or not) the ruling team is aware that there is a problem. How it's gonna be solved is up to them now. But I really hope something is gonna be done, for the good of this game we love. -- Orpheus ------------- "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" Rammstein

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: > Is paying 1 of 2 "greatly"? > 1 of 3? > 2 of 3? > > What's the line? > > Why introduce the artificial longetivity goal on top of the game > goals? Because players are starting to abuse on this line - i'm about to die, so, predator of my predator, since you're going to kill my predator in your next turn, please let me do a VP or i'll transfer me out in *my* turn. There's a clear line between being able to oust (transferring oneself out) and being not able (by a ruling) to self transferring out. Artificial longevity ? I'd call it rather sportsmanlike behavior. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry this is not a point, imho... Taking suicidal actions is plain clear and stupid and, in normal circumstances, forbidden by the "play to win/maximize rule". I can't see how a new headache would come - if a player is forbidden from transferring himself out and wants to "die", well, for sure he could tap all of his/her minion waiting for some bleed or other nasty action, but, a least, his predator would be still forced to take some actions against him (bleed, political, whatever), that is in the full spirit of the game (while it is not in a prey giving away a VP for "free" to his predator). More, a player in a clearly losing position can still benefit from it, trying to deal a vp with someone else interested in him not self ousting, and that implies more lenghty discussion, and so on. greets Emiliano

Orpheus wrote: >>>Which headache ? >>>The headhache comes when the judge is called to rule if a player >>>has no other mean to maximize his position, therefore (by "ruling") > > being > >>>free to oust himself (maybe to force some other player >>>at the table giving away to him a VP in exchange to not self-oust >>>and giving away the game to his actual predator). >>>Negating self-ousting would just eliminate some very common lenghty >>>debates at the tournament tables, at least in my experience. >> >>By implementing this new rule, you would add another headache to >>judges, since they'll have to interpret whether a player is self-ousting >>or not. >> >>Note that there are many ways in which a player could self-oust besides >>transferring out ;-) > > > Yes, there are : withdraw, not trying to survive and letting yourself be > bled, etc. Which is why this was one proposal among many others. > > But the headaches are already here. Just ask today's judges. That's exactly why we shouldn't add more of them :-) > There have been many deals to judge, some very, very hard for the judges, > much talking, and more than a few players wondering if they'll ever come > back to a tournament where most of the game is done in waiting and without > playing a single card. This problem is up to the players to solve (in addition to judges, of course). But, as Legbiter has already said, players try to make deals because they think they will not be broken, and therefore the see them as a safe way to win the game. If deals weren't so "safe", players would surely focus on winning the game by other means. I am starting to see that breaking deals is good for the game >:-) And note that judges cannot rule against bad play. Players can talk ad nauseam until the game times out :-) There is too much table talk these days (which is mostly bad play, i.e., useless), and some people do not seem to see it. > This cannot be good for the VTES scene. Bad play is not good for the V:TES scene. That's why players should be educated to avoid bad play (this task is quite impossible in a few hopeless cases >:D however) > So I made my suggestions, as many others did. > > Apparently (judging by how LSJ didn't rule out all the propositions but > tries to see which ones would work or not) the ruling team is aware that > there is a problem. How it's gonna be solved is up to them now. > > But I really hope something is gonna be done, for the good of this game we > love. You cannot draw a line on the water, just as you cannot draw a line on something inherently subject to interpretation (like V:TES moves). Since judges cannot read the players' minds, they must interpret their moves (it is their job to do so). [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Damnans wrote: [...] >>>Which headache ? >>>The headhache comes when the judge is called to rule if a player >>>has no other mean to maximize his position, therefore (by "ruling") >>>being free to oust himself (maybe to force some other player >>>at the table giving away to him a VP in exchange to not self-oust >>>and giving away the game to his actual predator). >>>Negating self-ousting would just eliminate some very common lenghty >>>debates at the tournament tables, at least in my experience. >> >>By implementing this new rule, you would add another headache to >>judges, since they'll have to interpret whether a player is >>self-ousting or not. >> >>Note that there are many ways in which a player could self-oust >>besides transferring out ;-) > > > Sorry this is not a point, imho... > Taking suicidal actions is plain clear and stupid and, in normal > circumstances, > forbidden by the "play to win/maximize rule". Plain clear? >:-) I am afraid it is not that clear. There are subtle ways to oust oneself. > I can't see how a new headache would come - if a player is forbidden > from transferring himself out and wants to "die", well, for sure he could > tap all of his/her minion waiting for some bleed or other nasty action, > but, a least, his predator would be still forced to take some actions > against him > (bleed, political, whatever), that is in the full spirit of the game Letting yourself die is the full spirit of the game >:-) ? I thought players should play to win :-P So letting yourself die is less "unsportmanlike" than transferring out, huh? I don't see the difference. In both cases the player gives up to play to win the game or to maximize his or her victory points. > (while it is not in a prey giving away a VP for "free" to his predator). > More, a player in a clearly losing position can still benefit from it, > trying to deal a vp with someone else interested in him not self ousting, > and that implies more lenghty discussion, and so on. That's what players should do: playing to win. There are many ways to win a game, even in very adverse circumstances. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2stn31F...@uni-berlin.de>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> mumbled something about: >LSJ wrote: >> >> Why introduce the artificial longetivity goal on top of the game >> goals? > >Because players are starting to abuse on this line - i'm about to die, >so, predator of my predator, since you're going to >kill my predator in your next turn, please let me do a VP or i'll > transfer me out in *my* turn. Yeah, I'm really tired of playing games of V:TES that include the words "... or I'll transfer out." What the fuck? Play the game. Nobody is here to let you win; they all want to win themselves. Not in a winning position? Build your deck better, or play better. I'll be the first to admit that I've used it too, and I'm not really proud of that fact. At the same time, I'm fully behind the "remove this bullshit from the game" perspective. I've proposed a simple rule before, and I'll repeat it: "You may not spend pool that would reduce you below 1." This does not stop you from calling an Anarchist Uprising and nuking yourself and your prey for a VP. This does not stop you from transferring yourself to 1 and refusing to block. But it does stop you from: -- transferring your last pool -- blowing through the straw to a Blood Doll -- playing a Master that costs exactly what you have left -- playing an action card whose cost is exactly what you have left -- etcetera The biggest problem is, as always, the "out of turn 6 pool" that happens, which screws the grandpredator of the self-nukee. Someone who chooses not to defend themselves cannot be stopped; they can fake it effectively. But you can force their predator to do the last point of damage, which stops a whole lot of the "I will transfer myself out" bullshit. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news: hlkjm0dua4ncqg7ad...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Looks like we agree. I like your ruling suggestion. Want to enforce it without adding a new rule to the booklet ? Easy : just include "killing yourself", or even transferring to the point of weakening yourself for naught : "unsportsmanlike behaviour". That's exactly what it is. Or, sometimes, bad play, but which should not be encouraged as it unbalances the table in favour of one. Sick and tired of bad dealing games (even when I'm the one ultimately profiting from them : let it be clear that it's not one of these "I can't do it so I want it to stop" rants). -- Deadly yours, Orpheus

> >>By implementing this new rule, you would add another headache to > >>judges, since they'll have to interpret whether a player is self-ousting > >>or not. > >> > >>Note that there are many ways in which a player could self-oust besides > >>transferring out ;-) > > > > > > Yes, there are : withdraw, not trying to survive and letting yourself be > > bled, etc. Which is why this was one proposal among many others. > > > > But the headaches are already here. Just ask today's judges. > > That's exactly why we shouldn't add more of them :-) If anything, it would take some out. Transfer out happens, and in that case the judge has to determine if it's collusion or not. It also happens in deals which are very hard to judge. Maybe less headeaches. Not more anyway. Less ugly games. > > There have been many deals to judge, some very, very hard for the judges, > > much talking, and more than a few players wondering if they'll ever come > > back to a tournament where most of the game is done in waiting and without > > playing a single card. > > This problem is up to the players to solve (in addition to judges, of course). > But, as Legbiter has already said, players try to make deals because they > think they will not be broken, and therefore the see them as a safe way to > win the game. > > If deals weren't so "safe", players would surely focus on winning the game > by other means. > > I am starting to see that breaking deals is good for the game >:-) It is. But this strategy works only if many people do it. If not, you're just designated as the Big Bad Wolf. > And note that judges cannot rule against bad play. Players can talk ad > nauseam until the game times out :-) There is too much table talk these > days (which is mostly bad play, i.e., useless), and some people do not > seem to see it. Agreed. > > This cannot be good for the VTES scene. > > Bad play is not good for the V:TES scene. That's why players should be > educated to avoid bad play (this task is quite impossible in a few > hopeless cases >:D however) Yes. But excessive dealings is the one part of that bad play which could be ruled against. > > So I made my suggestions, as many others did. > > > > Apparently (judging by how LSJ didn't rule out all the propositions but > > tries to see which ones would work or not) the ruling team is aware that > > there is a problem. How it's gonna be solved is up to them now. > > > > But I really hope something is gonna be done, for the good of this game we > > love. > > You cannot draw a line on the water, just as you cannot draw a line on > something inherently subject to interpretation (like V:TES moves). So you cannot judge anything ? Give the judge any guidelines ? Well, they already have to "draw on water" at every game they judge, and that's a very, very hard task as you well know. I believe that some ironclad rules would help them, and the game in general. > Since > judges cannot read the players' minds, they must interpret their moves > (it is their job to do so). Which is exactly why some precise rules would help them without giving them AUS ;-) The problematic rules of lack of, as of now are Withdraw, transfer out, and stopping the "play to win" rule at the GW. If these are dealt with, the judges' headaches, the useless tabletalk ("bad play" as you stated) and the players getting disgusted of tournaments (and sometimes of the whole game) will be reduced. A lot, I believe. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Looks like we agree. > > I like your ruling suggestion. > > Want to enforce it without adding a new rule to the booklet ? Easy : just > include "killing yourself", or even transferring to the point of weakening > yourself for naught : "unsportsmanlike behaviour". That's exactly what it > is. Or, sometimes, bad play, but which should not be encouraged as it > unbalances the table in favour of one. Every move you take 'unbalances the table'. Example: a player with a rush deck is in a lost position. He is down to one pool, has no pool gain available, his prey has more pool than he can take and there is one (or one dozen) AR on the table while his predator has absolute control of the votes. What should he do? a) transfer out b) rush or bleed his prey c) rush his predator d) do nothing. Your ruling would prevent a), but any other option will have an effect on the remaining game. There is no 'bad play' here, he is going to be ousted whatever he does, how can one play be ruled worse than the other in that situation? Wether any option he takes is unsportsmanlike depends on his intentions, not on the specific action he is taking. Flux

> Want to enforce it without adding a new rule to the booklet ? Easy : just > include "killing yourself", or even transferring to the point of weakening > yourself for naught : "unsportsmanlike behaviour". That's exactly what it > is. Or, sometimes, bad play, but which should not be encouraged as it > unbalances the table in favour of one. (dunno why the "reply to" function doesn't put your quote in brackets, so I'll mark it like this :) " Every move you take 'unbalances the table'. Example: a player with a rush deck is in a lost position. He is down to one pool, has no pool gain available, his prey has more pool than he can take and there is one (or one dozen) AR on the table while his predator has absolute control of the votes. What should he do? a) transfer out b) rush or bleed his prey c) rush his predator d) do nothing. Your ruling would prevent a), but any other option will have an effect on the remaining game. There is no 'bad play' here, he is going to be ousted whatever he does, how can one play be ruled worse than the other in that situation? Wether any option he takes is unsportsmanlike depends on his intentions, not on the specific action he is taking. Flux " You are perfectly right on that account. In this case, usually, the player either plays according to : - personnal feelings, usually based upon how the game went (who gave him more trouble or help during the game) ; as long as they're not out-of-game considerations of course ; - personnal "moral" conceptions : of his "duty as a predator" ("you escaped me, at least I'll have weakened you"), his "duty to defend against his predator" ("won't be an easy victory"), etc. In short : very personnal reasons, which one will deem adequate while another will find them preposterous, depending on one's conceptions of the game and on the precise context. But at least, whatever he does, he still plays : right or wrong, even doing nothing. That's play. And it doesn't give 6 pool out-of-turn to another play er. More than anything : it doesn't outragingly ease VP deals. -- Deadly yours, Orpheus

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hlkjm0dua4ncqg7ad...@4ax.com... > "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> mumbled something about: > >LSJ wrote: > >> Why introduce the artificial longetivity goal on top of the game > >> goals? > > > >Because players are starting to abuse on this line - i'm about to die, > >so, predator of my predator, since you're going to > >kill my predator in your next turn, please let me do a VP or i'll > > transfer me out in *my* turn. > > Yeah, I'm really tired of playing games of V:TES that include the words > "... or I'll transfer out." What the [foul]? Play the game. Nobody is > here to let you win; they all want to win themselves. Not in a winning > position? Build your deck better, or play better. That's hardly "abusable" (using Tet's term). You almost oust your prey, but your prey has all but ousted her own prey who is moreover in a lost position. Why force that prey to choose only from the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her predator (your prey). Clearly I can see why the "you" in that scenario would prefer that he not be allowed to, but just as clearly the "your prey" in that scenario would be happy to ban the use of Life Boon, for example, in those circumstances, instead. Anyone would be happier in general with more VPs than with fewer. And what's keeping your from making the deal and then ousting your new prey anyhow (again, in the more fully developed example from Tet's post)? Build your deck better, or play better (to put more pressure on your prey so her own prey doesn't get so weak in the first place, or backstab for a sweep, either way). > I'll be the first to admit that I've used it too, and I'm not really > proud of that fact. At the same time, I'm fully behind the "remove this > bullshit from the game" perspective. I've proposed a simple rule > before, and I'll repeat it: > > "You may not spend pool that would reduce you below 1." > > This does not stop you from calling an Anarchist Uprising and nuking > yourself and your prey for a VP. This does not stop you from > transferring yourself to 1 and refusing to block. But it does stop you > from: > > -- transferring your last pool > -- blowing through the straw to a Blood Doll This is not "spending". If your desire is to prohibit this, you'll need better wording. > -- playing a Master that costs exactly what you have left > -- playing an action card whose cost is exactly what you have left > -- etcetera > > The biggest problem is, as always, the "out of turn 6 pool" that > happens, which screws the grandpredator of the self-nukee. Someone who > chooses not to defend themselves cannot be stopped; they can fake it > effectively. But you can force their predator to do the last point of > damage, which stops a whole lot of the "I will transfer myself out" > [bunk]. It also stops you from: -- Cycling a card that would cost your last pool under an agreement to have your grand-predator (or whoever) cancel it (Sudden or DI). I've done this. I didn't draw into the wake I was hoping for, but the cycling itself was still my best/only option for more VPs. -- Playing Archon Investigation when you'd be ousted either way. And it raises a question about forced "spending" (via Vast Wealth, for example). Clear answer, sure, but you know how players are. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Damnans wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> I can't see how a new headache would come - if a player is forbidden >> from transferring himself out and wants to "die", well, for sure he >> could tap all of his/her minion waiting for some bleed or other >> nasty action, but, a least, his predator would be still forced to >> take some actions against him >> (bleed, political, whatever), that is in the full spirit of the game > > Letting yourself die is the full spirit of the game >:-) ? > No, of course - i was not advocating about a player doing stupid things just to get himself ousted (nor i consider it acceptable in any means) My "In the full spirit of the game" was in regard of a predator *taking* actions to oust his/her prey to the last pool, and not seeying a prey ousting out himself/herself (by blodd doll, transfer, wast wealth, whatever) freeing his/her predator from the pain of do the last action(s) needed to gain the VP. > I thought players should play to win :-P > > So letting yourself die is less "unsportmanlike" than transferring > out, huh? I don't see the difference. In both cases the player gives > up to play > to win the game or to maximize his or her victory points. Passively transferring himself out is different from taking (stupid) actions to try to be ousted. Among other things, it implies that the predator will have to *take* some kind of action(s) to achieve the 6 pool VP, and not getting them passively. >> (while it is not in a prey giving away a VP for "free" to his >> predator). More, a player in a clearly losing position can still >> benefit from it, trying to deal a vp with someone else interested in >> him not self ousting, and that implies more lenghty discussion, and >> so on. > > That's what players should do: playing to win. There are many ways to > win > a game, even in very adverse circumstances. > Yes, indeed, and for that reason i would see much better a rule prohibiting self ousting/transferring out/blloding doll out etc. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Damnans wrote: > >>So letting yourself die is less "unsportmanlike" than transferring >>out, huh? I don't see the difference. In both cases the player gives >>up to play >>to win the game or to maximize his or her victory points. > > > Passively transferring himself out is different from taking (stupid) actions > to try to be ousted. > Among other things, it implies that the predator will have to *take* some > kind of action(s) to achieve the 6 pool VP, and not getting them passively. Ousting a player is (usually) not the result of a single action, but of a set of actions taken during a whole game. Why should it be required that last of those actions is taken by the predator, yet all other previous actions might be taken by the player himself (due to bad play, for example)? Flux

>Yeah, I'm really tired of playing games of V:TES that include the words >"... or I'll transfer out." What the fuck? Play the game. Nobody is >here to let you win; they all want to win themselves. Not in a winning >position? Build your deck better, or play better. There are other reasons to transfer out, but I often see transferring out as a spite play. Should spite be part of the game? I think it's possible. The ability to spite someone has bargaining value that may correct some bad play or give hope for a horrible position (if you believe that players should have hope in horrible positions). Actually, when competent players transfer out, it doesn't bother me. It's the bad players who transfer out because they are bored with the game or whatever random game element reason they have which annoy me. But, then, bad players (well, those I consider bad) are often annoying for other reasons, so it might not matter.

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<2stn31F...@uni-berlin.de>... > > Because players are starting to abuse on this line - i'm about to die, > so, predator of my predator, since you're going to > kill my predator in your next turn, please let me do a VP or i'll > transfer me out in *my* turn. Actually, shouldn't that fall under 'unsportsmanlike behaviour'? G

[ quoted text not captured ] Usually bad play isn't common in the tournament enviroment (and the discussion is all about tournaments) so that's not a point. Anyway, even if a player repedeatly does mistakes and screws his own game, that don't means that one should be free of giving the "coup de grace" to himself. greets Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Flux wrote: > >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >> >>>Passively transferring himself out is different from taking (stupid) >>>actions to try to be ousted. >>>Among other things, it implies that the predator will have to *take* >>>some kind of action(s) to achieve the 6 pool VP, and not getting >>>them passively. >> >>Ousting a player is (usually) not the result of a single action, but >>of a set of actions taken during a whole game. Why should it be >>required that last of those actions is taken by the predator, yet all >>other previous actions might be taken by the player himself (due to >>bad play, for example)? >> > > > Usually bad play isn't common in the tournament enviroment > (and the discussion is all about tournaments) so that's not a point. ?!?!?!? I've seen just as much bad play in tournaments as in casual play. Usually by new players, but often by more experienced ones too (myself included). > Anyway, even if a player repedeatly does mistakes and screws > his own game, that don't means that one should be free of > giving the "coup de grace" to himself. Why not? In many games it is considered more reasonable to conceed a lost game than to stubbornly play it out to the end (Chess and Go, for example). Flux

In message <2t0eb1F...@uni-berlin.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> mumbled something about: >Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> Anyway, even if a player repedeatly does mistakes and screws >> his own game, that don't means that one should be free of >> giving the "coup de grace" to himself. > >Why not? >In many games it is considered more reasonable to conceed a lost game than >to stubbornly play it out to the end (Chess and Go, for example). You quote two-player games as an example, which are not directly comparable. I suggest identifying a multiplayer game if you're going to use this angle. If I resign in Chess, my opponent wins a 100% win, and absolutely nobody else in the current game is affected by this. Same with Go. If I resign (transfer out) in V:TES, my predator gets a partial win (1VP), and the rest of the table is significantly affected. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <2t0eb1F...@uni-berlin.de>, > Flux <fl...@netc.pt> mumbled something about: > >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >> >> >>>Anyway, even if a player repedeatly does mistakes and screws >>>his own game, that don't means that one should be free of >>>giving the "coup de grace" to himself. >> >>Why not? >>In many games it is considered more reasonable to conceed a lost game than >>to stubbornly play it out to the end (Chess and Go, for example). > > > You quote two-player games as an example, which are not directly > comparable. I suggest identifying a multiplayer game if you're going to > use this angle. > > If I resign in Chess, my opponent wins a 100% win, and absolutely nobody > else in the current game is affected by this. Same with Go. > > If I resign (transfer out) in V:TES, my predator gets a partial win > (1VP), and the rest of the table is significantly affected. But that point has already been argued. Even if the player is not allowed to transfer out he may still have a significant effect on the rest of the table, he may help or hinder his predator in a number of ways. Transfering out is no more than another option on how to lose. Flux

In message <2t0kqpF...@uni-berlin.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> In message <2t0eb1F...@uni-berlin.de>, >> Flux <fl...@netc.pt> mumbled something about: >> >>>Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Anyway, even if a player repedeatly does mistakes and screws >>>>his own game, that don't means that one should be free of >>>>giving the "coup de grace" to himself. >>> >>>Why not? >>>In many games it is considered more reasonable to conceed a lost game than >>>to stubbornly play it out to the end (Chess and Go, for example). >> >> You quote two-player games as an example, which are not directly >> comparable. I suggest identifying a multiplayer game if you're going to >> use this angle. >> >> If I resign in Chess, my opponent wins a 100% win, and absolutely nobody >> else in the current game is affected by this. Same with Go. >> >> If I resign (transfer out) in V:TES, my predator gets a partial win >> (1VP), and the rest of the table is significantly affected. > >But that point has already been argued. And it remains 100% valid. You can't hold up "in many games it is considered reasonable/polite to concede" as an argument supporting the case for allowing transferring out, especially when you only provide the below dodge as a support for it. The reason it is considered polite is because the rest of the game doesn't matter; the outcome has already been determined, and nothing else will affect it. In a multiplayer game, the rest of the game matters quite a bit. >Even if the player is not allowed to transfer out he may still have a >significant effect on the rest of the table, he may help or hinder his Even more support for why it's not reasonable to concede in a multiplayer game, and why transferring out should not be an option. On the contrary, in a two-player game like Chess, a lost position is still lost -- while you may still have a significant effect (you may be able to capture your opponent's Queen by ignoring a mate-in-one, for example), the outcome remains exactly the same as it would have been otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2svcpnF...@uni-berlin.de>, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:hlkjm0dua4ncqg7ad...@4ax.com... >> "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> mumbled something about: >> >LSJ wrote: >> >> Why introduce the artificial longetivity goal on top of the game >> >> goals? >> > >> >Because players are starting to abuse on this line - i'm about to die, >> >so, predator of my predator, since you're going to >> >kill my predator in your next turn, please let me do a VP or i'll >> > transfer me out in *my* turn. >> >> Yeah, I'm really tired of playing games of V:TES that include the words >> "... or I'll transfer out." What the [foul]? Play the game. Nobody is >> here to let you win; they all want to win themselves. Not in a winning >> position? Build your deck better, or play better. > >That's hardly "abusable" (using Tet's term). When used in the sense Tet is thinking, it is. Threatening suicide from a not-necessarily-lost position? Why even play the game? I've seen it plenty; a player who is capable of defending and whose game is far from over, but chooses instead to try to extort favors from the table with the threat of "i'll transfer out and give the game to my predator". Bah. I've seen variants of it too (related to "I'll oust you cross-table and give the game to YOUR predator if you don't help me"), but those are not the issue here. >You almost oust your prey, but your prey has all but ousted her own prey >who is moreover in a lost position. Why force that prey to choose only from Ah, this is not necessarily an accurate statement of the situation. Start at 9 pool. -- Play Master costing 2 pool -- Push 1 through Blood Doll. -- Bleed for 1 with each minion, or hunt, tapping out -- Transfer 4, leaving self at 2, announce "I don't block anything." A different set of choices leaves this player at 9, maybe even 10 pool, and in a very un-lost position. But I have seen the above (or similar) happen far too many times. Granted, this does not provide the same "out of turn VP", but you can't tell me that this isn't a disruptive, unsportsmanlike play. >the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her predator (your You wish to encourage kingmaking that much? A prey in a truly lost position shouldn't be allowed to affect the game in such a significant fashion. It's even worse when the prey in question isn't actually in a lost position. >prey). Clearly I can see why the "you" in that scenario would prefer that >he not be allowed to, but just as clearly the "your prey" in that scenario >would be happy to ban the use of Life Boon, for example, in those >circumstances, instead. Life Boon must be in your hand, in your deck, and you must have enough pool to play it without getting ousted yourself. I'm not happy when someone Life Boons my prey either, but it's an effect that's part of the game and it has plenty of actual cost and opportunity cost. What Life Boon ISN'T is an attempt to completely circumvent the mechanics of the game in an effort to compensate for poor deckbuilding, poor play, or perhaps just plain old bad luck. >Anyone would be happier in general with more VPs than with fewer. That's not the point, and I know you also have seen the above scenario played out, both on a table near you and probably on a table with you at some point. The point is that the card-play should be the primary factor in determining who gets the more VPs, and who gets the fewer; not someone deciding to just give up and kingmake. >And what's keeping your from making the deal and then ousting your new prey >anyhow (again, in the more fully developed example from Tet's post)? What if the "let me get a VP" involves you having to provide immediate favors before you get a chance to break that deal? Besides, too many people will honor those deals, even though it's not one that deserves to be paid a speck of attention. It's not that it's necessarily ME in the grandpredator situation; I'm disgusted with it no matter where I sit at the table, or if I'm standing next to the table, or whatever. >Build your deck better, or play better (to put more pressure on your prey >so >her own prey doesn't get so weak in the first place, or backstab for a >sweep, >either way). The scenario above should demonstrate that it's not possible to build a deck that can not only oust its prey consistently, but can even do so when its grandprey deliberately attempts to lose, AND a deck that can even manage a GW under these circumstances. Not to mention survive against the cross-table hostilities that ensue whenever anyone plays well. I build my decks with the intent of playing the game. It seems patently obvious that some others don't do the same. >> "You may not spend pool that would reduce you below 1." >> >> This does not stop you from calling an Anarchist Uprising and nuking >> yourself and your prey for a VP. This does not stop you from >> transferring yourself to 1 and refusing to block. But it does stop you >> from: >> >> -- transferring your last pool >> -- blowing through the straw to a Blood Doll > >This is not "spending". If your desire is to prohibit this, you'll need >better wording. No? It sure looks like spending to me. Fortunately, we have this thing called "rulings" that allows a person with sufficient authority to declare that moving counters from your pool to the blood bank, or onto a card in play (Powerbase: Washington, Secret Horde), will be considered "spending" for purposes of this rule. We can quibble about the exact wording later. For now, the intent itself is what is on the table. >> -- playing a Master that costs exactly what you have left >> -- playing an action card whose cost is exactly what you have left >> -- etcetera >> >> The biggest problem is, as always, the "out of turn 6 pool" that >> happens, which screws the grandpredator of the self-nukee. Someone who >> chooses not to defend themselves cannot be stopped; they can fake it >> effectively. But you can force their predator to do the last point of >> damage, which stops a whole lot of the "I will transfer myself out" >> [bunk]. > >It also stops you from: >-- Cycling a card that would cost your last pool under an agreement to > have your grand-predator (or whoever) cancel it (Sudden or DI). I've I've personally never seen this. Ever. > done this. I didn't draw into the wake I was hoping for, but the > cycling itself was still my best/only option for more VPs. Sure. But you've done this exactly once, and I've never seen it, and I'm sure the vast majority of people have neither done nor seen it also. You don't acknowledge corner-case examples as valid when people question you about rulings; I don't think I should acknowledge the above corner-case example as mattering in this case, either. :) I know that I see a lot more threats to transfer out (from varying situations) than I do either of these two counterexamples you've held up. >-- Playing Archon Investigation when you'd be ousted either way. I approve of this being removed from the game, since it's a burn-that-minion effect. If you're gone, you're gone; don't go for the spite-bone on your way out. The case only applies when you happen to have exactly three pool, anyway, so it falls under the same corner-case situation as above; if you have 2 pool, you can't even play AI, and if you have 4 pool, you can play AI and survive (and certainly will). >And it raises a question about forced "spending" (via Vast Wealth, >for example). Clear answer, sure, but you know how players are. The game is certainly complex. Some of the rules are also complex, as a result. This one would be pretty clear in its intent, albeit with a certain degree of complexity. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20041011144237...@mb-m06.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: >>Yeah, I'm really tired of playing games of V:TES that include the words >>"... or I'll transfer out." What the fuck? Play the game. Nobody is >>here to let you win; they all want to win themselves. Not in a winning >>position? Build your deck better, or play better. > >There are other reasons to transfer out, but I often see transferring out as a >spite play. Should spite be part of the game? I think it's possible. The I think that when you encourage spite to be part of the game, you might as well just go play Magic. The one thing that's always been unique about V:TES is the overall quality of the players themselves as people. Will spite always be part of the game? Probably, but that doesn't mean we should encourage it. >Actually, when competent players transfer out, it doesn't bother me. It's the Really? That bothers me more than anything. Competent players are supposed to be able to figure out how to win; that's part of the definition of "competent". I expect more from someone who's supposedly a good player; I expect them to try to make the best of a bad situation. I don't expect them to resort to spite. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:22:17 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: General notes: >> the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her predator (your > > You wish to encourage kingmaking that much? > > A prey in a truly lost position shouldn't be allowed to affect the game > in such a significant fashion. Hence she should be allowed to transfer out (and hand the 6 VP to his or her predator in a polite manner). > It's even worse when the prey in > question isn't actually in a lost position. That may be along the lines of enforcing the playing to win rule. For reference see table-split deals and collusion. >> Anyone would be happier in general with more VPs than with fewer. > > That's not the point, and I know you also have seen the above scenario > played out, both on a table near you and probably on a table with you at > some point. > > The point is that the card-play should be the primary factor in > determining who gets the more VPs, and who gets the fewer; not someone > deciding to just give up and kingmake. Card playing is a significant factor, but I must admit that the statement "The guy with two predators loses" is accurate. I've had miracle games when my well-built deck could thwart the onslaught of the whole table, and slowly grind everyone up and make a gratifying clean sweep. I've also seen instances where clever play ousted a table-split dealmaker (like the EC 2003 finals). However, in the _vast_ majority of such cases deck design and card play are only good for getting you into the position of being the most attractive deal partner, but if you end up on the spoils part of the table as a result of a split deal, you are usually toast regardless. >> It also stops you from: >> -- Cycling a card that would cost your last pool under an agreement to >> have your grand-predator (or whoever) cancel it (Sudden or DI). I've > > I've personally never seen this. Ever. For what it's worth, I did. Did it too. Didn't help though... ;) It's also pretty risky (the predator may have an SR in hand to SR the SR). >> -- Playing Archon Investigation when you'd be ousted either way. > > I approve of this being removed from the game, since it's a > burn-that-minion effect. If you're gone, you're gone; don't go for the > spite-bone on your way out. If you have 3 pool, people will want to bleed you for 3. If they bleed you for 62 to cycle half their hands, they are getting an advantage (one which may come with risks). -- Bye, Daneel

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<416a3a8a$0$313$636a...@news.free.fr>... > Less ugly games. Orpheus, you know that disallowing self-ousting will help table-splitting deals. If i have a counter-alliacce with my predator, i usually transfer out before he will be killed and my alliance will lose the game. If i die either way by a table splittuing deal, i can help my ally with these last move.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd rather call "stubborn" a sportsmanlike behaviour - i don't concede a game to my predator, never, even if i know for sure that on my next turn i'll die anyway (say, me 1 pool and 8 anarch revolt at the table). The fact that remaining alive i will affect the table with my actions (but not with my deals) is equal to the fact that if i'll give up transferring me out i will give my predator at least one free action (and a free action is significant), affecting the table anyway. I don't see a reason why a player should not waits until the last effect oust him, rather than quitting the game actively transferring himself out, other than giving an argument to that player for dealing more for whatever VP he can borrow from someone else at the table, slowing the game again and making a crap of it. my 2 cents Emiliano <snip>

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:<2svqu5F...@uni-berlin.de>... > Yes, indeed, and for that reason i would see much better a rule prohibiting > self ousting/transferring out/blloding doll out etc. When does a good player transfers himself out. (so i am not talking about unsportsmanlike/colussion self ousting): - He will die (usually by a deal) and wants to honour his predator ally. - His prey made more pressure on him than was necessary. (For example killing all his vampires even he was no S&B deck) He would stay forever with his pool but would do nothing (and not winning any VP). With self-ousting he can punish the bad play of his prey. - A trick deck played by his grand predator (usually with swapping seating order or with breaking a deal) wants to make a sweep and kill his predator and him in a row. He doesnt want to reward that play, so he ousts himself to help his predator. Its his last possiblity to be an active part of the game. Are these really cases we should stop by forbidding self-ousting.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hmfnm01dse2nq6cqd...@4ax.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> > >> When used in the sense Tet is thinking, it is. Threatening suicide from > >> a not-necessarily-lost position? Why even play the game? > > > >You seem to be reading Tet's message differently than I. > >His portrays the player as being in a lost position. > > Sure. I'm extending the portrayal, since I've seen a lot of non-lost > positions abused in this fashion. If by "abused" you mean "illegally played", yeah. > >But either way, threatening action that cannot be taken is hardly a threat > >at all. Idle threats can be ignored (just explain to the player that > >he cannot follow through with the threat, so it's time to move on). > > What makes you think it's an action that cannot be taken? If you're not in a lost position, "play to win" prevents it. > You've ruled over and over again that a person in a lost position is > free to lose as they choose. Right now, the person wishing to transfer > out has to support a much less complex case than a person wishing to > make a losing deal -- and it's a lot easier to "play stupid" when you're > only trying to lose the game, as opposed to trying to help someone else > win. You're mixing the cases. Case 1) A is in a lost position. A is free to transfer out. Case 2) A is not in a lost position. A attempts to transfer out. It is illegal, so A is prohibited from doing so. > For example, the scenario you snipped is easily defensible as "playing > stupid" as long as you replace the hunt actions with bleeds, and the > player says "I'm cycling my hand so I can get a Wake." By the time he's > tapped out, he says "Oops, I didn't get a Wake, my position is now lost, > so I can lose as I choose and transfer 4." Yes, if you change the facts, the results may change. Whether a play is illegal is for the judge to decide. If "I'm cycling to get a wake" is enough to convince the judge (based on the game state), then OK. > Now I realize that you snipped it because the proposed rule wouldn't > address the situation as given, but I'm trying to bring to your > attention that there's an awful lot of spoiled-brat running around right > now that could stand to be addressed, or at least officially frowned on. Illegal play (throwing a non-lost position) is officially frowned on. > >> I've seen it plenty; a player who is capable of defending and whose game > >> is far from over, but chooses instead to try to extort favors from the > >> table with the threat of "i'll transfer out and give the game to my > >> predator". Bah. I've seen variants of it too (related to "I'll oust > >> you cross-table and give the game to YOUR predator if you don't help > >> me"), but those are not the issue here. > > > >Correct, they are not. > >Threatening illegal activity is pointless since doing illegal activity > >is already against the rules -- no new rules are needed to make the > >already illegal activity more illegal. > > Not possible to stop that illegal activity -- see above. Incorrect. It is possible. That's what the judge is for. > >>>the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her predator (your > >> > >> You wish to encourage kingmaking that much? > > > >You paint one set of actions as kingmaking but another as proper. > >They are both the same. One set "feels" wrong to you, though, but that's > >not important to the facts of the game. > > One set of actions is "attempting to stay alive and win a VP through > getting lucky." The option to remain untapped and defend is always an > option, as is the option to lunge forward and hope that your > grand-predator ousts your predator and you get two turns of 'lunge' for > free (possibly gaining a VP) before you finally get ousted. Perhaps > someone will draw a DI in those two turns. > > One set of actions is "guaranteeing you get no more VP and you screw > someone in the process." Clearly kingmaking. It isn't "screwing someone" in the process any more than lunging or walling up is. Each just screws different players. > They are not even remotely the same. So you say. > >> A prey in a truly lost position shouldn't be allowed to affect the game > >> in such a significant fashion. It's even worse when the prey in > >> question isn't actually in a lost position. > > > >A prey in a lost position "affects" the game no matter what she does. > >She stays in, she affects the game. She transfers out, she affects > >the game. She block, bleeds, votes, or doesn't, she affects the game. > >It is not up to you to decide which of the equally-viable options > >the prey is allowed to take and which she is not. > > And why isn't it up to me? Whatever happened to the "play the game" > rule, where you tried to play the game? It's still there. As explained already, this is playing the game. > I will remind you of a game of Attika we recently played, where I was > forced to reduce my chances of winning to 0% in order to block someone > else from winning that exact turn. I was in a dead lost position from > that point forward, because I was forced to split critical pieces far > away from the rest of my setup. > > According to these rules, I should have been allowed to simply end the > game there by playing my pieces to my benefit; however, I didn't, and > I'm pretty sure nobody would have been happy if I had. So what's the > difference between my doing that, and transferring out? You invent "nobody would have been happy" to support your position. I invent "it would have been fine" as a counter argument. At one point in that same game, IIRC, I did exactly that -- chose not to (continue to) sacrifice my position for the goal of slowing the leader and instead better my own position. It happens a lot in many games. > I don't consider transferring out an equally-viable option to "taking > actions". One is "I lose right now", one is "I act randomly because I'm > still in the game." I don't like the act-randomly either, but I > consider it more valid than "I give up". Nice for you. It doesn't help the argument though. > >> What Life Boon ISN'T is an attempt to completely circumvent the > >> mechanics of the game in an effort to compensate for poor deckbuilding, > >> poor play, or perhaps just plain old bad luck. > > > >Neither is playing a lost position to conclusion. > > This is a contrived wording to support a shaky position. Transferring > out is not playing the game, it's quitting the game. Yes, each side contrives wording to support the appropriate positions. Shocking, but true. > Playing a lost position to conclusion is "attempting to stay alive in > hopes that the situation will fluke out", or "rushing forward and hoping > my predator gets ousted so I get a free turn". It is not saying "oh, I > can't win; I transfer out". It's "lunge forward" and screw the prey or "wall up" and screw the predator, which are OK, but "admit defeat and resign with dignity" (contrived wording alert) and screw the grand predator is not OK. Is that it? > >I've seen players in lost positions conclude their games, yes. > > Your contrived wording is taking a beating here. You weren't able to > include the word "play" in this one. ? The fact that I didn't use a word doesn't lead to the conclusion that I wasn't able to. Are we going to talk about the point at hand or talk about talking? > Nobody can predict the future, unless you remove yourself from the game; > that guarantees a 0VP future. The concept of "lost position" involves a 0VP future. To argue otherwise is to argue that transferring out violates the existing play to win rule. Either way, the existing rules suffice. > >>>>-- blowing through the straw to a Blood Doll > >>> > >>>This is not "spending". If your desire is to prohibit this, you'll need > >>>better wording. > >> > >> No? It sure looks like spending to me. Fortunately, we have this thing > > > >It is moving. There is a clearly defined difference between spending > >and moving (and general burning for that matter). > > Only three cards use the word "spend"; the Grandest Trick, Sword of > Nuln, and Whispers of the Niktuku. > > Sword uses the wrong word; it should be "burn". Trick says "spend or > burn". Niktuku refers to transfers when it says "spend". "burn X to" and "spend X" are the same. Sword is OK. Trick's "spend" is proper, albeit superfluous with the subsequent "burn". Niktuku is correct. But then again, so? Moving a blood from your pool to a vampire is not spending. > I suggest that there is plenty of available room to define "moving blood > counters from your pool to any other location" as "spending" them. OK. The point isn't a sicking point (as you say in the following snip). [...] > >> Sure. But you've done this exactly once, and I've never seen it, and > >> I'm sure the vast majority of people have neither done nor seen it also. > > > >Hooray for you and them. How does that help? You're removing a valid > >strategy for no gain. > > What valid strategy? Nobody goes into the game thinking "boy, I hope I > can play a Master that would oust me so that I can convince someone else > at the table to waste a Sudden Reversal just to keep me alive." > > See above. Tactic then. It is still valid. (Note also that you introduced "exactly once" into this -- which may or may not be true, but I doubt if it is. I missed the addition before, sorry. Noting that I've done something is very far from asserting that I've only ever done it once.) > >> You don't acknowledge corner-case examples as valid when people question > >> you about rulings; I don't think I should acknowledge the above > > > >Incorrect. Even the corner cases are acknowledged and evaluated. > > OK. It's been evaluated; the positive effect of the rule outweighs the > extremely-minimal negative effect of removing these two cases from the > game. As stated, the evaluation is that it doesn't offer sufficient positive effect. > >> corner-case example as mattering in this case, either. :) I know that > >> I see a lot more threats to transfer out (from varying situations) than > >> I do either of these two counterexamples you've held up. > > > >Transferring out from a lost position is an example of one of the > >conclusions of such a position. > > This is the set of actions under debate for removal. Yes. > >Transferring out from a non-lost position is already illegal under > >the play to win rules. > > Good luck enforcing that one. I'm one of the big supporters of "judges > are capable of enforcing Play to Win", but even I can see the hopeless > case here, simply because the Play to Win rule was put in NOT to defend > against people transferring out, but against people making table-loser > deals. If you say so. > Again, it's a lot harder to support a table-loser deal than it is to > support "Oooooops, I spent too much, might as well transfer out." The one may be easier, sure. But the other is hardly hopeless. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <2t0kqpF...@uni-berlin.de>, > Flux <fl...@netc.pt> mumbled something about: > >>Even if the player is not allowed to transfer out he may still have a >>significant effect on the rest of the table, he may help or hinder his > > > Even more support for why it's not reasonable to concede in a > multiplayer game, and why transferring out should not be an option. Transfering out is only one option that will influence the table, it's no better or worse than any other. Going back to my 'dead rush deck' from another post, let's say that each player has only one minion left. If the player choses to transfer out, both prey and predator can still play the game afterwards. If he rushes either one, he can kill that player's game. Which option is less intrusive? He can also do nothing, but how do you rule that a player may not take any action at all when in a lost position, and why should you rule that? Flux

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Flux wrote: > >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >> >>>Anyway, even if a player repedeatly does mistakes and screws >>>his own game, that don't means that one should be free of >>>giving the "coup de grace" to himself. >> >>Why not? >>In many games it is considered more reasonable to conceed a lost game >>than to stubbornly play it out to the end (Chess and Go, for example). >> > > I'd rather call "stubborn" a sportsmanlike behaviour - i don't concede > a game to my predator, never, even if i know for sure that on my next > turn i'll die anyway (say, me 1 pool and 8 anarch revolt at the table). > The fact that remaining alive i will affect the table with my actions (but > not with my deals) is equal to the fact that if i'll give up transferring me > out i will give my predator at least one free action (and a free action is > significant), affecting the table anyway. But that's the thing, you will influence the table anyway, why is influencing the table by transfering out any worse than influencing it in any other way? Flux

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:asgmm0dpk172ls2f3...@4ax.com... > In message <2svcpnF...@uni-berlin.de>, > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > When used in the sense Tet is thinking, it is. Threatening suicide from > a not-necessarily-lost position? Why even play the game? > > I've seen it plenty; a player who is capable of defending and whose game > is far from over, but chooses instead to try to extort favors from the > table with the threat of "i'll transfer out and give the game to my > predator". Bah. If the game is far from over, call the judge, and if in his opinion the player has plenty of valid options to play on with a good chance, the judge will block the self-oust. If the game isn't far from over, and the threat is real, either accept the implicit deal, or let the guy go down in flames. If he's a puppet for his predator, who keeps him around at low pool, oust him yourself. I don't have to like it either, but there are more types of play I don't particularly appreciate. Part of the game, though, and I'll deal with them as they arise. >>You almost oust your prey, but your prey has all but ousted her own prey >>who is moreover in a lost position. Why force that prey to choose only >>from > > Ah, this is not necessarily an accurate statement of the situation. > > Start at 9 pool. > > -- Play Master costing 2 pool > -- Push 1 through Blood Doll. > -- Bleed for 1 with each minion, or hunt, tapping out > -- Transfer 4, leaving self at 2, announce "I don't block anything." > > A different set of choices leaves this player at 9, maybe even 10 pool, > and in a very un-lost position. But I have seen the above (or similar) > happen far too many times. Granted, this does not provide the same "out > of turn VP", but you can't tell me that this isn't a disruptive, > unsportsmanlike play. I'd call it disruptive and unsportsmanlike, yes. (Especially if the player intends to go through with this). However, I believe there's at least one strategy article that espouses the view that you can 'milk' the table for favors when you're being hurt or low on pool - and who's to say (from observing the table) that's not actually the tactic that's going on? (Until the player indeed does not block and lets himself be ousted). I personally consider no game lost until my last pool is removed and so will very likely not self-oust - but if I can get table-love from threatening to self-oust, why not try? (And occasionally I'll be forced to back up my threat or lose credibility - I'll decide at that point which is worth more to me. However, you could say, that given the tournament rule to go for maximal VP in the current game, disregarding all other games, this threat is neccesarily hollow). >>the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her predator (your > > You wish to encourage kingmaking that much? > > A prey in a truly lost position shouldn't be allowed to affect the game > in such a significant fashion. It's even worse when the prey in > question isn't actually in a lost position. If the player isn't actually in a lost position, he should play for maximal VPs. You cannot legislate against bad play nor play his deck for him, though. If the player is in a truly lost position, he's free to go out any way he likes - including cross-table shenannigans. If there's a player cross-table who could've given you 2 pool each turn, and 3 turns ago you told him: "if you don't give me that 2 pool each turn, I will torporise 2 of your guys before dying", why shouldn't you be allowed to follow up on that threat? (I can, of course, still sympathise with any player that feels like he's been screwed by spite or by bad or uncaring cross-table play - which includes death-throes weirdness.) >>And what's keeping your from making the deal and then ousting your new >>prey >>anyhow (again, in the more fully developed example from Tet's post)? > > What if the "let me get a VP" involves you having to provide immediate > favors before you get a chance to break that deal? Then that's the risk you take. > Besides, too many people will honor those deals, even though it's not > one that deserves to be paid a speck of attention. It's not that it's > necessarily ME in the grandpredator situation; I'm disgusted with it no > matter where I sit at the table, or if I'm standing next to the table, > or whatever. Like I've said before, I agree with this. Too many deals that should be broken are kept, sometimes due to lack of insight, sometimes due to 'honor system'. >>Build your deck better, or play better (to put more pressure on your prey >>so >>her own prey doesn't get so weak in the first place, or backstab for a >>sweep, >>either way). > > The scenario above should demonstrate that it's not possible to build a > deck that can not only oust its prey consistently, but can even do so > when its grandprey deliberately attempts to lose, AND a deck that can > even manage a GW under these circumstances. Not to mention survive > against the cross-table hostilities that ensue whenever anyone plays > well. > > I build my decks with the intent of playing the game. It seems patently > obvious that some others don't do the same. Perhaps those deckbuilders (validly) see 'playing the game' as being the whole set of options available to them - including deal-making. >>It also stops you from: >>-- Cycling a card that would cost your last pool under an agreement to >> have your grand-predator (or whoever) cancel it (Sudden or DI). I've > > I've personally never seen this. Ever. I've been asked by players from a table in the recent ECQ if this cycle method would be possible (they were concerned about the blood being spent and then retrieved instead of not being spent at all), but the master thought to cost 2 pool cost 1 pool instead, so there was no issue. If it HAD cost 2 pool they might have cycled this way. Tobias Deventer

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <2svcpnF...@uni-berlin.de>, > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > > >>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:hlkjm0dua4ncqg7ad...@4ax.com... >> >>>"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> mumbled something about: >>> >>>>LSJ wrote: >>>> >>>>>Why introduce the artificial longetivity goal on top of the game >>>>>goals? >>>> >>>>Because players are starting to abuse on this line - i'm about to die, >>>>so, predator of my predator, since you're going to >>>>kill my predator in your next turn, please let me do a VP or i'll >>>>transfer me out in *my* turn. >>> >>>Yeah, I'm really tired of playing games of V:TES that include the words >>>"... or I'll transfer out." What the [foul]? Play the game. Nobody is >>>here to let you win; they all want to win themselves. Not in a winning >>>position? Build your deck better, or play better. >> >>That's hardly "abusable" (using Tet's term). > > > When used in the sense Tet is thinking, it is. Threatening suicide from > a not-necessarily-lost position? Why even play the game? That's against the 'play-to-win' rule, you don't need to introduce a 'no transfer out' rule to deal with it. > I've seen it plenty; a player who is capable of defending and whose game > is far from over, but chooses instead to try to extort favors from the > table with the threat of "i'll transfer out and give the game to my > predator". Bah. I've seen variants of it too (related to "I'll oust > you cross-table and give the game to YOUR predator if you don't help > me"), but those are not the issue here. > > >>You almost oust your prey, but your prey has all but ousted her own prey >>who is moreover in a lost position. Why force that prey to choose only from > > > Ah, this is not necessarily an accurate statement of the situation. > > Start at 9 pool. > > -- Play Master costing 2 pool > -- Push 1 through Blood Doll. > -- Bleed for 1 with each minion, or hunt, tapping out > -- Transfer 4, leaving self at 2, announce "I don't block anything." > > A different set of choices leaves this player at 9, maybe even 10 pool, > and in a very un-lost position. But I have seen the above (or similar) > happen far too many times. Granted, this does not provide the same "out > of turn VP", but you can't tell me that this isn't a disruptive, > unsportsmanlike play. It is, and should be ruled so. Since there is no transfering out, I don't see why you are bringing this example to the discussion. It is a clear case of unsportsmanslike behaviour that the proposed ruled would have no effect on. >>the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her predator (your > > > You wish to encourage kingmaking that much? > > A prey in a truly lost position shouldn't be allowed to affect the game > in such a significant fashion. It's even worse when the prey in > question isn't actually in a lost position. It's unavoidable that the prey will affect the game. >>Anyone would be happier in general with more VPs than with fewer. > > > That's not the point, and I know you also have seen the above scenario > played out, both on a table near you and probably on a table with you at > some point. > > The point is that the card-play should be the primary factor in > determining who gets the more VPs, and who gets the fewer; not someone > deciding to just give up and kingmake. True. But a player in a lost position has no valid objective, so how should he play? Any play he makes is futile, so he may as well transfer out and be done with it asap. >>>"You may not spend pool that would reduce you below 1." >>> >>>This does not stop you from calling an Anarchist Uprising and nuking >>>yourself and your prey for a VP. This does not stop you from >>>transferring yourself to 1 and refusing to block. But it does stop you >>>from: >>> >>>-- transferring your last pool >>>-- blowing through the straw to a Blood Doll >> >>This is not "spending". If your desire is to prohibit this, you'll need >>better wording. > > > No? It sure looks like spending to me. Fortunately, we have this thing > called "rulings" that allows a person with sufficient authority to > declare that moving counters from your pool to the blood bank, or onto a > card in play (Powerbase: Washington, Secret Horde), will be considered > "spending" for purposes of this rule. > > We can quibble about the exact wording later. For now, the intent > itself is what is on the table. I think this would do what you require: "A player can't use an effect that would reduce him to 0 pool (or less) upon resolution" I think it would be too artificial and inneffective though. This may be better: "A player must not play to remove himself from the game" You may add exceptions for withdrawals and honouring deals if desired. In many cases it would be hell for judges to rule on it though. Flux

<snip> as Legbiter has already said, players try to make deals because they > think they will not be broken, and therefore the see them as a safe way to > win the game. > Clarification: i meant table-splitting deals [= Bad deals! Boo!]. Other deals, based on temporary mutual interest [= Good deals! Hooray!] will actually flourish under a regime where everyone knows that bad deals, not to mention originally-good deals that stop benefitting one or other dealer, will be callously broken. Such, at least, has been our experience. <more snip>

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:37:46 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I believe you are all a bunch of colluders, in violation of the rules. > i think you're taking a game a tad too seriously....

"Blackheart" <le...@leech.com> wrote in message news:i12nm0509f6fdgp6d...@4ax.com... > well.... VTES in general, from an RP pov, breaks everything > established in WoD. > > why? > > the simple fact that there are Sabbat and Cam interacting in a way > that isn't limited to "hands around throats". You've overlooked quite a great deal of the RP pov, I'd say. They interact in other ways there. The RPG writers have gone to some length to avoid painting the individual vampires in such black and white terms. Not to mention that the bulk of minion-to-minion interaction in VTES is combat. The fact that opposing forces are in the same controlled region doesn't mean they're buddies -- just that the same Methuselah is pulling their strings (unbeknownst to either of them). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<JFOad.534174$OB3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > Correct, they are not. > Threatening illegal activity is pointless since doing illegal activity > is already against the rules -- no new rules are needed to make the > already illegal activity more illegal. > The problem arises when a player, players, and/or judge(s) disagree on what is illegal or not. This is very common because table split deals were the norm and largely legal at all times until the recent GW rule. Thus why many of us are campaigning with more clear and plain rules on what is and is not allowed. Please, stop ignoring that this kind of play is going on. Write some judges guidelines. G

On 29 Sep 2004 05:40:48 -0700, geo...@for.auth.gr (Jyhad_addict) wrote: > In a few words, the asshole-John gave +2 intercept to his prey!!! >just to get back to me, because i refused to rescue a vampire of his >from torpor, because it was meaningless, he wouldn't be able to defend >himself eitherway. > > I call this screwing up the table... > > "Anger leads to the stupid side" of jyhad, leave anger and revenge >out of jyhad. Don't act like mortals do, act like the methuselahs you >are. ummm.. that's a legitimate knife in the back... sorry, but you got tooled.

>The problem arises when a player, players, and/or judge(s) disagree on >what is illegal or not. This is very common because table split deals >were the norm and largely legal at all times until the recent GW rule. > Thus why many of us are campaigning with more clear and plain rules >on what is and is not allowed. > >Please, stop ignoring that this kind of play is going on. Write some >judges guidelines. Could just let players do what they want and hope it's the right thing. If it isn't fun, players can choose to not play with people they don't enjoy playing with. Sadly, this probably kills quite a bit of CCG play. Certain types of players killed my interest in CCG majors ages ago, for instance. Legislating behavior produces exactly the situation we are in now where people argue incessantly about what is or isn't, what should or shouldn't, be legal. The confusion and/or debate over what is legal, especially when it happens during a game, is fun sapping itself, possible more fun sapping than having people engage in the behavior that is trying to be eliminated.

> > Less ugly games. > > Orpheus, you know that disallowing self-ousting will help > table-splitting deals. If i have a counter-alliacce with my predator, > i usually transfer out before he will be killed and my alliance will > lose the game. If i die either way by a table splittuing deal, i can > help my ally with these last move. Sorry but I'm not convinced. This is a very personnal and situational point of view. -- Orpheus ------------- "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" Rammstein

LSJ wrote: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hmfnm01dse2nq6cqd...@4ax.com... >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >>> Derek Ray wrote: >>>> >>>> When used in the sense Tet is thinking, it is. Threatening >>>> suicide from a not-necessarily-lost position? Why even play the >>>> game? >>> >>> You seem to be reading Tet's message differently than I. >>> His portrays the player as being in a lost position. >> >> Sure. I'm extending the portrayal, since I've seen a lot of non-lost >> positions abused in this fashion. > > If by "abused" you mean "illegally played", yeah. > >>> But either way, threatening action that cannot be taken is hardly a >>> threat at all. Idle threats can be ignored (just explain to the >>> player that >>> he cannot follow through with the threat, so it's time to move on). >> >> What makes you think it's an action that cannot be taken? > > If you're not in a lost position, "play to win" prevents it. Can you define exactly when a judge should consider a position "lost" for a player? <snip> >> Now I realize that you snipped it because the proposed rule wouldn't >> address the situation as given, but I'm trying to bring to your >> attention that there's an awful lot of spoiled-brat running around >> right now that could stand to be addressed, or at least officially >> frowned on. > > Illegal play (throwing a non-lost position) is officially frowned on. > But encouraged, actually, by the "rule" allowing self-oust. It's clear that someone will be in a "lost" position sooner or later- it's also clear that the more players get accustomed to this rule, more they will abuse from such "would you like to give me a VP or me selfing-oust in my incoming turn, making your prey(my predator) to gain whole a turn ?". <snip> >> Not possible to stop that illegal activity -- see above. > > Incorrect. It is possible. That's what the judge is for. > Yes for sure, provided we got a judge for each table at a major tournament then. Else Derek is all right here- you can't reasonably stop all the (deal) illegal activity during a big tournament, at least not in the preliminary rounds. >>>>> the set of plays which gives her VP to you instead of her >>>>> predator (your >>>> >>>> You wish to encourage kingmaking that much? >>> >>> You paint one set of actions as kingmaking but another as proper. >>> They are both the same. One set "feels" wrong to you, though, but >>> that's not important to the facts of the game. >> > It isn't "screwing someone" in the process any more than lunging or > walling up is. Each just screws different players. > Which players ? Can you tell which player will screwed by a dying metuselah remaining at the table? To me, very few player can be screwed by a player in a losing position, unless a player in a lost position is playing casually or very bad, just out of unsportsmanlike beaviour. >> They are not even remotely the same. > > So you say. > Since giving up the game is not *playing* the game anymore and remaining at the table going on to play *is* playing the game, they're not the same at all -, i can't really see how you won't aknowledge that... >>>> A prey in a truly lost position shouldn't be allowed to affect the >>>> game in such a significant fashion. It's even worse when the prey >>>> in question isn't actually in a lost position. >>> >>> A prey in a lost position "affects" the game no matter what she >>> does. She stays in, she affects the game. She transfers out, she >>> affects >>> the game. She block, bleeds, votes, or doesn't, she affects the >>> game. It is not up to you to decide which of the equally-viable >>> options >>> the prey is allowed to take and which she is not. >> >> And why isn't it up to me? Whatever happened to the "play the game" >> rule, where you tried to play the game? > > It's still there. > As explained already, this is playing the game. > However, playing the game should be not remotely supposed to be "taking an hour to set a vp deal and to check if it's legal based on reasonable expectations/ taking an hour to be persuaded-not persuaded if a player is in a lost position to let him to self-oust" - And that (legal) abuses are just happening almost on regular basis at last tournaments. This way, the game is throwing itself just into the babbling, conversational abuse and vitrioles field. Argumenting for hours at the table's tournament if a player has really "lost", has no "reasonable expectations to win/maximize vps" so that the damn deal/self oust can be made may be funny for some people- but a *lot* of players are become really tired and pissed off by this rule situations, to see tournaments and finals ruined by too much talking and tables just decided by conversational abuse "me 2 Vp, you 3 vp" "i don't self oust, you let me a VP"- you should be aware of this and consider to rule deals/self ousting in a real, and very different, way. So, please, don't hide just behind the "judges are there to rule that", since judges are players after all, and "reasonable expectations" won't suffice any longer as a guideline for telling if player has really "lost", can self - oust, can maximize, and so on, at leats not without throwing the game just in conversation, and not longer in the use of cards. Emiliano <snipped the rest>

"Geoff" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:86e3f5f4.04101...@posting.google.com... > The problem arises when a player, players, and/or judge(s) disagree on > what is illegal or not. Such a "problem" is handled by V:EKN 2.6 "Head Judge Responsibilities" > Thus why many of us are campaigning with more clear and plain rules > on what is and is not allowed. Clear and plain: players must play to win. Clear and plain: if there is a question about what is or is not "playing to win", the judge provides the answer. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>If you're not in a lost position, "play to win" prevents it. > > Can you define exactly when a judge should consider a position "lost" > for a player? When the position is such that the player cannot get any more VPs. >>Illegal play (throwing a non-lost position) is officially frowned on. > > But encouraged, actually, by the "rule" allowing self-oust. Incorrect. The play to win rule prohibits throwing a non-lost position, including throwing it by self-oust. >>Incorrect. It is possible. That's what the judge is for. > > Yes for sure, provided we got a judge for each table at a major tournament > then. You do have a judge for every table -- the head judge. >>It isn't "screwing someone" in the process any more than lunging or >>walling up is. Each just screws different players. > > Which players ? Can you tell which player will screwed by a dying > metuselah remaining at the table? As much as the counter argument, yes. See the previous message. >>So you say. > > Since giving up the game is not *playing* the game anymore and > remaining at the table going on to play *is* playing the game, > they're not the same at all -, > i can't really see how you won't aknowledge that... He's playing the game -- following the rules, taking transfers, etc. Just as much as losing via a lunge or losing via a failed wall up. > And that (legal) abuses are just happening almost on regular basis at last > tournaments. Different topic. Feel free to start another thread if you want to discuss deal-making time. > So, please, don't hide just behind the "judges are there to rule that", > since > judges are players after all, and "reasonable expectations" won't suffice > any longer as a guideline for telling if player has really "lost", can > self - oust, can maximize, > and so on, at leats not without throwing the game just in conversation, and > not longer in the use of cards. It does suffice, inherently. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> If you're not in a lost position, "play to win" prevents it. >> >> Can you define exactly when a judge should consider a position "lost" >> for a player? > > When the position is such that the player cannot get any more VPs. > >>> Illegal play (throwing a non-lost position) is officially frowned >>> on. >> >> But encouraged, actually, by the "rule" allowing self-oust. > > Incorrect. The play to win rule prohibits throwing a non-lost > position, including throwing it by self-oust. Ah - but that implies that one must be in a "reasonable" non-lost position and, you see, reasonable may vary from judges to judges. Do you realize that under your statement, which implies just reasoning on the game state, a judge can deem a position non-lost while another one not ? > >>> Incorrect. It is possible. That's what the judge is for. >> So be it, let's hide again behind the "judge is there for that" adagio - >> Yes for sure, provided we got a judge for each table at a major >> tournament then. > > You do have a judge for every table -- the head judge. > You're kidding here i think - the head judge can't be ubiquitous, if, say, a 3 tables arises deal/lost position(s) discussions, he can't just be really at all the table reasoning on the game state at the same time - it would take *a lot* of time for him listening the reasons, analyzing the game state a giving his judgement, with the pretty result of the deal(s) slowing the rounds really too much (that is, a thing already happening on regular basis). >>> It isn't "screwing someone" in the process any more than lunging or >>> walling up is. Each just screws different players. >> >> Which players ? Can you tell which player will screwed by a dying >> metuselah remaining at the table? > > As much as the counter argument, yes. See the previous message. > >>> So you say. >> >> Since giving up the game is not *playing* the game anymore and >> remaining at the table going on to play *is* playing the game, >> they're not the same at all -, >> i can't really see how you won't aknowledge that... > > He's playing the game -- following the rules, taking transfers, etc. > Just as much as losing via a lunge or losing via a failed wall up. > ??? A player loses and *don't play* anymore when the last of his pool drains off (maybe due self oust), not when it stays at the table maybe in a losing situation - in that situation he's *really* still playing. >> And that (legal) abuses are just happening almost on regular basis >> at last tournaments. > > Different topic. Feel free to start another thread if you want to > discuss deal-making time. > This topic is about deals for what i see - time deals take to be discussed and judged is an evident aspect of the deals. >> So, please, don't hide just behind the "judges are there to rule >> that", since >> judges are players after all, and "reasonable expectations" won't >> suffice any longer as a guideline for telling if player has really >> "lost", can self - oust, can maximize, >> and so on, at leats not without throwing the game just in >> conversation, and not longer in the use of cards. > > It does suffice, inherently. It does suffice for you inherently saying so ?

talo...@yahoo.ca (Geoff) wrote in message news:<86e3f5f4.04101...@posting.google.com>... [LSJ] > > Clear and plain: players must play to win. > > Clear and plain: if there is a question about > > what is or is not "playing to win", the > > judge provides the answer. [Geoff] > You have to know that I was looking for far > more than that... I'm sure that LSJ is aware that what you seem to be looking for is some kind of precedent casebook for making judgements. The problem is that any specific guidelines would be contingent upon the game state. So, you are asking LSJ to define some game states, which (for non-trivial cases) will be huge documents that are very time consuming to prepare, check etc. Of course, LSJ is (presumably) paid to prepare resources for VTES, but I would rather he spent his time thinking about the rules and designing new sets. Even if he did prepare a casebook his examples will be next to useless as a guideline, as it is very unlikely that his example game states would be replicated precisely in your particular play. How to interpret his example as a guide to your situation will merely result in a Big Argument, which will finally result in relying on the judge making a judgement (exactly the situation we have at the moment, anyway). All that specific guidelines will do is give ammunition to rules lawyer sorts who will try and finesse judgements in the casebook to their advantage (see any legal system based on precedent). * lehrbuch

[ quoted text not captured ] Often players don't take any actions for many turn being still in "normal" or "winning" position, given certain circumstances. So i see no problem with a player in a losing position don't taking any action for several turns. greets Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>LSJ wrote: >>>>If you're not in a lost position, "play to win" prevents it. >>> >>>Can you define exactly when a judge should consider a position "lost" >>>for a player? >> >>When the position is such that the player cannot get any more VPs. >> >>>>Illegal play (throwing a non-lost position) is officially frowned >>>>on. >>> >>>But encouraged, actually, by the "rule" allowing self-oust. >> >>Incorrect. The play to win rule prohibits throwing a non-lost >>position, including throwing it by self-oust. > > Ah - but that implies that one must be in a "reasonable" non-lost position > and, you see, reasonable may vary from judges to judges. It states explicitly that one is in a non-lost position as the given assumption of the situation, actually. I say: throwing a non-lost position is illegal. You say: but encouraged by the rules. I say: incorrect, it (throwing a non-lost position) is illegal. You say: only if it is a non-lost position. You should say: Oh, right, you did say the position was a non-lost position. > Do you realize that under your statement, which implies just reasoning on > the game state, a judge can deem a position non-lost while another one not ? Of course. "Judges make judgments" is not something that is lost on me (as indicated by the content of my posts where I posit exactly that. Repeatedly.) Do you realize that you're switching topics? [...] >>>Yes for sure, provided we got a judge for each table at a major >>>tournament then. >> >>You do have a judge for every table -- the head judge. >> > > You're kidding here i think - the head judge can't be ubiquitous, > if, say, a 3 tables arises deal/lost position(s) discussions, he can't just > be really at all the table reasoning on the game state at the same time - > it would take *a lot* of time for him listening the reasons, analyzing > the game state a giving his judgement, with the pretty result of > the deal(s) slowing the rounds really too much (that is, a thing already > happening > on regular basis). I'm not kidding, no. >>>So, please, don't hide just behind the "judges are there to rule >>>that", since >>>judges are players after all, and "reasonable expectations" won't >>>suffice any longer as a guideline for telling if player has really >>>"lost", can self - oust, can maximize, >>>and so on, at leats not without throwing the game just in >>>conversation, and not longer in the use of cards. >> >>It does suffice, inherently. > > It does suffice for you inherently saying so ? It suffices inherently, which means it does whether I said so or not. Leave the rhetoric, please. Content appreciated. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You see no problem with *forcing* the player not to take any action for several turns? I think most players will disagree with you. Flux

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:37:03 GMT, LSJ wrote: >The judge cannot masquerade behind the >stalling rule to undermine legal play that >she finds distasteful. This need not arise as, happily, the VEKN has a rule forbidding slow play per se, i.e. "5.3. Slow Play". This section forbids not only stalling but also "playing excessively slowly". Since deal making is not sanctioned by the rules, then taking time out to discuss deals is always excessive - i.e. additional to the time required to simply play one's cards. A judge is therefore entitled to curtail any and all conversation of this sort unless it is conducted in parallel with the play of the cards and so does not delay the game. And this not just a theoretical consideration. Tournament games often run out of time, right? And players are spending periods of 5 minutes to an hour discussing deals, right? The Slow Play rule is there so that games are played in a timely manner and so finish in the time allowed. Judges, do your duty! Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > This need not arise as, happily, the VEKN has a rule forbidding slow > play per se, i.e. "5.3. Slow Play". This section forbids not only > stalling but also "playing excessively slowly". Since deal making is > not sanctioned by the rules, As Andrew well knows, many successive rulings on the matter make it clear that the tournament rules are perfectly aware of deals, his solipsism notwithstanding. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

Geoff wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2t2g1uF...@uni-berlin.de>... >>"Geoff" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >>>The problem arises when a player, players, and/or judge(s) disagree on >>>what is illegal or not. >> >>Such a "problem" is handled by V:EKN 2.6 "Head Judge Responsibilities" >> > Not when your typical head judge is simply another volunteer prince > with perhaps merely an adequate understanding of the rules, instead of > the best possible understanding of the rules and your interpretations > of them. If they don't read the newsgroup for instance, threads like > this are completely lost on them, and they arrive at judgements that > fly in the face of everything we've discussed here. Then you have idenitifed the true problem, and it isn't the rules or the vekn rules. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kamel SENNI" <kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr> wrote in message news:1b066664.04101...@posting.google.com... > I know a good player, with a very good knowledge of vekn rules, of > what you have poost there, of vtes rules. He is judge at his time. > He thinks that if a player thinks that he have lost, he could make a > deal. The deal would be legal if the player on the losing side thinks > it's in his interest (the player thinks that he cannot gain more). The > judge, according what this good player thinks, have just to check if > there is a collusion. > That judge thinks that you, LSJ, as referee of a tournament, will > judge like this : if there is no collusion, so the deal is legal. > What do you think about this ? What I think is obvious from what I've stated already: The players' thoughts don't matter. The judge need not be a mind reader. The judge's opinion is what matters. Collusion need not be involved (the judge could find that this player is simply not playing to win without further explanation/detective work to ascertain the cause -- bribery, collusion, boredom, etc.) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course no - no player should be forced to do anything (except trying to wim/maximize their position). You asked me about that player taking no action at all due his lost position, i answered that there's no problem since ofetn player in winning position take no actions. The key point is that, yes, maybe once in a lost position remaining at the table going on playing you'll affect anyway someone else at the table (likely, your prey and/or predator, which is in the full spirit of the game), but you'll do it by *playing* and not by giving up - that's what i call sportmanlike "playing" (not giving up) greets Emiliano

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:2tanleF...@uni-berlin.de... > Flux wrote: > > You see no problem with *forcing* the player not to take any action > > for several turns? > > > Of course no - no player should be forced to do anything (except > trying to wim/maximize their position). > You asked me about that player taking no action at all due his lost > position, i answered that there's no problem since ofetn player > in winning position take no actions. > The key point is that, yes, maybe once in a lost position remaining > at the table going on playing you'll affect anyway someone else at the > table (likely, your prey and/or predator, which is in the full spirit of the > game), but you'll do it by *playing* and not by giving up - that's > what i call sportmanlike "playing" (not giving up) "not giving up" implies some hope -- i.e., a non-lost position. "giving up" a lost position is more aptly termed "resigning oneself to one's fate" or "accepting reality". Or, to draw a parallel, you seek to disqualify one method of "playing the game" (transferring out, by the rules) which leads to assured loss over another (whatever it is that you would allow the player to do) which also leads to assured loss or even over doing nothing (which is within the rules) to also lead to assured loss. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Assured loss ? Maybe - to me, staying alive in the game in a lost position is anyway better than giving up, since the chanche to get a better position, albeit very very small, is always preferable to assuring his own 100% defeat by self ousting. From the "reasonable" perspective which is applied with judge evaluation, that is perfectly reasonable to me - a life boon, a consanguineous boon, a restructure or a dramatic upveheal can make a lost position no longer "lost" at any time - that's why a "lost" methuselah should try anyway to still stand. Besides, your point that transferring out is one method of "playing the game", though allowed by rules, sorry but to me is not "playing" the game, is just giving up. Much like the last position runner in a marathon should anyway try to get to the goal, i see no reason why a dying methuselah should not strive to remain alive, finishing, say, with an unexpected 0,5 vp more. Even with no minion and with a single pool left, letting a free action to my predator with self ousting is just too bad to see this rule as good. Emiliano

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> If you're not in a lost position, "play to win" prevents it. >>>> >>>> Can you define exactly when a judge should consider a position >>>> "lost" for a player? >>> >>> When the position is such that the player cannot get any more VPs. >>> >>>>> Illegal play (throwing a non-lost position) is officially frowned >>>>> on. >>>> >>>> But encouraged, actually, by the "rule" allowing self-oust. >>> >>> Incorrect. The play to win rule prohibits throwing a non-lost >>> position, including throwing it by self-oust. >> The "play to win rule" isn't always enforced in matter of deals. A player is more prone to steal away a Vp, throwing an uncertain winning/non-winning position, by self ousting (hey, let me do a vp and i'll no self oust me) >> Ah - but that implies that one must be in a "reasonable" non-lost >> position and, you see, reasonable may vary from judges to judges. > > It states explicitly that one is in a non-lost position as the > given assumption of the situation, actually. > > I say: throwing a non-lost position is illegal. > You say: but encouraged by the rules. > I say: incorrect, it (throwing a non-lost position) is illegal. > You say: only if it is a non-lost position. > > You should say: Oh, right, you did say the position was a non-lost > position. > What i'm trying to say that deeming a position "lost", or "non-maximizable" is too very subjective - it depend to playing taste and style of play. >> Do you realize that under your statement, which implies just >> reasoning on the game state, a judge can deem a position non-lost >> while another one not ? > > Of course. "Judges make judgments" is not something that is lost on me > (as indicated by the content of my posts where I posit exactly that. > Repeatedly.) Yes - but more the players get accustomed to this self ousting rule, the more "i'm lost, so i threaten you grand predator - let me do a vp or i'll self oust in my turn" cases will arise at tournament tables, with judges calls augmenting more and more to the point we'll need a judge for each table to keep things smooth. > > Do you realize that you're switching topics? > No :-) > [...] > >>>> Yes for sure, provided we got a judge for each table at a major >>>> tournament then. >>> >>> You do have a judge for every table -- the head judge. >>> >> >> You're kidding here i think - the head judge can't be ubiquitous, >> if, say, a 3 tables arises deal/lost position(s) discussions, he >> can't just be really at all the table reasoning on the game state >> at the same time - it would take *a lot* of time for him listening >> the reasons, analyzing >> the game state a giving his judgement, with the pretty result of >> the deal(s) slowing the rounds really too much (that is, a thing >> already happening >> on regular basis). > > I'm not kidding, no. > Then you're assuming that the head judge can get multi-dual form protean powers staying at several tables at the same time to judge ;-) >>>> So, please, don't hide just behind the "judges are there to rule >>>> that", since >>>> judges are players after all, and "reasonable expectations" won't >>>> suffice any longer as a guideline for telling if player has really >>>> "lost", can self - oust, can maximize, >>>> and so on, at leats not without throwing the game just in >>>> conversation, and not longer in the use of cards. >>> >>> It does suffice, inherently. >> >> It does suffice for you inherently saying so ? > > It suffices inherently, which means it does whether I said so or not. > > Leave the rhetoric, please. Content appreciated. I pointed several content here - I - threatening abuse to get a 1 vp from lost or non - lost position is becoming too used, making judges to be called too often at tables to rule the lost/non lost position. II - the more players will rely on deals rather than cards at tournament, the more judges will be needed at tables to mantain things smooth and rule on deals- we can't have a judge for each table. - conclusion: deals should get less power of affecting the game - a player should be supposed to get is own scores with action & reactions by playing of cards, and not with conversation deals abuse alone. greets Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>"not giving up" implies some hope -- i.e., a non-lost position. >>"giving up" a lost position is more aptly termed "resigning >>oneself to one's fate" or "accepting reality". >> >>Or, to draw a parallel, you seek to disqualify one method of >>"playing the game" (transferring out, by the rules) which >>leads to assured loss over another (whatever it is that you >>would allow the player to do) which also leads to assured loss >>or even over doing nothing (which is within the rules) to also >>lead to assured loss. > > Assured loss ? Yes. That's what "lost position" means. You keep treating it as if it means merely "bad position". One is not allowed to throw a merely bad position (by the play to win rule). > Maybe - to me, staying alive in the game > in a lost position is anyway better than giving up, since the > chanche to get a better position, albeit very very small, is always > preferable > to assuring his own 100% defeat by self ousting. > From the "reasonable" perspective which is applied with judge evaluation, > that is perfectly reasonable to me - a life boon, a consanguineous boon, > a restructure or a dramatic upveheal can make a lost position no longer > "lost" at any time - that's why a "lost" methuselah should try anyway > to still stand. You invoked Life Boon, so you should be able to see how self-oust is just as "reasonable" (not truly 100% defeat) when you have to depend on life boons and the like. If the "lost methuselah" is merely in a bad position and not in a lost one, then yes, he should try to "stand" (i.e., get more VPs). That's a different topic. > Besides, your point that transferring out is one method of "playing the > game", > though allowed by rules, sorry but to me is not "playing" the game, > is just giving up. Sorry, but you're going in circles. See my response to this above. > Much like the last position runner in a marathon should anyway try to get > to the goal, i see no reason why a dying methuselah should not strive to > remain > alive, finishing, say, with an unexpected 0,5 vp more. The last position need not go all out sprinting in the last leg for a few seconds improvement in his last-place finish, either. Just as the lost position must play out the game and not simply toss his cards on the table and walk away from his pool (he must play to the finish line, by sprinting hard or by transferring out, as he likes). > Even with no minion and with a single pool left, letting a free action to my > predator > with self ousting is just too bad to see this rule as good. You've made your opinion clear, yes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>LSJ wrote: >>>>Incorrect. The play to win rule prohibits throwing a non-lost >>>>position, including throwing it by self-oust. >>> > The "play to win rule" isn't always enforced in matter of deals. It is always to be inforced. Players cannot waive the rules for each other, and judges should enforce the rules. > A player is more prone to steal away a Vp, throwing an uncertain > winning/non-winning position, by self ousting (hey, let me do a vp > and i'll no self oust me) Not legally (not legal to throw an uncertain position). If you wish to rely on illegal activity, that's a different topic. > What i'm trying to say that deeming a position "lost", or "non-maximizable" > is too very subjective - it depend to playing taste and style of play. It's the judge's call, I'll grant you. If the judge deems the position truly lost, then there you go. If the judge isn't up to that task, then, again, that's a different topic. >>>Do you realize that under your statement, which implies just >>>reasoning on the game state, a judge can deem a position non-lost >>>while another one not ? >> >>Of course. "Judges make judgments" is not something that is lost on me >>(as indicated by the content of my posts where I posit exactly that. >>Repeatedly.) > > > Yes - but more the players get accustomed > to this self ousting rule, the more "i'm lost, so i threaten you grand > predator - let me do a vp or i'll self oust in my turn" cases will arise at > tournament tables, with judges calls augmenting more and more to the point > we'll need a judge > for each table to keep things smooth. Not true. As players "get accustomed" to this rule, judges should also "get accustomed" to this rule and learn how to enforce it (and learn that truly lost positions are few and far between). > I pointed several content here - > I - threatening abuse to get a 1 vp from lost or non - lost position is > becoming too used, making judges to be called too often at tables to rule > the lost/non lost > position. It may be "too used" if it is being used (and applied) illegally, yes. Get the/a judge to correct the illegal activity. > II - the more players will rely on deals rather than cards at tournament, > the more judges will be needed at tables to mantain things smooth and rule > on deals- we can't have a judge for each table. Different topic. > - conclusion: deals should get less power of affecting the game - a player > should be supposed to get is own scores with action & reactions by playing > of cards, and not with conversation deals abuse alone. Different topic. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: <snip> >> II - the more players will rely on deals rather than cards at >> tournament, the more judges will be needed at tables to mantain >> things smooth and rule on deals- we can't have a judge for each >> table. > > Different topic. > No - topic is about deals, and my arguments are about that (deals abuse, too many judges calsl needed for them, flames & the like). It's the second time you're trying to shut up the discussion adressing to nonexistent off topics. >> - conclusion: deals should get less power of affecting the game - a >> player should be supposed to get is own scores with action & >> reactions by playing of cards, and not with conversation deals abuse >> alone. > > Different topic. See above - really, i would like to get some real answers, but i suppose you prefer give none here, so i'll simpy give up the discussion here being tired enough. greets Emiliano

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: <snip> >> Even with no minion and with a single pool left, letting a free >> action to my predator >> with self ousting is just too bad to see this rule as good. > > You've made your opinion clear, yes. You made yours as well, indeed :-)

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>LSJ wrote: >>>>Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>>>LSJ wrote: >>>II - the more players will rely on deals rather than cards at >>>tournament, the more judges will be needed at tables to mantain >>>things smooth and rule on deals- we can't have a judge for each >>>table. >> >>Different topic. > > No - topic is about deals, and my arguments are about that > (deals abuse, too many judges calsl needed for them, flames & the like). > It's the second time you're trying to shut up the discussion adressing > to nonexistent off topics. I'm not trying to shut up the discussion. You're trying to dodge the discussion of deals into a discussion of judges. The two are separate. There are rules and then there are judges around to enforce the rules. If you want to discuss the hardships of judging, feel free to start a "judge problems" thread. The deals thread(s) cover(s) a lot of ground (and post-count) already. It is complicated and convoluted enough to follow (and search through later) without throwing additional stuff into the mix. >>>- conclusion: deals should get less power of affecting the game - a >>>player should be supposed to get is own scores with action & >>>reactions by playing of cards, and not with conversation deals abuse >>>alone. >> >>Different topic. > > See above - really, i would like to get some real answers, but i suppose > you prefer give none here, so i'll simpy give up the discussion here > being tired enough. The two issues you take exception to here are not questions, so "real answers" aren't at issue. You've stated your opinions above. If you've got questions, let's hear them. If they are about deals, the post them as a follow-up to this message. If they're about other things (judging, or what-not), start a new topic for them. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<YPNbd.701078$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Geoff wrote: > > Not when your typical head judge is simply another volunteer prince > > with perhaps merely an adequate understanding of the rules, instead of > > the best possible understanding of the rules and your interpretations > > of them. If they don't read the newsgroup for instance, threads like > > this are completely lost on them, and they arrive at judgements that > > fly in the face of everything we've discussed here. > > Then you have idenitifed the true problem, and it isn't the rules > or the vekn rules. It is however, one that could be alleviated with some judges guidelines on what 'play to win' and 'illegal deals' are within those rules. G

Hi, Get the best All Deals in Washington Dc from NewLook Deals. We offers Day Spa deals like Facial, Threading, Laser Hair Removal deals and more. At present we offers best discount on below deals: • Eyebrow Threading, Dermalogica / Herbal Facial and Diamond Dermabrasion (Up to 55% Off) o Herbal Facial (Shahnaz Advance) or Dermalogica Power Facial o 10 Eye Brow Threading o Diamond Dermabrasion o 10 Full Face Threading • One Full Body Laser Hair Removal with Gentle Max Pro (Up to 85% Off) • Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large Area's (UP to 83% Off) o 10 Full Face Threading o Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Medium Area’s o Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Large Area’s o Six Laser Hair Removal Treatments on Extra Large Area’s For More Details Please visit our Website: https://www.newlookdeals.com/alldeals/washington-dc Communication Address: 201 Elden Street,Suite # 203, Herndon, VA , 20170 Our customer service is pinned at : custome...@newlookdeals.com

I haven't played in a while, but I find all of this so strange. Exchanging VPs? I thought they banned the Succubus Club, so people can't make trades of any kind. :P I don't see how you can trade or exchange such things, unless there is a card that allows you to? :( Weird, I am lost at this point... sorry.