Deals and game objective

This is a question abuot the 3-player game that most games end up as, and the possible table-splitting-deals happening thereafter. As far as i know, theres a rule stating that every player must try to get as many victory points as possible (and if he cant get more than 0 he can try to get those 0 victory points in any manner he choses - basically he can do what he wants. But there are no rules that enforces people to stick to a deal (as far as i know) So how about this situation : PLayers A, B and C are the only ones remaining and bleeding eachother in that order. C has the strongest position. A and B makes a deal that A wont take any actions against B until B has ousted C. After that B will let A oust him, and they will split the table. All perfectly legal and the game continues. C goes all out on player A, and when C is finally ousted A is so weak that B can kill him easily. (maybe something like player A having 2 pool and no minions, while B has 1 pool and one minion and theres an anarch revolt in play - If B doesnt oust A now he dies himself on his next turn Now, my question is. Is B allowed to stick to the deal and not oust A or MUST he do it when thats the obvious way to maximize his victory points. PS: This isnt a niceguy/dealbreaker discussion. Just a pure rules question.

Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > This is a question abuot the 3-player game that most games end up as, > and the possible table-splitting-deals happening thereafter. > > As far as i know, theres a rule stating that every player must try to > get as many victory points as possible (and if he cant get more than 0 > he can try to get those 0 victory points in any manner he choses - > basically he can do what he wants. That rule is contained in the sportsmanship rule used in VEKN tournaments, in a form to weigh "game win" over "VPs": Play to win (achieve the winning condition proscribed for the game at hand). If you cannot win, maximize your finishing position *in that game*. Which can be summed up as: play to achieve the highest finishing position you can (in the game at hand). > But there are no rules that enforces people to stick to a deal (as far > as i know) Correct. > > So how about this situation : > > PLayers A, B and C are the only ones remaining and bleeding eachother > in that order. C has the strongest position. > A and B makes a deal that A wont take any actions against B until B > has ousted C. After that B will let A oust him, and they will split > the table. > All perfectly legal and the game continues. > > C goes all out on player A, and when C is finally ousted A is so weak > that B can kill him easily. (maybe something like player A having 2 > pool and no minions, while B has 1 pool and one minion and theres an > anarch revolt in play - If B doesnt oust A now he dies himself on his > next turn > > Now, my question is. Is B allowed to stick to the deal and not oust A > or MUST he do it when thats the obvious way to maximize his victory > points. Under VEKN rules, keeping a legally-made deal is allowed. -- 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/

Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > This is a question abuot the 3-player game that most games end up as, > and the possible table-splitting-deals happening thereafter. > > As far as i know, theres a rule stating that every player must try to > get as many victory points as possible (and if he cant get more than 0 > he can try to get those 0 victory points in any manner he choses - > basically he can do what he wants. The player must try to get more VPs than anyone else. The distinction is that it's always legal (in a 5 player game) for someone to propose a table split where they get 3 VPs, even if they're in a position where they could get 5. > But there are no rules that enforces people to stick to a deal (as far > as i know) There aren't any rules saying you must stick to your deal (thank goodness), but you _are_ allowed to stick to a deal even if it doesn't maximize your VPs later. Otherwise, it'd be impossible to make any long term deal. > Now, my question is. Is B allowed to stick to the deal and not oust A > or MUST he do it when thats the obvious way to maximize his victory > points. B is allowed to honor his deal, yes. --Colin McGuigan

Ok.. im asking cause ive been player C a few times. Its not a problem in our local area, but ive seen it a couple of times in bigger tournaments and i was just wondering. How about this. C argues that if A and B make the deal, he will focus only on weakening A, so that once C is dead B will be able to kill A easily. Wont that make the deal illegal on B's behalf, since he will be putting himself in a situation due to the deal, where he DOESNT maximize his vp's? (off course assuming that everyone agrees that C can weaken A enough) LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4073D577...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > Ok.. im asking cause ive been player C a few times. Its not a problem > in our local area, but ive seen it a couple of times in bigger > tournaments and i was just wondering. > > How about this. > C argues that if A and B make the deal, he will focus only on > weakening A, so that once C is dead B will be able to kill A easily. > Wont that make the deal illegal on B's behalf, since he will be > putting himself in a situation due to the deal, where he DOESNT > maximize his vp's? (off course assuming that everyone agrees that C > can weaken A enough) No, because you can't force a player to take a deal, which is, in effect, what C is attempting to do to B. Or to look at it another way, since B has no way of verifying that C isn't lying through his teeth, B doesn't have to believe him. All that B needs to take into account when deciding whether or not to make a deal is the actual game state. --Colin McGuigan

Nikolaj Wendt expounded: > Ok.. im asking cause ive been player C a few times. Its not a problem > in our local area, but ive seen it a couple of times in bigger > tournaments and i was just wondering. > > How about this. > C argues that if A and B make the deal, he will focus only on > weakening A, so that once C is dead B will be able to kill A easily. > Wont that make the deal illegal on B's behalf, since he will be > putting himself in a situation due to the deal, where he DOESNT > maximize his vp's? (off course assuming that everyone agrees that C > can weaken A enough) The requirement is that at the time that the deal is made the deal-as-a- whole maximises VPs. In this case 1VP for ousting C is at least as much as B will get without the deal (B reasonably believes) and so the deal is legal for B. Given that the deal is legal at the time it is agreed, it is legal for B to honour it. Similarly A can't expect any VPs without the deal but if A can survive the onslaught long enough for C to be ousted they can hope that B will keep th edeal and deliver up the 2VP promised.

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<-oKdncGrZ6n...@speakeasy.net>... > Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > > Ok.. im asking cause ive been player C a few times. Its not a problem > > in our local area, but ive seen it a couple of times in bigger > > tournaments and i was just wondering. > > > > How about this. > > C argues that if A and B make the deal, he will focus only on > > weakening A, so that once C is dead B will be able to kill A easily. > > Wont that make the deal illegal on B's behalf, since he will be > > putting himself in a situation due to the deal, where he DOESNT > > maximize his vp's? (off course assuming that everyone agrees that C > > can weaken A enough) > > No, because you can't force a player to take a deal, which is, in > effect, what C is attempting to do to B. I didnt make it perfectly clear. C is trying to make the deal illegal, so that A and B cant make the deal. By trying to put B in a situation on account of the deal, where be wouldnt be maximizing his VP's if he honored the deal and therefore in retrospect make the deal illegal. > Or to look at it another way, since B has no way of verifying that C > isn't lying through his teeth, B doesn't have to believe him. All that > B needs to take into account when deciding whether or not to make a deal > is the actual game state. > > --Colin McGuigan Ok.. so when deciding wether or not a deal is legal you only take into account the current state of the game and not anything thats bound to happend? I thought the whole idea when judging wether or not a deal is legal, was to consider whats going to happend for the rest of the game (who will be stronger/weaker, who will gain/lose vp's). Its still just speculations as i see it, and other players attitude and actions should influence those speculations. For instance when youre considering that a player has chances of getting vp's youre assuming that he will bleed/vote/whatever. What if he doesnt? Basically i think i would like peoples attitude and future "alliances" to influence the legality of dealmaking. Oh.. and on a sidenote. I still couldnt find anything in the rules stating that a player can break the basic rule (maximizing your vp's) because he has made a deal to do so. But i assume there has to be one somewhere?

Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<-oKdncGrZ6n...@speakeasy.net>... > >>Nikolaj Wendt wrote: >> >>>Ok.. im asking cause ive been player C a few times. Its not a problem >>>in our local area, but ive seen it a couple of times in bigger >>>tournaments and i was just wondering. >>> >>>How about this. >>>C argues that if A and B make the deal, he will focus only on >>>weakening A, so that once C is dead B will be able to kill A easily. >>>Wont that make the deal illegal on B's behalf, since he will be >>>putting himself in a situation due to the deal, where he DOESNT >>>maximize his vp's? (off course assuming that everyone agrees that C >>>can weaken A enough) >> >>No, because you can't force a player to take a deal, which is, in >>effect, what C is attempting to do to B. > > > I didnt make it perfectly clear. > C is trying to make the deal illegal, so that A and B cant make the > deal. C is not accomplishing that goal. 1) It is not required for A and B to trust C to keep his end of the threat. 2) Earnestly intending to keep his end of the threat is unlikely to meet the "play to win" stricture. C would most likely have a better chance if he simply played the standard predator-prey game. > By trying to put B in a situation on account of the deal, where be > wouldnt be maximizing his VP's if he honored the deal and therefore in > retrospect make the deal illegal. But, by not factoring in C's "deal" (which A and B aren't required to do), the deal between A and B is legal. > > >>Or to look at it another way, since B has no way of verifying that C >>isn't lying through his teeth, B doesn't have to believe him. All that >>B needs to take into account when deciding whether or not to make a deal >>is the actual game state. >> >>--Colin McGuigan > > > Ok.. so when deciding wether or not a deal is legal you only take into > account the current state of the game and not anything thats bound to > happend? The "play to win" rule by necessity factors in probabilities of upcoming events (up to and including game end). > I thought the whole idea when judging wether or not a deal is legal, > was to consider whats going to happend for the rest of the game (who > will be stronger/weaker, who will gain/lose vp's). Its still just > speculations as i see it, and other players attitude and actions > should influence those speculations. Attitudes? No. Likely actions (judged only as far as "players are playing to win", not by any spite clauses)? Yes. > For instance when youre considering that a player has chances of > getting vp's youre assuming that he will bleed/vote/whatever. What if > he doesnt? You consider whether he "likely" would if playing to win. > Basically i think i would like peoples attitude and future "alliances" > to influence the legality of dealmaking. Not teneble. > Oh.. and on a sidenote. I still couldnt find anything in the rules > stating that a player can break the basic rule (maximizing your vp's) > because he has made a deal to do so. But i assume there has to be one > somewhere? The rules do not address deals at all. The "sportsmanship" label covers playing to win and allows honoring deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > I didnt make it perfectly clear. > C is trying to make the deal illegal, so that A and B cant make the > deal. > By trying to put B in a situation on account of the deal, where be > wouldnt be maximizing his VP's if he honored the deal and therefore in > retrospect make the deal illegal. Right. But B can't be sure that C isn't lying. If C is lying, then B has nothing to gain from taking C's "deal". > Ok.. so when deciding wether or not a deal is legal you only take into > account the current state of the game and not anything thats bound to > happend? No, you only _have_ to take into account the game state. B can choose to believe C if he wants, and then take that into account. But he doesn't _have_ to. > I thought the whole idea when judging wether or not a deal is legal, > was to consider whats going to happend for the rest of the game (who > will be stronger/weaker, who will gain/lose vp's). Its still just > speculations as i see it, and other players attitude and actions > should influence those speculations. Players can lie. Players can make whatever sort of deal they want with no intention of actually living up to it. You can't force someone to believe that someone else's deal is legitimate and force them to take it. > Basically i think i would like peoples attitude and future "alliances" > to influence the legality of dealmaking. So, let's say you have A, B, and C, who are all low on pool. B says to A, "Help me oust C, and then I'll roll over and give you the game win." By your logic, A _must_ comply, since B has offered the game win...so A helps B oust C. B then says, "Ha ha, only kidding," and ousts A. > Oh.. and on a sidenote. I still couldnt find anything in the rules > stating that a player can break the basic rule (maximizing your vp's) > because he has made a deal to do so. But i assume there has to be one > somewhere? It's implied under the V:EKN sportsmanship rules. Note part of the V:TES rules at all, AFAIK. --Colin McGuigan

niko...@hotmail.com (Nikolaj Wendt) wrote in message news:<22f564b8.04040...@posting.google.com>... > > Ok.. so when deciding wether or not a deal is legal you only take into > account the current state of the game and not anything thats bound to > happend? > I thought the whole idea when judging wether or not a deal is legal, > was to consider whats going to happend for the rest of the game (who > will be stronger/weaker, who will gain/lose vp's). Its still just > speculations as i see it, and other players attitude and actions > should influence those speculations. > For instance when youre considering that a player has chances of > getting vp's youre assuming that he will bleed/vote/whatever. What if > he doesnt? > > Basically i think i would like peoples attitude and future "alliances" > to influence the legality of dealmaking. > > > > > > Oh.. and on a sidenote. I still couldnt find anything in the rules > stating that a player can break the basic rule (maximizing your vp's) > because he has made a deal to do so. But i assume there has to be one > somewhere? The rules as handed down from LSJ allow one to hold to or violate a deal at any time. I have grappled with the issues this leads to - the same issues you are pointing out. It is very difficult to be methuselah C. If the other guys want you gone, you are gone unless they are very poor or some strange dynamic is working in your favor. This seems to be your punishment for playing well and for others playign poorly and/or for other players being lazy. I have seen no shift in LSJ's position over the time I have played this game. What you need to do (if you intend to play in tournaments) is find a way to deal with it. Perhaps the best way to handle it is a strange reverse enlightenment. Make deals and then break them. Apply intellectual, social, and game pressure to have others break deals. Promote a situation where nobody feels they can trust deals. The game of vtes were people break deals is a more healthy game than the one where people feel honor bound by a poor deal. If your area is anything like mine people have a very negative view of deal breaking. So what. Screw them. I have a very negative view of the shit they do.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40752EFD...@white-wolf.com>... > > I didnt make it perfectly clear. > > C is trying to make the deal illegal, so that A and B cant make the > > deal. > > C is not accomplishing that goal. > > 1) It is not required for A and B to trust C to keep his end of the threat. > 2) Earnestly intending to keep his end of the threat is unlikely to meet > the "play to win" stricture. C would most likely have a better chance if > he simply played the standard predator-prey game. Good question. VEKN recognizes legally made deals. What makes a deal a deal? Mutually pronounced mutual consent? Is the following situation a deal: A: "C, if you rush B's minions, and kill them, so that I can oust them, I will lay down for you. The way things are now, I'm not getting any more VPs, I might as well transfer out." C: "..." Rushes B's minions. No actual agreement was made, or at least pronounced. In general, can an offer (or a threat) be considered an optional deal? Because if it can, threatening someone with an action that will deter you from your course to "oust prey" may actually be a bluff you can use to gain an advantage (by the fact that you are not prevented from keeping it by the "play to win" clause). > > Ok.. so when deciding wether or not a deal is legal you only take into > > account the current state of the game and not anything thats bound to > > happend? > > The "play to win" rule by necessity factors in probabilities > of upcoming events (up to and including game end). With much leeway, I presume. I'd hate to see the judge tell me what I should play simply because he misinterprets the situation... Come to think of it, there is another end of the coin. Foul play is pretty hard to detect, because of the many reasons a cunning player can cite for his (almost) obviously unsportsmanlike actions. Hmm... > > Oh.. and on a sidenote. I still couldnt find anything in the rules > > stating that a player can break the basic rule (maximizing your vp's) > > because he has made a deal to do so. But i assume there has to be one > > somewhere? > > The rules do not address deals at all. > The "sportsmanship" label covers playing to win and allows honoring deals. Note that if you make a deal to maximize your VPs, you are effectively playing by the rules (to win). The legally made deal simply creates an anchor to which the later game events can be referenced. Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40752EFD...@white-wolf.com>... > >>>I didnt make it perfectly clear. >>>C is trying to make the deal illegal, so that A and B cant make the >>>deal. >> >>C is not accomplishing that goal. >> >>1) It is not required for A and B to trust C to keep his end of the threat. >>2) Earnestly intending to keep his end of the threat is unlikely to meet >>the "play to win" stricture. C would most likely have a better chance if >>he simply played the standard predator-prey game. > > > Good question. VEKN recognizes legally made deals. What makes a deal a > deal? Mutually pronounced mutual consent? Is the following situation a > deal: A deal is a deal when the player thinks it is. > A: "C, if you rush B's minions, and kill them, so that I can oust > them, I will lay down for you. The way things are now, I'm not getting > any more VPs, I might as well transfer out." > > C: "..." Rushes B's minions. > > No actual agreement was made, or at least pronounced. In general, can > an offer (or a threat) be considered an optional deal? Because if it > can, threatening someone with an action that will deter you from your > course to "oust prey" may actually be a bluff you can use to gain an > advantage (by the fact that you are not prevented from keeping it by > the "play to win" clause). If you're in earnest, then the deal is made if A and C think it is. The example seems a little to clear cut to properly case the question, though. Actually, since there's nothing to do for C after he's finished, the question is: is it a deal for A? And the answer is: A can break the deal (by default if he thinks there was no deal, or on purpose otherwise), or he can keep the deal if it was legally-made and he thinks it was a deal. [ quoted text not captured ]