LSJ - Tournament Question

"Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." How strictly should this be interpreted? As written, it would seem to make deal-breaking mandatory in some situations. For instance: I and my predator both play rush decks. I've made a deal with my predator to split the table 3-2, and I've bashed my way through three preys, co I'm currently at 3 VP's, and according to the deal, I should fold now. However, I'm in pretty good shape and I'd have a good chance to defeat the guy I made the deal with and sweep. It seems the rule as written would forbid me to honour the agreement and let him get the 2 last VP's - neither personal honour (yeah, right) or reputation (more likely) could possibly be said to be an in-game consideration. Is this a correct interpretation of the rule? Are players in tournaments forbidden to honour their deals if it can be demonstrated that they have nothing to benefit (in-game) from keeping them? ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of > gaining the most victory points in the current game." > > How strictly should this be interpreted? As written, it would seem to > make deal-breaking mandatory in some situations. For instance: No. Making a losing deal is not allowed, but abiding by a fair deal is fine. The deal was made in game, and is therefore an in-game condsideration. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> >> "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of >> gaining the most victory points in the current game." >> >> How strictly should this be interpreted? As written, it would seem to >> make deal-breaking mandatory in some situations. For instance: > >No. Making a losing deal is not allowed, but abiding by a fair deal >is fine. The deal was made in game, and is therefore an in-game >condsideration. It's in direct violation of the quoted rule, though, isn't it? I *must* maximize my VP's. A re-phrasing might be in order. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b171e40...@news.algonet.se... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >No. Making a losing deal is not allowed, but abiding by a fair deal > >is fine. The deal was made in game, and is therefore an in-game > >condsideration. > > It's in direct violation of the quoted rule, though, isn't it? I > *must* maximize my VP's. A re-phrasing might be in order. The player made a deal that got them *closer* to the goal of *most VPs this game* than they otherwise thought they would have been. At the time they made the deal the player who accepted the 2 VPs deal did so because they felt that by not taking the deal there was a good chance of getting fewer than 2 VPs. Also, it seems that many players are just reading the summary at the top of the new tournament rules. The actual text, I believe, is more clear: "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game. " *Toward* each goal. Also, the sentence below talks about the opposite of playing toward the above stated goal. That is, playing toward a different goal... "Players must not act on concerns outside the current game (attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.)." If the affirmitive statement of what players must do under the new rule is somewhat unclear, you can figure out the intention of the rule by looking at the what the rule says is *not* allowed. Don't think of the first sentence (play toward the goal in the rulebook) as a new rule but rather as a reminder of what the rulebook says the rules are. The second sentence is the change in the rules...."you can no longer play toward a different goal". -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote >> It's in direct violation of the quoted rule, though, isn't it? I >> *must* maximize my VP's. A re-phrasing might be in order. > >The player made a deal that got them *closer* to the goal of *most VPs this >game* than they otherwise thought they would have been. At the time they >made the deal the player who accepted the 2 VPs deal did so because they >felt that by not taking the deal there was a good chance of getting fewer >than 2 VPs. Did you even read my post? Ket's try again: Early in the game, I make a deal with my predator, Player A. The deal is that we split the table 3/2 in VPs, with three points going to me (I kill everyone else) and two to Player A (I roll over afterwards). So far, no problems. Note that I don't object to Player A accepting the deal - that might well *be* maximizing his VPs. Now, I've killed off my three opponents, so it's just me and player A left. By our deal, I should now let him kill me to get 2 VPs. But wait! If I do that, I expressly do not play to maximize my VPs. In order to maximize my VPs (which is expressly what the rule tells me I must do), I should defeat Player A too, to go on to 5 VPs. So, unless this is the intention of the rules, a re-phrasing might be in order. >Also, it seems that many players are just reading the summary at the top of >the new tournament rules. The actual text, I believe, is more clear: I did, so there's no need to get on any high horses. >"Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of >gaining the most victory points in the current game. " > >*Toward* each goal. Your point being? >Also, the sentence below talks about the opposite of >playing toward the above stated goal. That is, playing toward a different >goal... > >"Players must not act on concerns outside the current game (attacking >certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament >standing, etc.)." Yes? >If the affirmitive statement of what players must do under the new rule is >somewhat unclear, you can figure out the intention of the rule by looking at >the what the rule says is *not* allowed. As demonstarted by the "etc", that's just a few examples. >Don't think of the first sentence >(play toward the goal in the rulebook) as a new rule but rather as a >reminder of what the rulebook says the rules are. Hmm... there's a slight ambiguity in the tournament rules. Does "gaining the most victory points in the current game" mean "maximize your VPs" or "get a majority of the VPs"? I've read it as the first case. Was I wrong? >The second sentence is >the change in the rules...."you can no longer play toward a different goal". Right. I find the spirit of this rule fine, but there are some immediate complications. If, for instance, I have the number 1 vampire player in the world at my table (whoever that is), I'm supposed to mentally suppress my knowledge of this fact (that would normally make me very wary of this player) and play as though I *didn't* know? If I know Bob *always* keeps his deals, I should try to ignore that fact when I bargain with him?0 [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote > I find the spirit of this rule fine, but there are some immediate > complications. If, for instance, I have the number 1 vampire player in > the world at my table (whoever that is), I'm supposed to mentally > suppress my knowledge of this fact (that would normally make me very > wary of this player) and play as though I *didn't* know? If I know Bob > *always* keeps his deals, I should try to ignore that fact when I > bargain with him?0 Perhaps you're confusing out of came considerations with out of game knowledge. If you used the knowledge to decide to make a deal with Bob to become known as the guy who kept the #1 Vampire player in the world from winning a tournament, that would be an out-of-game consideration. If you make a convoluted deal with Bob, knowing he's going to bend over backwards to honor it, that seems fine if it assists you in winning that game. If you pay special attention to keep #1 guy from getting his deal set up, that seems fine if it assists you in winning that game. - Jason Bell

On Thu, 31 May 2001, LSJ wrote: > Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > > > "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of > > gaining the most victory points in the current game." > > > > How strictly should this be interpreted? As written, it would seem to > > make deal-breaking mandatory in some situations. For instance: > > No. Making a losing deal is not allowed, but abiding by a fair deal is > fine. The deal was made in game, and is therefore an in-game > condsideration. So... how does that answer the question? You are saying that given the choice between sweeping the game and abiding by a deal, either choice is valid under the rules? Could this deal have ever been made? Somebody had to volunteer to take 2 VP's and help someone else get 3 - isn't that a losing deal? If not, what could be purpose of agreeing to take only 2 VP's and giving someone else 3, other than tournament standing? What if Johan and I had agreed earlier in the game that I should get 2 VP's and he should get 3. I've now gotten my 2, and am in a sure position to get another (and thus win.) Are you saying I am allowed to choose not to win in this circumstance because of the deal? And how do we know what a "losing deal" or "a fair deal" is? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Robert Goudie wrote: > "Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message > > > > It's in direct violation of the quoted rule, though, isn't it? I > > *must* maximize my VP's. A re-phrasing might be in order. > > The player made a deal that got them *closer* to the goal of *most VPs > this game* than they otherwise thought they would have been. ??? The goal of the game is gaining the *most* victory points. Not most as "as many as I can" but most as in "more than anyone else." Being close to the most without getting it is losing, and executing a deal to take 2 VP's and hand someone else 3, while often useful and seen in tournaments past, is in fact voluntarily losing, in contradiction to game's goal. > At the time they made the deal the player who accepted the 2 VPs deal > did so because they felt that by not taking the deal there was a good > chance of getting fewer than 2 VPs. Hey, that makes great since if you're trying to accumulate VP's over several games. But that's outside of the current game considerations. Honoring this deal is agreeing to lose the current game, it's king-making, really. > Also, it seems that many players are just reading the summary at the > top of the new tournament rules. The actual text, I believe, is more > clear: > > "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of > gaining the most victory points in the current game. " > > *Toward* each goal. Also, the sentence below talks about the opposite > of playing toward the above stated goal. That is, playing toward a > different goal... Taking 2 VP's and giving 3 to someone else means you stop moving towards the game's goal once you gain 2 VP's. After that, you either must break your deal (if you could have even made it in the first place) or stop trying to win. > "Players must not act on concerns outside the current game (attacking > certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall > tournament standing, etc.)." Hmm, now why would a player agree to lose 3-2 if they weren't thinking about gaining something, like tournament standing or VEKN rating, from those two losing VP's? > If the affirmitive statement of what players must do under the new > rule is somewhat unclear, you can figure out the intention of the rule > by looking at the what the rule says is *not* allowed. Don't think of > the first sentence (play toward the goal in the rulebook) as a new > rule but rather as a reminder of what the rulebook says the rules are. > The second sentence is the change in the rules...."you can no longer > play toward a different goal". I don't think I misunderstand the rule. It just seems like a dumb rule.

"davey!" wrote: > > Hmm, now why would a player agree to lose 3-2 if they weren't thinking > about gaining something, like tournament standing or VEKN rating, from > those two losing VP's? Because they figure that making the deal is their best chance of getting more than zero VP's? Sometimes, based on the game situation, there's no way you'll be able to get the majority of the victory points. But it makes sense (in the context of the single game) to get as many VP's as possible. If you can't come in first, wouldn't you prefer coming in second to coming in last? James -- | James Hamblin | Graduate Student, KTI Fellow | | ham...@math.wisc.edu | University of Wisconsin -- Madison |

"davey!" wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2001, LSJ wrote: > > > Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > > > > > "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of > > > gaining the most victory points in the current game." > > > > > > How strictly should this be interpreted? As written, it would seem to > > > make deal-breaking mandatory in some situations. For instance: > > > > No. Making a losing deal is not allowed, but abiding by a fair deal is > > fine. The deal was made in game, and is therefore an in-game > > condsideration. > > So... how does that answer the question? You are saying that given the Directly. > choice between sweeping the game and abiding by a deal, either choice is > valid under the rules? Yes, assuming the deal was not a "losing deal" when made. > Could this deal have ever been made? Somebody had to volunteer to take 2 > VP's and help someone else get 3 - isn't that a losing deal? If not, what > could be purpose of agreeing to take only 2 VP's and giving someone else > 3, other than tournament standing? If you make a deal to get 2 (and help another player get 3), that could be acceptable if your alternative (not making the deal) would leave you with fewer than 2 VPs. > What if Johan and I had agreed earlier in the game that I should get 2 > VP's and he should get 3. I've now gotten my 2, and am in a sure position > to get another (and thus win.) Are you saying I am allowed to choose not > to win in this circumstance because of the deal? Yes - quite unambiguously saying that, I'd have thought. > And how do we know what a "losing deal" or "a fair deal" is? Ask the judge. > Johan Lundstrom originally wrote: > > > > I and my predator both play rush decks. I've made a deal with my > > > predator to split the table 3-2, and I've bashed my way through > > > three preys, co I'm currently at 3 VP's, and according to the deal, > > > I should fold now. However, I'm in pretty good shape and I'd have a > > > good chance to defeat the guy I made the deal with and sweep. It > > > seems the rule as written would forbid me to honour the agreement > > > and let him get the 2 last VP's - neither personal honour (yeah, > > > right) or reputation (more likely) could possibly be said to be an > > > in-game consideration. > > > > > > Is this a correct interpretation of the rule? Are players in > > > tournaments forbidden to honour their deals if it can be > > > demonstrated that they have nothing to benefit (in-game) from > > > keeping them? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<3B21418A...@math.wisc.edu>... > "davey!" wrote: > > > > Hmm, now why would a player agree to lose 3-2 if they weren't thinking > > about gaining something, like tournament standing or VEKN rating, from > > those two losing VP's? > > Because they figure that making the deal is their best chance of getting > more than zero VP's? Sometimes, based on the game situation, there's no > way you'll be able to get the majority of the victory points. But it > makes sense (in the context of the single game) to get as many VP's as > possible. > > If you can't come in first, wouldn't you prefer coming in second to > coming in last? > > James Isn't the only place the getting second matters is in a tournament? He origionally asked why it is okay to agree to get 2 VP and give someone else 3. The rulebook never states that there is any joy in being second. Only in tournaments (where you accumulate VP) or for your VEKN ranking do the number of VP actually count right? And as far as I know, both those are out of game considerations right? Please, someone answer this question. Don't say "2 is more then 0" Everyone can count. Why is this out of game consideration okay? Example from yesterdays final nights pre-relase. After sweeping my way into the finals, we were down to the wire. My predator called a vote that would have burned me, my prey, and his prey!(scary if you think about it) I had the only 2 votes on the table but he was able to spend the edge and gain 2 more from another card somewhere. I was at one, and only had 2 minions out. He has 5 out, and it's only delaying me 1 turn to fail this vote. If I pass it I gain 1 VP, my prey gains 1 VP, and my predator gains 1(sorry grand prey) So I know I will lose, with 0 VP if I don't do it. But I had a reason to believe that my grand predator could take out my predator on his next turn. Assuming the rules as stated in the rulebook, I decided that comming in tied for last was no good. Even though(as an out of game, tournament consideration) I would have gotten a better prize for having a VP over no VP. I failed the vote and next turn I was ousted. :( One VP would have been better then none right, but only because it was a tournament. If it was really a single game under it's own considerations, getting 0 or 1 VP would make no difference because someone else HAS to get 2.(last man and their prey) Making sure I could never be the winner either way. If I had acted on the idea that 1 VP is better then none, my predator would have finnished his prey off, and went home with 3 VP and all the prizes. Since I believe that 0-1-2 are all losing to 3 VP(as stated in the rules) I kept eveyone in. Too bad my prey went on to take a tie for the win at 1.5VP. Either way you are making a tournament environment where you have to figure out how to get enough VP to have more then everyone else, but winning is not important.(I can make a deal and settle for 2 VP, get a better prize, a better VEKN ranking, never having to play to win) And somehow noone is supposed to think about that?

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.01061...@posting.google.com... > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<3B21418A...@math.wisc.edu>... > > "davey!" wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, now why would a player agree to lose 3-2 if they weren't thinking > > > about gaining something, like tournament standing or VEKN rating, from > > > those two losing VP's? > > > > Because they figure that making the deal is their best chance of getting > > more than zero VP's? Sometimes, based on the game situation, there's no > > way you'll be able to get the majority of the victory points. But it > > makes sense (in the context of the single game) to get as many VP's as > > possible. > > > > If you can't come in first, wouldn't you prefer coming in second to > > coming in last? > > > > James > > Isn't the only place the getting second matters is in a tournament? Yes, getting second does benefit you in the overall tournament standings. It also benefits you in the player ratings and probably in your quest to qualify for your Continental Championships. Just because it also benefits you in those things doesn't mean that, in the current game, getting second is better than getting last. Just like it sucks a lot more to come in last than to come in second (overall tournament standings not-withstanding). > He origionally asked why it is okay to agree to get 2 VP and give > someone else 3. The rulebook never states that there is any joy in > being second. Do you need to rulebook to tell you that? >Only in tournaments (where you accumulate VP) or for > your VEKN ranking do the number of VP actually count right? And as > far as I know, both those are out of game considerations right? > Please, someone answer this question. Don't say "2 is more then 0" > Everyone can count. Why is this out of game consideration okay? When you presuppose that this is an out of game consideration I can see why you are confused. It is not. -Robert

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >If you make a deal to get 2 (and help another player get 3), that could >be acceptable if your alternative (not making the deal) would leave you >with fewer than 2 VPs. It would usually be impossible to tell beforehand if you would wind up with more or less than the amount you dealt for. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<g6YU6.2507$eZ6.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] I think you're missing the point. The thing is, after the deal was made, is it or is it not against the rules to keep the deal to the end (ousting oneself). Theoretically, you're in a winning position (with a few more pool from the oustings) at the time you're supposed to throw down the towel. How does this come together with the aforementioned rule? Of course you shouldn't be prevented by the rules to keep profitable deals, but it might be interpreted that way. David Pontes

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >If you make a deal to get 2 (and help another player get 3), that could > >be acceptable if your alternative (not making the deal) would leave you > >with fewer than 2 VPs. > > It would usually be impossible to tell beforehand if you would wind up > with more or less than the amount you dealt for. OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Pontes wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] That wasn't the point (see quoted text above) And that question has been answered several times already. (The answer is "yes", since the deal was made in-game). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > David Pontes wrote: > > I think you're missing the point. The thing is, after the deal was > > made, is it or is it not against the rules to keep the deal to the end > > (ousting oneself). > > That wasn't the point (see quoted text above) > And that question has been answered several times already. > (The answer is "yes", since the deal was made in-game). This, to me, is actually the interesting question. Having made a deal to split victory points and having collected the victory points that one player (no matter whether the "3" player or the "2" player or whatever points the player given the initial benefit was assigned to receive), that player is pretty much in the driver's seat as the game is ending. So he could probably break the deal at that point and keep the last 2 (or 3 or whatever) victory points to himself. I think the kind of controversial statement LSJ is making is that it's not then an "out-of-game consideration" to be honorable and keep a deal. I think some people have a very arguable case that the only possible reason to keep a deal at this point is one's reputation for keeping deals, which seems clearly an out-of-game consideration by itself. Anything more seems a completely philosophical argument failing the ability to time-travel or psychically communicate backwards in time. Of course, if this one of those, "because-the-design-team-said-so" type of deals, I wouldn't waste my time worrying about it. But I think some people here view this point as a way to discourage such deals which many dislike: if you can prevent the player in control of the board from keeping his half of the deal at the end of the game and handing those last 2 VPs to his deal-partner by invoking the "no out-of-game-consideration" rule, then such victory point splitting deals would be a lot harder for players to work. Just an observation. I wanted to put my foot into what I think is the heart of the matter because I hadn't seen it discussed elsewhere. (My apologies if it was and I just missed it.) I'd like to hear LSJ's comments on this in particular. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > This, to me, is actually the interesting question. Having made a deal to > split victory points and having collected the victory points that one player > (no matter whether the "3" player or the "2" player or whatever points the > player given the initial benefit was assigned to receive), that player is > pretty much in the driver's seat as the game is ending. So he could probably > break the deal at that point and keep the last 2 (or 3 or whatever) victory > points to himself. I think the kind of controversial statement LSJ is making > is that it's not then an "out-of-game consideration" to be honorable and keep > a deal. I think some people have a very arguable case that the only possible > reason to keep a deal at this point is one's reputation for keeping deals, which > seems clearly an out-of-game consideration by itself. Anything more seems a > completely philosophical argument failing the ability to time-travel or psychically > communicate backwards in time. > > Of course, if this one of those, "because-the-design-team-said-so" type of > deals, I wouldn't waste my time worrying about it. But I think some people > here view this point as a way to discourage such deals which many dislike: if > you can prevent the player in control of the board from keeping his half of the > deal at the end of the game and handing those last 2 VPs to his deal-partner by > invoking the "no out-of-game-consideration" rule, then such victory point > splitting deals would be a lot harder for players to work. Just an observation. > I wanted to put my foot into what I think is the heart of the matter because I > hadn't seen it discussed elsewhere. (My apologies if it was and I just missed > it.) I'd like to hear LSJ's comments on this in particular. The alternative would pretty much eliminate deal-making altogether, since the norm would be a forced breaking of the deal and then the making of the deal in the first place would be suspect. (And yes, this has been said before). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I suppose it would have that implication. I'm not totally sure that would be a bad thing in and of itself. I've never seen these kinds of hard-and-fast deals to do anything for the fun of the game. I'd rather people stick to deals that were very short term, myself. Still, I can see where this would get to be a real problem for judges, as certain types of mid-term deals would land in a gray area of enforceability. If four players are on the board and two of them make a deal which will help one immediately oust one of the player in return for some future consideration, it might be hard to judge whether it breaks the out-of-game consideration rule to keep the other end of the deal. Now there's three players and the one getting the initial benefit may have the upper hand but it's a matter of judgment whether he'd have a better chance to win the game if his deal-partner where to punish him for not keeping their deal. I can see where it might be better not ever have judges trying to figure that out. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3B250077...@netcom.com... > LSJ wrote: > > The alternative would pretty much eliminate deal-making altogether, since > > the norm would be a forced breaking of the deal and then the making of the deal in > > the first place would be suspect. (And yes, this has been said before). > > Yes, I suppose it would have that implication. I'm not totally sure that would be > a bad thing in and of itself. I've never seen these kinds of hard-and-fast deals > to do anything for the fun of the game. I'd rather people stick to deals that were > very short term, myself. I think we've had so many issues (Succubus Club, Deal-Making, and Playing Toward Outside Goals) at the same time and with some crossover that confusion about the new tournament rule developed. The new tournament rule was never intended to reduce the number of deals being made. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand that. I was just saying that using the new tournament rule to eliminate victory point splitting would be nice in a lot of peoples' eyes. And that reducing the number of other types of hard-and-fast deals, though not a priority for most people, doesn't strike me as a reason not to use the new tournament rule for that purpose. It would also have the benefit of ending peoples' confusion about why keeping a deal your opponent doesn't have the power to enforce on you (meaning he doesn't have a credible threat of doing much to you if he suicided against you in retaliation) isn't an "out of game consideration". On the other hand, as I pointed out in my last message when I was equivocating, it would cause some definite fuzzy situations when the other guy sort of kind of had still possessed an arguable retaliation threat. Fred

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B24AED5...@white-wolf.com>... > David Pontes wrote: > > I think you're missing the point. The thing is, after the deal was > > made, is it or is it not against the rules to keep the deal to the end > > (ousting oneself). > > That wasn't the point (see quoted text above) > And that question has been answered several times already. > (The answer is "yes", since the deal was made in-game). Peace! I knew all about that, but I felt it was the unspoken question and had to voice it. Apparently, it was. I beileve these deals ("you help me win some, you win some, the other gets screwed") are detrimental to the game since they allow for some grudges among players - especially foreign ones. Deals like these should not be made, IMHO. This rule shows great promise, and I hope one day it's changed in order to ban this kind of deals. Thanks, David Pontes, Lisbon

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Robert Goudie wrote: > "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:7ab27d37.01061...@posting.google.com... > > Isn't the only place the getting second matters is in a tournament? > > Yes, getting second does benefit you in the overall tournament > standings. It also benefits you in the player ratings and probably in > your quest to qualify for your Continental Championships. Just > because it also benefits you in those things doesn't mean that, in the > current game, getting second is better than getting last. Right. Second is no better than last, unless you consider those outside things. By in-game considerations, second = last. > Just like it sucks a lot more to come in last than to come in second > (overall tournament standings not-withstanding). Oh? See below. > > He origionally asked why it is okay to agree to get 2 VP and give > > someone else 3. The rulebook never states that there is any joy in > > being second. > > Do you need to rulebook to tell you that? Hmm, since we're now mandated to play for *only* the goal in the rulebook, (not in the tournament or for any other considerations) YES. > > Only in tournaments (where you accumulate VP) or for > > your VEKN ranking do the number of VP actually count right? And as > > far as I know, both those are out of game considerations right? > > Please, someone answer this question. Don't say "2 is more then 0" > > Everyone can count. Why is this out of game consideration okay? > > When you presuppose that this is an out of game consideration I can > see why you are confused. It is not. From the online rulebook, 9.1: At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most victory points, even if she has been ousted. Thus there are two rankings in the rulebook: Winning and losing. There is no mention of any other ranking at all. If you are not the guy with the most VP's, you lose. Out of game, you may say that losing one way is better than losing another, but by in game considerations, they are all equal. Thus I must ask again, since I haven't seen a straight answer to this yet: How is taking the 2 end of a 3-2 split anything other than a losing deal, by in-game, by-the-rulebook considerations? By these criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you getting that?

"davey!" wrote: > criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING > with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you > getting that? Standard real-number line. 2 is closer to 3 than 0 is. How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected? I thought it was obvious. I guess we can spell it out in the tourney rules for the benefit of those to whom it is not. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B2945F8...@white-wolf.com>... > "davey!" wrote: > > criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING > > with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you > > getting that? > > Standard real-number line. 2 is closer to 3 than 0 is. > > How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected? > > I thought it was obvious. Yes, from a certain pedantic point of view, it may very well be obvious. You have not, however, addressed davey!'s point. The newly re-written rule states that you cannot act on out-of-game considerations, and overall tournament standing is out-of-game (by the example in section 5.2 of the VEKN Tournament Rules). So, given that, how do you reconcile the fact that someone could/should ever accept the losing side of a 3-2 deal? Also, the vast number of posts made on this topic should make it clearly obvious that the re-written rule and its interpretation is NOT obvious. That's easy to understand, yes? > I guess we can spell it out in the tourney rules for the benefit of > those to whom it is not. Then I propose that the rule should be clearly re-written so that the intent is clear. If the intent of the rule is that you cannot make a deal to sabotage someone else's position by acting on out-of-game considerations, like overall tournament standing or VEKN player rating, then the rule should clearly state just that. If the rule is not intended to keep a player from making a deal which gives him/her the best possible number of VPs in any given round (even if that number of VPs is less than the number of VPs the deal would give to another player) then this should be made clear as well. Rules should not be cryptic. If there is a legitimate concern with how certain players or playgroups have been following the rules, then simplification is the answer, not obfuscation. Alright, I am done now.

dmd...@yahoo.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Anderson-D=E1vila?=) wrote in message news:<c9adad36.01061...@posting.google.com>... > Yes, from a certain pedantic point of view, it may very well be > obvious. You have not, however, addressed davey!'s point. The newly > re-written rule states that you cannot act on out-of-game > considerations, and overall tournament standing is out-of-game (by the > example in section 5.2 of the VEKN Tournament Rules). So, given that, > how do you reconcile the fact that someone could/should ever accept > the losing side of a 3-2 deal? If it improves her in-game standing. Or, at least, if it doesn't hurt her in-game standing. > Also, the vast number of posts made on this topic should make it > clearly obvious that the re-written rule and its interpretation is NOT > obvious. That's easy to understand, yes? Yes, hence my suggestion that the rules be rewritten (below). > > I guess we can spell it out in the tourney rules for the benefit of > > those to whom it is not. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

davey asked: "Thus I must ask again, since I haven't seen a straight answer to this yet: How is taking the 2 end of a 3-2 split anything other than a losing deal, by in-game, by-the-rulebook considerations?" LSJ answered: "How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected?" I don't think second place is important, or relevant to the topic discussed in this thread. Second place is, first and foremost, an out of game consideration. Taking a deal to give anyone else more VP then you, loses your game. There is no re-writing needed to be able to keep out Collusion, and include deal making. This type of deal is just wrong. A player in a good position should not be able to offer a few token points to someone else, to solidify his victory over the rest of the table. (even though that player is acting on an in game consideration, anyone accepting that deal would be thinking 2nd place, or out of game)

Aaron wrote: > > davey asked: > "Thus I must ask again, since I haven't seen a straight answer to > this yet: How is taking the 2 end of a 3-2 split anything other than > a losing deal, by in-game, by-the-rulebook considerations?" > > LSJ answered: > "How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be > detected?" > > I don't think second place is important, or relevant to the topic > discussed in this thread. Second place is, first and foremost, an out > of game consideration. That's why I offered the suggestion a week or so ago that no place be recognized for prize purposes except first. The other four players are "finalists" and get the same prize and leave it at that. Why not? Fred

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.01061...@posting.google.com... > davey asked: > "Thus I must ask again, since I haven't seen a straight answer to > this yet: How is taking the 2 end of a 3-2 split anything other than > a losing deal, by in-game, by-the-rulebook considerations?" > > LSJ answered: > "How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be > detected?" > > I don't think second place is important, or relevant to the topic > discussed in this thread. Second place is, first and foremost, an out > of game consideration. He was using that to illustrate (for those who don't already inherently feel this way) that we do rank players in the tournament *and in each game* 1st through 5th. Look at the tournament point awards as an example. > This type of deal is just wrong. A player in a good position should > not be able to offer a few token points to someone else, to solidify > his victory over the rest of the table. (even though that player is > acting on an in game consideration, anyone accepting that deal would > be thinking 2nd place, or out of game) *wrong*? Even though the rules are not as clear as they can be it should now be clear how they are to be interpreted. Deals that improve your position, even if it doesn't result in a winning position, are officially *not wrong*. If, however, you feel that table splits are detrimental to the game or not fun or you just plain don't like it then I can understand that. Let's discuss that issue directly and not try to bend the existing tournament rules against thier original intent to cover an unrelated issue. As a matter of fact, the table-splitting issues are being discussed wrt the *table wins* suggestion posted by Andrew. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Anderson-Dávila" <dmd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c9adad36.01061...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B2945F8...@white-wolf.com>... [clip] > > I guess we can spell it out in the tourney rules for the benefit of > > those to whom it is not. > > Then I propose that the rule should be clearly re-written so that the > intent is clear. If the intent of the rule is that you cannot make a > deal to sabotage someone else's position by acting on out-of-game > considerations, like overall tournament standing or VEKN player > rating, then the rule should clearly state just that. The rule does state exactly that and gives examples that include the items you mentioned above. > If the rule is not intended to keep a player from making a deal which gives him/her > the best possible number of VPs in any given round (even if that > number of VPs is less than the number of VPs the deal would give to > another player) then this should be made clear as well. Yes, the rules can be better. Writing the rules to make it clear what is *not intended* is more difficult than it may seem. In discussions about the new rules before they were created, I don't recall anyone ever coming to some of the conclusions I've seen posted here. I'm sure the next go-round will be better. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > "davey!" wrote: > > criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING > > with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you > > getting that? > > Standard real-number line. 2 is closer to 3 than 0 is. > > How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected? In a what, Scott? In a TOURNAMENT, you say? Not in a game. Hence, it's an OUT-OF-GAME consideration. In a game, you either win or you don't. Them's the rules. Some games are like that (eg. Clue.) "Ranking" doesn't come in until you apply the tournament rules. Let's examine this further: > I thought it was obvious. > > I guess we can spell it out in the tourney rules for the benefit of > those to whom it is not. Yes, I guess you better, since the game does not have any ranking system at all, other than "winning" and "not winning." Is there any evidence that such a ranking intended, outside of tournament rules? As things stand, you seem to be saying on one hand "winning is your only motivation," and on the other, "losing with lots of VP's is ok." Part of the reason I think this new rule stinks is that there is so much disagreement on what it even means... New example to chew on: 5 player game, towards the end of the round in a tournament. I have 1 VP, no one else has any. From cards in play, etc., I can see that I am the only person who can influence the game, and there are two possible outcomes: I win 1.5/.5/.5/.5/0 or I lose 2/3/0/0/0. Given a choice between winning and losing, obviously winning should be better by in-game considerations, right? But apparently, a 2-3 split is also ok - it's "maximizing" my VP's. But as this example illustrates, maximizing VP's and winning are NOT the same thing. ...or would you say the time limit is an out-of-game consideration?

Aaron wrote: > > davey asked: > "Thus I must ask again, since I haven't seen a straight answer to > this yet: How is taking the 2 end of a 3-2 split anything other than > a > losing deal, by in-game, by-the-rulebook considerations?" > > LSJ answered: > "How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be > detected?" > > I don't think second place is important, or relevant to the topic > discussed in this thread. Second place is, first and foremost, an out > of game consideration. Hardly. Second place in the game is clearly an in-game consideration. > Taking a deal to give anyone else more VP then you, loses your game. Which may be acceptable if you had no other way to take 1st place anyhow. That is, by assuring yourself 2nd place, you haven't done any harm to your position. > There is no re-writing needed to be able to keep out Collusion, and > include deal making. > > This type of deal is just wrong. A player in a good position should > not be able to offer a few token points to someone else, to solidify > his victory over the rest of the table. (even though that player is > acting on an in game consideration, anyone accepting that deal would > be thinking 2nd place, or out of game) And so long as they're aren't sacrificing a win to do so, they aren't making a losing deal, and therefore there's no problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

"davey!" wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > > > "davey!" wrote: > > > criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING > > > with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you > > > getting that? > > > > Standard real-number line. 2 is closer to 3 than 0 is. > > > > How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected? > > In a what, Scott? In a TOURNAMENT, you say? Not in a game. Hence, it's <sigh> What do you call the finals of a tournament? Is that a game? (Answer: yes) > an OUT-OF-GAME consideration. In a game, you either win or you don't. > Them's the rules. Some games are like that (eg. Clue.) "Ranking" doesn't > come in until you apply the tournament rules. No. In a single game, a player can achieve second place by taking the 2nd-highest number of victory points amoung the players in that game. This is so obvious as to sound ludicrous when belabored like this. > > Let's examine this further: > > > I thought it was obvious. > > > > I guess we can spell it out in the tourney rules for the benefit of > > those to whom it is not. > > Yes, I guess you better, since the game does not have any ranking system > at all, other than "winning" and "not winning." Is there any evidence > that such a ranking intended, outside of tournament rules? The evidence that a ranking is intended: they're called "Victory" point, which indicates that they measure victory. Is there any evidence that it is not intended? > As things stand, you seem to be saying on one hand "winning is your only > motivation," and on the other, "losing with lots of VP's is ok." Losing with more VPs can easily be viewed as better than losing with none. It's part of the stated object of the game (in the rules) - the ousting of Methuselahs (which produces, you guessed it, VPs). > Part of the reason I think this new rule stinks is that there is so much > disagreement on what it even means... Everyone should understand what it means by now. > New example to chew on: > > 5 player game, towards the end of the round in a tournament. I have 1 VP, > no one else has any. From cards in play, etc., I can see that I am the > only person who can influence the game, and there are two possible > outcomes: I win 1.5/.5/.5/.5/0 or I lose 2/3/0/0/0. Given a choice > between winning and losing, obviously winning should be better by in-game > considerations, right? But apparently, a 2-3 split is also ok - it's > "maximizing" my VP's. But as this example illustrates, maximizing VP's > and winning are NOT the same thing. Right. So winning is better. No one's talking about sacrificing a win to increase VPs. We're talking about maximizing VPs (or table standing) once a win is no longer feasible. > ...or would you say the time limit is an out-of-game consideration? I assume you're not serious with this question. If you really don't know the answer, though, feel free to ask again. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > Aaron wrote: > > > > Taking a deal to give anyone else more VP then you, loses your game. > > Which may be acceptable if you had no other way to take 1st place > anyhow. That is, by assuring yourself 2nd place, you haven't done any > harm to your position. An EXCELLENT point - if you are sure you are going to lose, then every course of action should be valid, since they all play towards the goal of winning equally - ie, not at all. This leaves two things unaddressed: How do you justify upholding the 2 end of an already made 2-3 deal at a point when you AREN'T going to lose, as in examples already given? By upholding the deal you DO harm your position - you kill yourself when you could gain more VP's. You don't prevent doomed players from transferring out, cross-table rushing, king-making etc. If no action (or inaction) can be taken to improve one's standing, then all these actions are valid, even by in-game considerations.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Hardly. Second place in the game is clearly an in-game consideration. As is beating up Malkavian decks because you just hate them on principle. It's *not*, however, an attempt to win the game, which is what's relevant. >> Taking a deal to give anyone else more VP then you, loses your game. > >Which may be acceptable if you had no other way to take 1st place >anyhow. That is, by assuring yourself 2nd place, you haven't done >any harm to your position. So you're only allowed to make a losing table-split if you can prove to a judge that your chance of winning is exactly 0 percent? [ quoted text not captured ]

"davey!" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.01061...@harper.uchicago.edu... > winning equally - ie, not at all. This leaves two things unaddressed: > > How do you justify upholding the 2 end of an already made 2-3 deal at a > point when you AREN'T going to lose, as in examples already given? By > upholding the deal you DO harm your position - you kill yourself when you > could gain more VP's. This has already been answered by LSJ and multiple others ad nauseum in this thread, and elsewhere, I believe. In short, you never *have* to hold up a bargain. If you choose to do so, good for you...this is considered an in-game consideration. If you feel that notions of "reputation" or "trustworthiness" whatever aren't meaningful enough to keep you from going for the kill, go ahead. If, on the other hand, you choose to keep your bargain, that's fine too. > You don't prevent doomed players from transferring out, cross-table > rushing, king-making etc. If no action (or inaction) can be taken to > improve one's standing, then all these actions are valid, even by in-game > considerations. This is a lot trickier. You can't prevent people from transferring out, but IMO, it's unsportsmanlike, and people can be penalized for that. In addition, there are few ways to know what everyone else is holding, perhaps there is still some way out...transferring out *guarantees* that you will lose, you may as well hang on as long as you can. Cross-table rushing seems invalid, as if you *can* rush, why not rush your prey or predator, to have a hope of gaining a VP or surviving...even if you appear to be on death's door. King-making is pretty nebulous and could easily fall under collusion if you don't define it more fully. Xian

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Hardly. Second place in the game is clearly an in-game consideration. > > As is beating up Malkavian decks because you just hate them on > principle. It's *not*, however, an attempt to win the game, which is > what's relevant. Then see the rest of the post for the difference. > >> Taking a deal to give anyone else more VP then you, loses your game. > > > >Which may be acceptable if you had no other way to take 1st place > >anyhow. That is, by assuring yourself 2nd place, you haven't done > >any harm to your position. > > So you're only allowed to make a losing table-split if you can prove > to a judge that your chance of winning is exactly 0 percent? Don't be ridiculous. You need only show (if pressed) that the deal doesn't worsen your position. [ quoted text not captured ]

"davey!" wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > > > Aaron wrote: > > > > > > Taking a deal to give anyone else more VP then you, loses your game. > > > > Which may be acceptable if you had no other way to take 1st place > > anyhow. That is, by assuring yourself 2nd place, you haven't done any > > harm to your position. > > An EXCELLENT point - if you are sure you are going to lose, then every > course of action should be valid, since they all play towards the goal of > winning equally - ie, not at all. This leaves two things unaddressed: > > How do you justify upholding the 2 end of an already made 2-3 deal at a > point when you AREN'T going to lose, as in examples already given? By > upholding the deal you DO harm your position - you kill yourself when you > could gain more VP's. See my myriad of other posts in the past month that address explicitly this exact topic. > You don't prevent doomed players from transferring out, cross-table > rushing, king-making etc. If no action (or inaction) can be taken to > improve one's standing, then all these actions are valid, even by in-game > considerations. Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > "davey!" wrote: > > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > > > > > "davey!" wrote: > > > > criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING > > > > with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you > > > > getting that? > > > > > > Standard real-number line. 2 is closer to 3 than 0 is. > > > > > > How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected? > > > > In a what, Scott? In a TOURNAMENT, you say? Not in a game. Hence, it's > > <sigh> > What do you call the finals of a tournament? Is that a game? > (Answer: yes) The finals of a what? Yes, it's a game. Where do the rules of ranking the game come from? The tournament rules, not the rulebook. > > an OUT-OF-GAME consideration. In a game, you either win or you don't. > > Them's the rules. Some games are like that (eg. Clue.) "Ranking" doesn't > > come in until you apply the tournament rules. > > No. In a single game, a player can achieve second place by taking the > 2nd-highest number of victory points amoung the players in that game. Scott, I understand what you mean by second place, ok? But it's just not stated anywhere in the rulebook. The rulebook only defines winning, so everything else is losing, as far as the rulebook goes. If you want to rank players, that's something else. If you want people to play for a second place, don't call it playing toward "the goal stated in the rulebook." Call it what it is - an additional mechanic for the sake of the tournament - and say what you mean. Something like "players must play each game toward the goal of a high ranking by VP's" or something like that. Or better yet, "players must play toward the goal of winning the tournament." > This is so obvious as to sound ludicrous when belabored like this. To me, your position and this rule have seemed ludicrous as well. At the very least, things are not clear. I would not be here typing this if I didn't want to straighten it all out, so forgive me if I'm belaboring things. > > Is there any evidence that such a ranking intended, outside of > > tournament rules? > > The evidence that a ranking is intended: they're called "Victory" > point, which indicates that they measure victory. This seems really flimsy. The rules clearly state victory points are used to determine who wins - ie, the victor. In no game does getting third place make you a "victor." After all, they're not called "ranking points." And I've never heard of anyone "measuring" victory, other than "victorious" or "defeated." ("How much victory did you get?" "Third place!" "I got a 5th place victory!" - ludicrous!) > Is there any evidence that it is not intended? ?? As you are the one who seems to be asserting something outside of the rulebook, I would think that you would need to provide evidence to support your claim. However, I would note that instructions for ranking players is provided in the tournament rules under a heading of "Tournament Mechanics," and that no ranking system was provided by the rulebook. This certainly implies that ranking is a tournament mechanic, not a game mechanic... > > As things stand, you seem to be saying on one hand "winning is your only > > motivation," and on the other, "losing with lots of VP's is ok." > > Losing with more VPs can easily be viewed as better than losing with > none. It's part of the stated object of the game (in the rules) - the > ousting of Methuselahs (which produces, you guessed it, VPs). Ok, so when you are losing, accumulating VP's is the goal? This is at odds with your ranking-based goal above. Consider: Game 1: I lose 5-0 Game 2: I get one VP, and lose 2/2/1/0/0 If rank by VP's is the losing player's goal, #1 is better (2nd place is better than 3rd.) If total VP's is the losing player's goal, #2 is better (1 VP is better than 0.) Based on what you've said, the true objective is unclear. And you said this stuff was obvious ;-) > > Part of the reason I think this new rule stinks is that there is so much > > disagreement on what it even means... > > Everyone should understand what it means by now. Clearly this is not the case. You yourself appear to have given contradictory explanations above. > > New example to chew on: > > > > 5 player game, towards the end of the round in a tournament. I have 1 VP, > > no one else has any. From cards in play, etc., I can see that I am the > > only person who can influence the game, and there are two possible > > outcomes: I win 1.5/.5/.5/.5/0 or I lose 2/3/0/0/0. Given a choice > > between winning and losing, obviously winning should be better by in-game > > considerations, right? But apparently, a 2-3 split is also ok - it's > > "maximizing" my VP's. But as this example illustrates, maximizing VP's > > and winning are NOT the same thing. > > Right. So winning is better. Ok. So taking 2 VP's in this example is against the rules? > No one's talking about sacrificing a win to increase VPs. We're > talking about maximizing VPs (or table standing) > once a win is no longer feasible. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?!? You are mistaken. An example of this nature was given earlier in the thread. I'll reiterate it: 5 player game. At a point when A won't win, A and B agree to a 2-3 split, A getting 2 VP's. Game proceeds until A gains the game's first 2 VP's, at which point it is apparent A can get even more OR uphold the deal. By upholding the deal, a course of action which I understood you to have deemed valid, A IS sacrificing VP's and even a table win. By not playing toward the goal stated in the rulebook (winning, ousting players, VP ranking, pick your favorite interpretation) isn't this player in rules violation by upholding her end the deal? It certainly seems that way. You might say "this can't be the case, because then deals of this sort could never be upheld, so they would never be made." Indeed. > > ...or would you say the time limit is an out-of-game consideration? > > I assume you're not serious with this question. SIGH. Yes, Scott, I AM serious. I'm not trying to waste your time. > If you really don't know the answer, though, feel free to ask again. Obviously from your reply, it's in-game, but that's not the only interpretation, based on what's been said. Thanks anyways.

"davey!" wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > > "davey!" wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > > > > "davey!" wrote: > > > > > criteria 2 is NOT better than 0. Yet you and LSJ seem to think LOSING > > > > > with 2 VP's is somehow in-game better than losing with 0. Where are you > > > > > getting that? > > > > > > > > Standard real-number line. 2 is closer to 3 than 0 is. > > > > > > > > How do you propose "second place" in a tournament should be detected? > > > > > > In a what, Scott? In a TOURNAMENT, you say? Not in a game. Hence, it's > > > > <sigh> > > What do you call the finals of a tournament? Is that a game? > > (Answer: yes) > > The finals of a what? > > Yes, it's a game. Where do the rules of ranking the game come from? The > tournament rules, not the rulebook. The tournament rules spell it out for a final, yes. But they also assume that the ranking exists - see the section on tournament points. "rules" for ranking a game come from common sense and/or general rules for all games (like the "rules" for how to hold the cards in your hand). > > > an OUT-OF-GAME consideration. In a game, you either win or you don't. > > > Them's the rules. Some games are like that (eg. Clue.) "Ranking" doesn't > > > come in until you apply the tournament rules. > > > > No. In a single game, a player can achieve second place by taking the > > 2nd-highest number of victory points amoung the players in that game. > > Scott, I understand what you mean by second place, ok? But it's just not > stated anywhere in the rulebook. The rulebook only defines winning, so Because it doesn't need to be. If the rulebook had to spell out every detail of general games before beginning to spell out the particular rules of V:TES, it would be nearly unusable. > everything else is losing, as far as the rulebook goes. If you want to Not quite. It spells out the opbject of the game, which is to oust preys. It stands to reason that therefore the person who ousts the most preys wins (as also stated in the rulebook) and that the person who ousts the second-most preys comes in second. > rank players, that's something else. If you want people to play for a > second place, don't call it playing toward "the goal stated in the > rulebook." Call it what it is - an additional mechanic for the sake of See "Object of the Game" > the tournament - and say what you mean. Something like "players must play Second place is not a concept reserved for tournaments, clearly. > each game toward the goal of a high ranking by VP's" or something like > that. Or better yet, "players must play toward the goal of winning the > tournament." > > > This is so obvious as to sound ludicrous when belabored like this. > > To me, your position and this rule have seemed ludicrous as well. At the > very least, things are not clear. I would not be here typing this if I > didn't want to straighten it all out, so forgive me if I'm belaboring > things. As Robert and I have said, things were not clear. And they have been clarified (ovre and over again) here. To say that they are still not clear is puzzling. > > > Is there any evidence that such a ranking intended, outside of > > > tournament rules? > > > > The evidence that a ranking is intended: they're called "Victory" > > point, which indicates that they measure victory. > > This seems really flimsy. The rules clearly state victory points are used > to determine who wins - ie, the victor. In no game does getting third > place make you a "victor." After all, they're not called "ranking points." > > And I've never heard of anyone "measuring" victory, other than > "victorious" or "defeated." ("How much victory did you get?" "Third > place!" "I got a 5th place victory!" - ludicrous!) ? Most games involving more than two players have such a concept. I cannot fathom having never heard of it at some point. > > Is there any evidence that it is not intended? > > ?? As you are the one who seems to be asserting something outside of the > rulebook, I would think that you would need to provide evidence to support > your claim. However, I would note that instructions for ranking players > is provided in the tournament rules under a heading of "Tournament > Mechanics," and that no ranking system was provided by the rulebook. > This certainly implies that ranking is a tournament mechanic, not a game > mechanic... > > > > As things stand, you seem to be saying on one hand "winning is your only > > > motivation," and on the other, "losing with lots of VP's is ok." > > > > Losing with more VPs can easily be viewed as better than losing with > > none. It's part of the stated object of the game (in the rules) - the > > ousting of Methuselahs (which produces, you guessed it, VPs). > > Ok, so when you are losing, accumulating VP's is the goal? This is at > odds with your ranking-based goal above. Consider: > > Game 1: I lose 5-0 > Game 2: I get one VP, and lose 2/2/1/0/0 The difference here is the difference between coming in 3rd and coming in tied for last. > If rank by VP's is the losing player's goal, #1 is better (2nd place is > better than 3rd.) If total VP's is the losing player's goal, #2 is better > (1 VP is better than 0.) Based on what you've said, the true objective is > unclear. And you said this stuff was obvious ;-) OK. So "tied for last/second" and "3rd place alone" are not clearly ordered. Good point. And a new point (thanks for bringing it up). In the first case, you lose to one player and tie three and beat none. In the second case, you lose to two players and beat two players. I can't see how either of these situations would be strictly better than the other, so let the player decide which is preferable (to her) in the game. > > > Part of the reason I think this new rule stinks is that there is so much > > > disagreement on what it even means... > > > > Everyone should understand what it means by now. > > Clearly this is not the case. You yourself appear to have given > contradictory explanations above. I don't see it. > > > New example to chew on: > > > > > > 5 player game, towards the end of the round in a tournament. I have 1 VP, > > > no one else has any. From cards in play, etc., I can see that I am the > > > only person who can influence the game, and there are two possible > > > outcomes: I win 1.5/.5/.5/.5/0 or I lose 2/3/0/0/0. Given a choice > > > between winning and losing, obviously winning should be better by in-game > > > considerations, right? But apparently, a 2-3 split is also ok - it's > > > "maximizing" my VP's. But as this example illustrates, maximizing VP's > > > and winning are NOT the same thing. > > > > Right. So winning is better. > > Ok. So taking 2 VP's in this example is against the rules? Right. Note that the example is pendantic. > > No one's talking about sacrificing a win to increase VPs. We're > > talking about maximizing VPs (or table standing) > > once a win is no longer feasible. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ?!? You are mistaken. An example of this nature was given earlier in the > thread. I'll reiterate it: I see the example, but don't see the contradiction you claim. The example differs from what we're discussing in that it factors in an in-game deal that had been made. > 5 player game. At a point when A won't win, A and B agree to a > 2-3 split, A getting 2 VP's. Game proceeds until A gains the game's first > 2 VP's, at which point it is apparent A can get even more OR uphold the > deal. By upholding the deal, a course of action which I understood you to > have deemed valid, A IS sacrificing VP's and even a table win. > > By not playing toward the goal stated in the rulebook (winning, ousting > players, VP ranking, pick your favorite interpretation) isn't this player > in rules violation by upholding her end the deal? It certainly seems that > way. You might say "this can't be the case, because then deals of this > sort could never be upheld, so they would never be made." Indeed. > > > > ...or would you say the time limit is an out-of-game consideration? > > > > I assume you're not serious with this question. > > SIGH. > > Yes, Scott, I AM serious. I'm not trying to waste your time. > > > If you really don't know the answer, though, feel free to ask again. > > Obviously from your reply, it's in-game, but that's not the only > interpretation, based on what's been said. Thanks anyways. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > "davey!" wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > > > "davey!" wrote: > > > > 5 player game, towards the end of the round in a tournament. I have 1 VP, > > > > no one else has any. From cards in play, etc., I can see that I am the > > > > only person who can influence the game, and there are two possible > > > > outcomes: I win 1.5/.5/.5/.5/0 or I lose 2/3/0/0/0. Given a choice > > > > between winning and losing, obviously winning should be better by in-game > > > > considerations, right? But apparently, a 2-3 split is also ok - it's > > > > "maximizing" my VP's. But as this example illustrates, maximizing VP's > > > > and winning are NOT the same thing. > > > > > > Right. So winning is better. > > > > Ok. So taking 2 VP's in this example is against the rules? > > Right. Note that the example is pendantic. Sorry. I meant pathological not pedantic (which I misspelled). Gotta go get some more coffee. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:35:32 -0400, LSJ wrote: >The tournament rules spell it out for a final, yes. But they also assume that >the ranking exists - see the section on tournament points. "rules" for >ranking a game come from common sense and/or general rules for all games (like >the "rules" for how to hold the cards in your hand). >... >Most games involving more than two players have such a concept. >I cannot fathom having never heard of it at some point. This won't wash. Try games like Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings, the MB Buffy game, Avalon Hill's Republic of Rome and Diplomacy. And poker. Or Hofstadter's Mediocrity - a game in which the player with a middling number of points is the winner. Issues of this sort were much discussed when I played a lot of Diplomacy. In that game, victory is secured by gaining a majority of supply centres, just as victory in VTES is obtained by gaining a majority of victory points. This leads to the "obvious" idea that the player with the second-most number of supply centres has come second and so on. A lot of players, including the designer, repudiated this idea and took the view that there was a winner or winner(s) and everyone else had lost. For rating purposes, some even proposed that the player with the second-most number of supply centres should suffer the greatest penalty because he was in the best position to stop the winner and had failed to do so. Contrariwise, in poker, the game objective is to maximise your money. There is no formal winner and someone who wins a small amount may be happier with the result than someone who wins a large amount - it's just a matter of expectations. If there is no formal definition of places then it's often the metagame which determines what value players place upon different losing outcomes. In the case of poker the usual metagame is money. In the case of Diplomacy the usual metagame was ratings. The usual metagame for VTES is the tournament - no-one seems to care much about their rating. By the current rules, 2 VP is worth quite a bit in a qualifying round. Its value in the final depends upon the prizes and kudos. The VEKN is trying to outlaw some metagame considerations but not others - revenge for a broken deal is forbidden but keeping a bad deal for the sake of your reputation is ok. Rushing a player because he's known to be strong is forbidden but declining to rush a player who's weak is ok (I suppose). I'm not sure I have a good solution but there is a real problem here. Establishing what players are supposed to be trying to do is just the start. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B2DD974...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps you should just admit that the rulebook can be read, literally, to mean that there is only 1 winner, who has the most VP. Not a big deal because thats what it says when you read it. When you apply "LSJ Common sense"(which is different from "aaron common sense" etc) you can imagine that there is second or whatever, it really doesn't matter. Playing at home is just for fun, and there is always only one winner. Players are stating valid points, that appear to only effect the tournament rules. It seems that they are saying, "This isn't clear!" and you are saying "clear as mud, good enough" Written documentation must stand on it's own. It is silly to think that the issue can be resolved by posting to a message board. I can only hope that you don't believe the folks on here represent the entire VTES community? In order to fix this, it seems like davey is right, all you need to do is clarify the tournament rules from "the goal in the rule book" to "the goal (explain what the goal is)" If they happen to be close to the same, if you have to reword a little, whats the problem? If this were a business and someone were to bring something to your attention that was wrong, or very unclear to them why try to convince them to see it your way? Why not just realize that, hey maybe it is unclear, and maybe I can hash it out with this guy, but what about the next guy? If one person can read something other then the way you intended, that means more people can. Noone should ever need to get upset when someone is confused. Not you for being confronted about your rules, or that person for raising the issue. It seems that there is a shouting match going on, and nothing is getting resolved. (although it was a good, and funny, point that they are victory points, not ranking points hehehe) [ quoted text not captured ]

jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote in message news:<3b2ce8d4....@news.algonet.se>... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Hardly. Second place in the game is clearly an in-game consideration. > > As is beating up Malkavian decks because you just hate them on > principle. It's *not*, however, an attempt to win the game, which is > what's relevant. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! What do you mean beating up Malkavian decks is illegal? Just on principle, they have the ability to sweep a table. So any crosstable beatings could be justified under "I am looking to the future and I see a very powerful Malkavian predator and I want to slow them down." In fact, I think you can justify almost any action in the game with that. A good example is in the finals of the last (and only) Lafayette tournament, Sorrow was playing Malk S+B. There were two players in-between him and me, but each of them had 4-6 pool. I figured it would be a turn or two until he got to me. So I started attacking him with rush actions from Bloodhunts I had put on his vamps. Sure enough, 2 turns later he was my predator with somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 pool and 2 vps. I ended up winning the tournament, but only because I was able to attack him crosstable. Under the current rules, my crosstable actions could have been called illegal, and, depending on the judge, I would not have been allowed to take them and therefore would have lost the tournament. That is kind of silly. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Aaron wrote: [huge quote snipped since it was not used] > Perhaps you should just admit that the rulebook can be read, > literally, to mean that there is only 1 winner, who has the most VP. OK. > Not a big deal because thats what it says when you read it. When you > apply "LSJ Common sense"(which is different from "aaron common sense" > etc) you can imagine that there is second or whatever, it really > doesn't matter. Playing at home is just for fun, and there is always > only one winner. OK. This doesn't contradict anything above (except possibly by introducing the notion of "LSJ common sense" - which means that it's not common). > Players are stating valid points, that appear to only effect the > tournament rules. It seems that they are saying, "This isn't clear!" > and you are saying "clear as mud, good enough" Written documentation > must stand on it's own. It is silly to think that the issue can be > resolved by posting to a message board. I can only hope that you Hmm. Maybe that's why both myself and Robert Goudie have indicated that the V:EKN rules should be rewritten to be clearer on this matter. > don't believe the folks on here represent the entire VTES community? > In order to fix this, it seems like davey is right, all you need to do > is clarify the tournament rules from "the goal in the rule book" to > "the goal (explain what the goal is)" Still sounds like a great idea. Maybe a few more people will suggest it. :-) > If they happen to be close to the same, if you have to reword a > little, whats the problem? If this were a business and someone were No problem at all. What problem do you perceive? > to bring something to your attention that was wrong, or very unclear > to them why try to convince them to see it your way? Why not just I thought I was being asked questions. My job is to answer the questions that I'm asked (inasfar as they relate to the game of V:TES). > realize that, hey maybe it is unclear, and maybe I can hash it out I have, as I've said. > with this guy, but what about the next guy? If one person can read > something other then the way you intended, that means more people can. > Noone should ever need to get upset when someone is confused. Not you > for being confronted about your rules, or that person for raising the > issue. It seems that there is a shouting match going on, and nothing > is getting resolved. I'm a long way from getting upset, I assure you. It's not very productive, so I try to avoid it. I don't see anyone shouting, BTW. [snip another huge chunk of quoted text - please quote responsibly] [ quoted text not captured ]

> A good example is in the finals of the last (and only) Lafayette tournament, > Sorrow was playing Malk S+B. There were two players in-between him and me, but > each of them had 4-6 pool. I figured it would be a turn or two until he got > to me. So I started attacking him with rush actions from Bloodhunts I had put > on his vamps. Sure enough, 2 turns later he was my predator with somewhere in > the neighborhood of 20 pool and 2 vps. I ended up winning the tournament, but > only because I was able to attack him crosstable. > > Under the current rules, my crosstable actions could have been called illegal, > and, depending on the judge, I would not have been allowed to take them and > therefore would have lost the tournament. That is kind of silly. That's not true. Your cross-table rush is justifiable with in-game considerations. There's no reason for a judge to forbid you to take them. Jeroen

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:35:32 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >The tournament rules spell it out for a final, yes. But they also assume that > >the ranking exists - see the section on tournament points. "rules" for > >ranking a game come from common sense and/or general rules for all games (like > >the "rules" for how to hold the cards in your hand). > >... > >Most games involving more than two players have such a concept. > >I cannot fathom having never heard of it at some point. > > This won't wash. Try games like Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings, > the MB Buffy game, Avalon Hill's Republic of Rome and Diplomacy. And > poker. Or Hofstadter's Mediocrity - a game in which the player with > a middling number of points is the winner. Try words like "most". Wash. The fact that some games exist (like 2-team games as Buffy or group solitare games like LotR, or winner-take-all games like poker) that don't use a ranking doesn't mean that such games don't exist or are not "most" of them. Vinci, RoboRally, Pachessi, Sorry!, Torres, History of the World, 100-meter dash, Formula de, Formula Motor Racing, etc. If the "most" is the problem, then I happily retract it: "So many games exist which use the concept that I cannot fathom having progressed to the stage of learning to play V:TES without having encountered the concept." [ quoted text not captured ]

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.0106...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B2DD974...@white-wolf.com>... > > "davey!" wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, LSJ wrote: > It seems that they are saying, "This isn't clear!" > and you are saying "clear as mud, good enough" Written documentation > must stand on it's own. What has been said is that the many posted clarifications should now put an end to the arguing about what the tournament rules mean. The questions now are akin to debating the meaning of original card text after LSJ has already posted the errata. As has been said many times, and even in the text you quoted, the written tournament rules will be made more clear. -Robert

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:14:02 -0400, LSJ wrote: >The fact that some games exist (like 2-team games as Buffy or group >solitare games like LotR, or winner-take-all games like poker) that >don't use a ranking doesn't mean that such games don't exist or >are not "most" of them. Vinci, RoboRally, Pachessi, Sorry!, Torres, >History of the World, 100-meter dash, Formula de, Formula Motor >Racing, etc. I don't have copies of any of these games but, at my elbow, is one that I did buy recently. It's Wyatt Earp and I'd judge that that it's typical of many such games in that the rules state that "The player with the most money wins!". Here's another one - Democrazy, "The player with the most points at the end of the game wins." Places in such a game are undefined. It's my long experience that it's best if coming second in such a game is regarded as worthless. If players ever do get the idea that a notional second place is worth striving for, then the basic objective of the game (i.e. winning) is subverted as players can assist someone to victory in exchange for the reward of coming second. This spoils the game which now becomes a matter of finding a stooge or patsy. This is the problem with the 3-2 deal in VTES. That's why I quoted Vince Lombardi in an earlier post - "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." Andrew

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:14:02 -0400, LSJ wrote: >...100-meter dash... It's worth mentioning that recognising second place in such an event is reasonable for two reasons: 1. performance is often highly predictable, with the same person winning every time. It's good to have a carrot for the lesser sportsmen. 2. there is no player interaction or coalition politics. I'm not sure about the first point but the second is definitely not true of VTES. Andrew

In message <34093E9AF22E4A26.74415A5B...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:14:02 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>...100-meter dash... >1. performance is often highly predictable, with the same person >winning every time. It's good to have a carrot for the lesser >sportsmen. The same is often true of V:TES tournaments, over a long period of time. >2. there is no player interaction or coalition politics. Perhaps not so much in the 100 meters dash, but such forms a major part of many longer distance athletics events. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B2E0123...@white-wolf.com>... > Aaron wrote: > [huge quote snipped since it was not used] > This doesn't contradict anything above (except possibly by introducing > the notion of "LSJ common sense" - which means that it's not common). "LSJ common sense" is actually a U2, which probably isn't as bad a Rare vampire. > > Players are stating valid points, that appear to only effect the > > tournament rules. It seems that they are saying, "This isn't clear!" > > and you are saying "clear as mud, good enough" Written documentation > > must stand on it's own. It is silly to think that the issue can be > > resolved by posting to a message board. I can only hope that you > > Hmm. Maybe that's why both myself and Robert Goudie have indicated > that the V:EKN rules should be rewritten to be clearer on this matter. Oh, well if you already said that you are going to fix up the confusion, and you understand what the problem is...I guess we don't have to worry about this thread any more eh? > > don't believe the folks on here represent the entire VTES community? > > In order to fix this, it seems like davey is right, all you need to do > > is clarify the tournament rules from "the goal in the rule book" to > > "the goal (explain what the goal is)" > > Still sounds like a great idea. Maybe a few more people will suggest it. > :-) we can always hope. hey, at least if more then one person suggested it you know it must be a good one. > > If they happen to be close to the same, if you have to reword a > > little, whats the problem? If this were a business and someone were > > No problem at all. What problem do you perceive? I see the problem that people see things kinda like, 'LSJ makes the rules, and if we complain he's just going to get defensive and ignore you, especially if you criticize something he wrote'...or 'he's the god of jyhad, he does what he wants' > I don't see anyone shouting, BTW. "I'M NOT SHOUTING. **confused look** OKAY, MAYBE I AM! I'M SHOUTING I'M SHOUTING I'M SHOUTING **candlestick falls to smack wadsworth on the nogin**"

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >I don't have copies of any of these games but, at my elbow, is one >that I did buy recently. It's Wyatt Earp and I'd judge that that it's >typical of many such games in that the rules state that "The player >with the most money wins!". Here's another one - Democrazy, "The >player with the most points at the end of the game wins." > >Places in such a game are undefined. It's my long experience that Nah. They're just trivial - too obvious to state in the rules. Tell you what - next time you play either of those games, at the end of the game, out of the blue (with no preamble or other method by which the players's answers may become bieased), ask "who came in 2nd?" after determining the winner and see if your group can somehow find a resolution to this apparently very strange question. >it's best if coming second in such a game is regarded as worthless. YMMV >If players ever do get the idea that a notional second place is worth >striving for, then the basic objective of the game (i.e. winning) is >subverted as players can assist someone to victory in exchange for the >reward of coming second. This spoils the game which now becomes a >matter of finding a stooge or patsy. This is the problem with the 3-2 >deal in VTES. No. The 3-2 split is a different problem - one of sacrificing a chance at winning for a better chance at coming in 2nd. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:35:32 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >The tournament rules spell it out for a final, yes. But they also assume that > > >the ranking exists - see the section on tournament points. "rules" for > > >ranking a game come from common sense and/or general rules for all games (like > > >the "rules" for how to hold the cards in your hand). > > >... > > >Most games involving more than two players have such a concept. > > >I cannot fathom having never heard of it at some point. > > > > This won't wash. Try games like Reiner Knizia's Lord of the Rings, > > the MB Buffy game, Avalon Hill's Republic of Rome and Diplomacy. And > > poker. Or Hofstadter's Mediocrity - a game in which the player with > > a middling number of points is the winner. > > Try words like "most". Wash. > > The fact that some games exist (like 2-team games as Buffy or group > solitare games like LotR, or winner-take-all games like poker) that > don't use a ranking doesn't mean that such games don't exist or > are not "most" of them. Vinci, RoboRally, Pachessi, Sorry!, Torres, > History of the World, 100-meter dash, Formula de, Formula Motor > Racing, etc. I have to toss in a comment here. Personally, I don't care that much about this tournament rule one way or the other. I suspect I'll still have as much fun with the game as I ever did. The one thing that bothers me about it is leaving the concept of in-game considerations vs. out-of-game up to a thousand different judges who are bound to interpret such a subjective thing in a thousand at-least-slightly-different ways. But assuming that's all Chicken Little stuff and the sky will stay where it is, I have to say that the reason this is getting debated endlessly is exactly what I pointed out when I first saw this rule: this is a highly philosophical, debatable issue. I guess you can stick a resolution to the debate in a tightly compacted little edict stuck away in some section of the tournament rules if you want, but it's never going to end the argument. People have been talking about what are legitimate motivations in a game and what aren't for years and never arrived at a consensus answer. Maybe it would be best if there was some kind of FAQ-type document explaining why the rule is as it is and what the intent of it is. Of course, certain people will never agree with the reasoning but at least it would be something you could point to every time the question gets asked in the future. (And it will continue to be, I think.) I don't know; just the most constructive thing I can think of. These threads go on endlessly repeating all the stuff in all the metagaming debates I've ever seen on the net. Not that I mind that, per se. It's an interesting subject and I enjoy a good argument as much as the next guy. It just seems kind of out of place in this context, though. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] See my other post. This is a different thing then debating the meaning of card text. This is a philosophical argument about gaming. I predict this rule will continue to generate debate and calls for clarification as long as it exists. Fred

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:46:12 GMT, LSJ wrote: >>Places in such a game are undefined. It's my long experience that > >Nah. They're just trivial - too obvious to state in the rules. No. Games which don't have a simple points system, such as Fluxx, Illuminati or Tales of the Arabian Nights, don't tell you a method for determining places either. The point of a game of this sort is to see who wins and nothing more. The issue of places only arises when you make the game part of a larger metagame like a tournament - you often need something to use as a tie-break. >No. The 3-2 split is a different problem - one of sacrificing a chance at >winning for a better chance at coming in 2nd. I'm not sure how you think that's different. If we agree that this is a bad thing, then I'm happy with that. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:46:12 GMT, LSJ wrote: > >>Places in such a game are undefined. It's my long experience that > > > >Nah. They're just trivial - too obvious to state in the rules. > > No. You're saying that your friends would not agree on who came in second in a game of Wyatt Earp or Democrazy? That's difficult to believe. Most people (not just "gamers") I know would have no such difficulty. > Games which don't have a simple points system, such as Fluxx, > Illuminati or Tales of the Arabian Nights, don't tell you a method for > determining places either. The point of a game of this sort is to see > who wins and nothing more. The issue of places only arises when you True. And not the point of the previous post. Some games (like V:TES) determine a winner by the person who scores the most points (and, moreover, the points are not used for any other purpose - say, like determining when the game ends). In such an environment, the concept of "2nd place" is trivial. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> So you're only allowed to make a losing table-split if you can prove >> to a judge that your chance of winning is exactly 0 percent? > >Don't be ridiculous. You need only show (if pressed) that the deal doesn't >worsen your position. Which it does, of course, if you make the deal intending to go through with it while you still had a slight chance to win. Why not just make the rule say you must play to win, *period*? No strange exceptions like "well, I made a deal not to win earlier" or "nah, my position sucks anyway". [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> So you're only allowed to make a losing table-split if you can prove > >> to a judge that your chance of winning is exactly 0 percent? > > > >Don't be ridiculous. You need only show (if pressed) that the deal doesn't > >worsen your position. > > Which it does, of course, if you make the deal intending to go through > with it while you still had a slight chance to win. > > Why not just make the rule say you must play to win, *period*? No > strange exceptions like "well, I made a deal not to win earlier" or Because, to repeat yet again, making that rule would eliminate deals altogther, which is not a good thing. > "nah, my position sucks anyway". This is not an exception, even under the current rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:12:20 -0400, LSJ wrote: >You're saying that your friends would not agree on who came in second >in a game of Wyatt Earp or Democrazy? While we were cooking dinner, I asked my girlfriend about the game of Groo that we played at the club last Thursday. This was won by Daniel (our keenest VTES player) when he scored 7 victory points, as per the rules. I asked her who came second, given that we had accumulated various numbers of victory points. She didn't hesitate in saying that no-one came second - that there was no such thing. I haven't checked the rules to see exactly what they say about this, if anything, but expect that she's right. >That's difficult to believe. Believe it. I understand what you're saying and you may well be right about your friends too. It's just not a common viewpoint with gamers in my circle and so you shouldn't use terms like "obvious" and "trivial". Given that this matter concerns a newly drafted rule and you have the power to rewrite any of the rules, I'm not sure why you're straining at this gnat. The real issue is the manner in which the tournament format and scoring system influence the way that players behave. I'd like to see less wheeling and dealing but don't think that you can outlaw this by fiat. I think you should see what can be done with the scoring and mechanics first. For example, suppose that you had a single elimination format - the final game would just have the winners from the first round games. This would accommodate 16-40 players in about 4-6 hours. This might be more suitable for conventions than the current 10+ hour events. It might too be too short for the players with a taste for the current format but you may find other players more willing to give the game a try if it doesn't take so long. Andrew

jeroen rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote: >That's not true. Your cross-table rush is justifiable with in-game >considerations. There's no reason for a judge to forbid you to take them. The problem is that pretty much *any* action could be motivated as helping you win in the long run. [ quoted text not captured ]

"davey!" <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote > And I've never heard of anyone "measuring" victory, other than > "victorious" or "defeated." ("How much victory did you get?" "Third > place!" "I got a 5th place victory!" - ludicrous!) I've used "tied for second" to lick my wounds after a beating many times. I'm not trying to undermine your point, though. I also think it's impossible to institute a rule that asks players to ignore how an in-game action will affect thier chances of winning a tournament. But I rarely trust an argument that uses so many exclamation points!!! - Jason Bell

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Why not just make the rule say you must play to win, *period*? No >> strange exceptions like "well, I made a deal not to win earlier" or > >Because, to repeat yet again, making that rule would eliminate deals >altogther, which is not a good thing. It would only eliminate losing deals, which I, for one, think is a *good* thing. Temporary deals, and non-losing deals, wouldn't be affected. >> "nah, my position sucks anyway". > >This is not an exception, even under the current rule. Really? I thought you've said you're allowed to play not to win (by playing to come second) if your chance of winning seems remote enough. Am I wrong? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:916DD5A343A56718.1F04BEA7...@lp.airnews.net... [snip] > If there is no formal definition of places then it's often the > metagame which determines what value players place upon different > losing outcomes. In the case of poker the usual metagame is money. The lack of a formal definition of places still does not prevent players from inventing these concepts within their playgroups, and seems to be fairly common, IME, and from most reports. Believe it or not, in many local playgroups, a less strict (read: wrong) interpretation of the rules was held, and the last person standing was usually seen as the winner, whether or not he actually ousted anyone aside from the last remaining person. I would like to believe (though obviously have no evidence) that more people see the world (and games) as a ordinal ranking, rather than a strictly binary win-loss situation. And I have seen ample evidence of the anecdote of consoling oneself with the status of "second place." All things aside, second place (and so on) are useful concepts in terms of the game (not just the tournament) as they will frequently allow players to gauge how well their decks performed in comparison with other players. If (as happened last night in my playgroup), my deck had not taken 4 VPs at a 6 player table, and instead had taken 2VPs (scored by the other remaining player in the endgame), I might have reconsidered my play or my deck strategy, realizing that something may have been amiss, though not as much off as the other 4 players who failed to score a VP. My final opponent's deck demonstrably scored better than all of the other players, but resulted in a loss, true. He can, however, justifiably state that he did not lose by as much (in terms of VPs) as any of the other players...practically a description of the concept of second place. > In the case of Diplomacy the usual metagame was ratings. The usual > metagame for VTES is the tournament - no-one seems to care much about > their rating. By the current rules, 2 VP is worth quite a bit in a > qualifying round. Its value in the final depends upon the prizes and > kudos. Agreed. > The VEKN is trying to outlaw some metagame considerations but not > others - revenge for a broken deal is forbidden but keeping a bad deal > for the sake of your reputation is ok. Rushing a player because he's > known to be strong is forbidden but declining to rush a player who's > weak is ok (I suppose). I'm not sure I have a good solution but there > is a real problem here. Establishing what players are supposed to be > trying to do is just the start. You do have a point here that there is a problem. I agree. To go point by point: a) revenge for a broken deal is forbidden Revenge for a broken deal in a separate game is forbidden. b) but keeping a bad deal for the sake of your reputation is ok. Because you made that deal within this game. As LSJ has pointed out if this were *not* allowed, deals would never be made, and it would definitely require additional "play-policing" on the part of the judges...neither of which is a desirable situation. c) Rushing a player because he's known to be strong is forbidden Rushing a player because you know that he plays well before the game has unfolded itself *and* you cannot indicate any other reason for doing so is forbidden. d) but declining to rush a player who's weak is ok (I suppose). I assume you mean "prey" in place of "player" in the above. There are many situations where you wouldn't want to rush a weak prey. Perhaps he can whittle down his prey for you, while you keep him close to death's door. Perhaps you're happy just slowly bleeding away his pool instead of rushing his minions (this is sometimes the most effective tactic for a rush deck). Yes, there is a problem, and it's attempting to be addressed by the new rules. Although I'm not sure that the table victory is the best direction to go for tournaments, it's a new idea, and a good one. Thank you. As with any new rules, it will take some time to see if they are effective at producing the desired results...let's give it a chance before attempting to render a final verdict. Xian

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >Johan Lundstrom wrote: > >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Why not just make the rule say you must play to win, *period*? No > >> strange exceptions like "well, I made a deal not to win earlier" or > > > >Because, to repeat yet again, making that rule would eliminate deals > >altogther, which is not a good thing. > > It would only eliminate losing deals, which I, for one, think is a > *good* thing. Temporary deals, and non-losing deals, wouldn't be > affected. They would be if players were forced to break the deal in favor of improving their situation after their partner had upheld the other end of the deal. > >> "nah, my position sucks anyway". > > > >This is not an exception, even under the current rule. > > Really? I thought you've said you're allowed to play not to win (by > playing to come second) if your chance of winning seems remote enough. > Am I wrong? If it's "remote enough", then you're still playing to win no matter what you do. If you had a choice of play that would improve your standing at the end of the game, then that'd be different. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> It would only eliminate losing deals, which I, for one, think is a >> *good* thing. Temporary deals, and non-losing deals, wouldn't be >> affected. > >They would be if players were forced to break the deal in favor >of improving their situation after their partner had upheld the >other end of the deal. No, because reputation still matters in that particular game. If the particular deal was "I don't bleed you for a turn, and you won't rush me for a turn", I might keep it because a) I hope to get the same deal for the next turn b) I want to be able to deal with the other players However, once you're down to two players, there is no longer anything to gain (in-game) by keeping a deal (unless the other guy handed you a stupid deal, which you profit from. In that case, he should break it himself). This is becaúse credibility no longer matters. The only deals that become impossible are a) Losing deals (3-2 table split, for instance) b) Deals made when there's only two players left and personally, I think losing those kinds of deals would be a service to the game. >> >> "nah, my position sucks anyway". >> > >> >This is not an exception, even under the current rule. >> >> Really? I thought you've said you're allowed to play not to win (by >> playing to come second) if your chance of winning seems remote enough. >> Am I wrong? > >If it's "remote enough", then you're still playing to win no matter >what you do. *Say what!?!* >If you had a choice of play that would improve your >standing at the end of the game, then that'd be different. So (again) I'm only allowed to make a losing deal when I can no longer win? If this is not correct, when am I allowed to make a losing deal? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:28:34 -0500, Xian wrote: >b) but keeping a bad deal for the sake of your reputation is ok. > >Because you made that deal within this game. As LSJ has pointed out if this >were *not* allowed, deals would never be made, and it would definitely require >additional "play-policing" on the part of the judges...neither of which is a >desirable situation. I'd prefer that solemn and binding deals were not made as they spoil the game for the following reasons: 1. If you have absolute trust in another player then powerful deals can be made, e.g. giving all your minions with Succubus Club. These swing the game too much. 2. You get too much bad feeling and arguments when they are broken or the terms are disputed, e.g. recent examples in both London and LA. 3. The habitual use of these deals discriminates against new players and outsiders. They are de facto collusion. You can see this in the way that players from the same city are driven to form coalitions. This appears to be a standard feature of US events. 4. They often subvert the basic objective of the game which is supposed to be ousting your prey. For a predator to leave his prey alone for an extended period is not right. At the Watford pre-release, there was a deal of this kind. The Giovanni player was trying to steal a mummy from his predator, the Set player. His prey, the Assamite, could interfere with this but suggested that he would not if the Giovanni agreed not to bleed him until the Set player had been ousted. I was Ravnos, the prey of the Assamite and didn't like the sound of this but didn't know enough of the details to argue against it. I probed a little though and it became clear that the Giovanni player and Assamite were known to each other, expected to play again and would under no circumstances break this deal. This had the effect of raising an impenetrable wall between the Giovanni and Assamite player and the latter swept the table in consequence. The lesson is clear to me. It's only worth playing in an event if it is packed with your friends and known associates. Yuck. It doesn't have to be this way. Shadowfist games are usually 4-player but the tournaments for this game are remarkably free of this kind of rigid, long-term deal-making and "us against them". This probably arises because a victory is indivisible and there is no way for allies to share the spoils. Helping another player to win in a direct way would normally be regarded as prima facie evidence of collusion and so struck down. This then sets the tone for the rest of the game and alliances tend to be fleeting affairs - just temporary coalitions of the weak against the strong. The games are basically "every man for himself" and this seems to work better. >d) but declining to rush a player who's weak is ok (I suppose). > >I assume you mean "prey" in place of "player" in the above. No, it might be any player that you would have good reason to rush otherwise, e.g. your predator or grand-predator. It's just the converse of the case which is forbidden. Andrew

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > So (again) I'm only allowed to make a losing deal when I can no longer > win? If this is not correct, when am I allowed to make a losing deal? Again, when it doesn't hurt your standing (i.e., when you've already "lost" and have nothing to lose by making the deal). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I'd prefer that solemn and binding deals were not made as they spoil > the game for the following reasons: That works out well, for the deals in V:TES are not binding. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:48:15 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> I'd prefer that solemn and binding deals were not made as they spoil >> the game for the following reasons: > >That works out well, for the deals in V:TES are not binding. Many players consider such deals to be binding and play accordingly. Explain to them that they don't have to keep a deal once it no longer helps them and they will look at you with blank incomprehension. If anyone actually reneges on a deal or weasels out of it, their fury knows no bounds and the event comes to a halt while they rant and rave. And, as I understand your interpretation of your tournament rules, you recognise the existence of such deals and allow them to be used as a defense if a player takes an action which harms his position (such as transferring himself out). It even appears that you _want_ players to make such deals as you imply that it would be a bad thing if they were not possible. Now you've heard all this before so I suppose it's like your fussy insistence that MRP isn't errata. But it doesn't really matter what you call these things. What matters is what happens in practise. And, in practise, binding deals are commonplace. Right? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:48:15 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >> I'd prefer that solemn and binding deals were not made as they spoil > >> the game for the following reasons: > > > >That works out well, for the deals in V:TES are not binding. > > Many players consider such deals to be binding and play accordingly. > Explain to them that they don't have to keep a deal once it no longer > helps them and they will look at you with blank incomprehension. If > anyone actually reneges on a deal or weasels out of it, their fury > knows no bounds and the event comes to a halt while they rant and > rave. As you say - I understand what you're saying and you may well be right about your friends, too. I've never found a player who doesn't understand the concept of "non-binding" deal to the point of returning a blank look of incomprehension when the concept is mentioned, however. The judge should see to it that the event doesn't come to a halt. That's part of the judge's job. > And, as I understand your interpretation of your tournament rules, you > recognise the existence of such deals and allow them to be used as a > defense if a player takes an action which harms his position (such as > transferring himself out). It even appears that you _want_ players to > make such deals as you imply that it would be a bad thing if they were > not possible. If you're referring to non-binding deals, yes. > Now you've heard all this before so I suppose it's like your fussy > insistence that MRP isn't errata. But it doesn't really matter what Still tilting at Webster? > you call these things. What matters is what happens in practise. > And, in practise, binding deals are commonplace. Right? No. No deals are binding in V:TES, so they cannot be "commonplace". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:31:55 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Still tilting at Webster? I use Chambers myself - well known here as the best dictionary for word games. It only defines "errata" in the narrow sense of a printing error. It is not recording common usage in gaming circles in which the term has come to mean any kind of official, retrospective change to a game, whether it's a genuine error, an addendum, a bug fix or a revision. The term is rather like the word "patch" in computer gaming which has also expanded beyond its original meaning and now is cynically taken to mean the version that works, as in "I'm waiting for the patch". >No. No deals are binding in V:TES, so they cannot be "commonplace". Do you have a more succinct term than "deals which players regard as so important to their honour and reputation that they will throw the game rather than break them"? I think I'll stick to "binding deals" for now. You just have to understand that it is the players who are binding themselves. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:31:55 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >Still tilting at Webster? > > I use Chambers myself - well known here as the best dictionary for > word games. It only defines "errata" in the narrow sense of a > printing error. It is not recording common usage in gaming circles in > which the term has come to mean any kind of official, retrospective > change to a game, whether it's a genuine error, an addendum, a bug fix > or a revision. Your usage is "common usage" but my usage (matched by Webster and, apparently, Chambers) is "fussy insistence" and "sophistry". Always good for a smile. Thanks. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:05:50 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Your usage is "common usage" but my usage (matched by Webster and, >apparently, Chambers) is "fussy insistence" and "sophistry". Dictionaries record usage rather than defining it. A living language always leaves them trying to catch up. If you want to define precise technical terms or euphemisms specifically for use in a VTES context, then you might add a glossary to the FAQ. I'm still not quite sure what you like to call the stuff that isn't errata - I get the impression that you just pretend that the earlier versions don't exist any more. The AEG stable of games uses the term "MRP" while Shadowfist has both "PAP" and "errata". And I've lost track of what the DCI does - it was never very clear. Andrew

> > Under the current rules, my crosstable actions could have been called > illegal, > > and, depending on the judge, I would not have been allowed to take them > and > > therefore would have lost the tournament. That is kind of silly. > > That's not true. Your cross-table rush is justifiable with in-game > considerations. There's no reason for a judge to forbid you to take them. Hell yes I know my actions were legal! But he was screaming like I had just stuck him with a knife. I would hate to have to hear it when there is a rule that gives precedent to an arguement saying that it wasn't. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:05:50 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >Your usage is "common usage" but my usage (matched by Webster and, > >apparently, Chambers) is "fussy insistence" and "sophistry". > > Dictionaries record usage rather than defining it. A living language > always leaves them trying to catch up. If you want to define precise The conclusion of this line of argument is left as exercise. > technical terms or euphemisms specifically for use in a VTES context, > then you might add a glossary to the FAQ. I'm still not quite sure > what you like to call the stuff that isn't errata - I get the > impression that you just pretend that the earlier versions don't exist > any more. Errata: Official changes to printed card text (or printed rule text). Card text: what's printed on a card. Specific "technical rule" regarding the "stuff" which isn't errata (which is called the "most recent printing"): "All cards are to be interpreted according to their most recent printing." [VEKN 4.2] [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:1FD1E4C1DD6243C8.B8AC5BFD...@lp.airnews.net... > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:28:34 -0500, Xian wrote: > > >b) but keeping a bad deal for the sake of your reputation is ok. > > > >Because you made that deal within this game. As LSJ has pointed out if this > >were *not* allowed, deals would never be made, and it would definitely require > >additional "play-policing" on the part of the judges...neither of which is a > >desirable situation. > > I'd prefer that solemn and binding deals were not made as they spoil > the game for the following reasons: It's been pointed out that they're not binding by the rules of the game. Your problem appears to be with the players themselves, or the nature of how the game operates. > 1. If you have absolute trust in another player then powerful deals > can be made, e.g. giving all your minions with Succubus Club. These > swing the game too much. Perhaps the problem is with the card then? I don't know. Absolute trust in someone *should* be difficult to come by. > 2. You get too much bad feeling and arguments when they are broken or > the terms are disputed, e.g. recent examples in both London and LA. Seems like a social problem to me, not something that the game can regulate. This can happen in any game. Haven't you seen this in Diplomacy? Yes, people are expecting to get screwed and screw everyone else, but they still get pissed when they're the first one that gets backstabbed. People are like that. > 3. The habitual use of these deals discriminates against new players > and outsiders. They are de facto collusion. You can see this in the Come on. Deals happen in almost every game that intends to take social interaction into account, and does not rely on pure chance as a determining factor of what happens next (Monopoly, etc.). Again, doesn't the same thing happen in Diplomacy? One player makes a deal with someone he's played with for a long time, and spurns a new player in the group? > way that players from the same city are driven to form coalitions. > This appears to be a standard feature of US events. Nice try at a troll, but aren't you referencing something about this happening at a UK event below? If deals are actually the problem, it's not a standard feature of US play, but worldwide play. That being said, though I'm sure this has happened, I doubt that it runs rampant or "is a standard feature" of American tournaments. Spare us the Old World holier-than-thou attitude. Europe Uber Alles? > 4. They often subvert the basic objective of the game which is > supposed to be ousting your prey. For a predator to leave his prey > alone for an extended period is not right. If it maximizes his chances of winning (the table or whatever) by letting his prey oust his grand prey because he absolutely cannot deal with that player, but feels he can then take out his prey after the deed is done, would this not be valid? Example: Player A bleeds B, etc. Player A is playing a standard Malk stealth-bleed deck. Player B is playing a Weenie presence vote deck. Player C is playing a potence rush deck. Player D is playing, oh, a Gangrel wall deck. Player E was somehow in between A and B and has already been ousted. If we assume approximately equal skill levels among the players and their deck-building skills, there is next to no way that the stealth-bleed deck will survive sitting next to the rush deck. But by letting the vote deck take out the rush deck, Player A will have improved his chances of taking the table. > At the Watford pre-release, there was a deal of this kind. The > Giovanni player was trying to steal a mummy from his predator, the Set > player. His prey, the Assamite, could interfere with this but > suggested that he would not if the Giovanni agreed not to bleed him > until the Set player had been ousted. I was Ravnos, the prey of the Sounds like the Giovanni player was simply a fool. > Assamite and didn't like the sound of this but didn't know enough of > the details to argue against it. I probed a little though and it > became clear that the Giovanni player and Assamite were known to each > other, expected to play again and would under no circumstances break > this deal. This had the effect of raising an impenetrable wall > between the Giovanni and Assamite player and the latter swept the > table in consequence. Under *no* circumstances? Interesting. Anyway, some players are just morons, and you can't convince them to do things in their own interest. > The lesson is clear to me. It's only worth playing in an event if it > is packed with your friends and known associates. Yuck. Check. It's exactly the same everywhere. Outsiders are always colluded against. Didn't you know that the way *all* games are played in the USA? [shadowfist - rah rah] > alliances tend to be fleeting affairs - just temporary coalitions of > the weak against the strong. The games are basically "every man for Or the strong against the weak. > >d) but declining to rush a player who's weak is ok (I suppose). > > > >I assume you mean "prey" in place of "player" in the above. > > No, it might be any player that you would have good reason to rush > otherwise, e.g. your predator or grand-predator. It's just the > converse of the case which is forbidden. I can't imagine a good reason to cross-table rush someone that is weak...there are relatively few cases where there is adequate in-game motivation to do so. Anathema being one of the few I can think of. Even then it's usually not a good idea. Xian

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> So (again) I'm only allowed to make a losing deal when I can no longer >> win? If this is not correct, when am I allowed to make a losing deal? > >Again, when it doesn't hurt your standing (i.e., when you've already >"lost" and have nothing to lose by making the deal). Thank you. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:32:54 -0500, Xian wrote: >Come on. Deals happen in almost every game that intends to take social >interaction into account, and does not rely on pure chance as a determining >factor of what happens next (Monopoly, etc.). Again, doesn't the same thing >happen in Diplomacy? I've had enough of playing Diplomacy and, from his writings, it's clear that Garfield had had enough too. He didn't want VTES to be essentially the same game. >> way that players from the same city are driven to form coalitions. >> This appears to be a standard feature of US events. > >Nice try at a troll, but aren't you referencing something about this >happening at a UK event below? No, the UK can be considered one city for this purpose. I can list specifics but you're really not paying attention. I'd expect this to be an issue in European-level events which bring together players from several countries but don't have much experience of those. >If it maximizes his chances of winning ... would this not be valid? This is what role-players call being a twink - playing the game like a cost accountant. Garfield wanted players to act aggressively, not sit on their hands and do arbitrage deals. >Under *no* circumstances? Interesting. Anyway, some players are just >morons, and you can't convince them to do things in their own interest. We've heard from many such players who explain clearly that their plans to to sacrifice short-term loss for the sake of long-term prosperity. They hope to reap substantial benefit by doing powerful deals with others across an extended series of games. It's a credible plan but is tantamount to collusion, IMO. >[shadowfist - rah rah] Do you play anything apart from VTES? That's the trouble with CCGs - they are populated by fanboys who support their game as if it were a football team. Me, I like to play lots of different games and so like to compare and contrast. VTES has better multi-player mechanics than most CCG but that doesn't mean that it's perfect. >I can't imagine a good reason to cross-table rush someone that is >weak... You've lost the thread. The point is that players are forbidden to rush someone purely because they are known to be a strong player (though I'm getting mixed signals on this now). The converse of this is declining to rush someone who is known to be a weak player even though their table position might otherwise suggest that it would be a good idea. Andrew

In message <B1D635E7CA835798.A164D4BD...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>If it maximizes his chances of winning ... would this not be valid? > >This is what role-players call being a twink - playing the game like a >cost accountant. Garfield wanted players to act aggressively, not sit >on their hands and do arbitrage deals. Not exactly. Garfield seemed to expect, from his playgroups, that people would do such and was moderately surprised that they didn't. I really, really must get another copy of the White Wolf book. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:B1D635E7CA835798.A164D4BD...@lp.airnews.net... > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:32:54 -0500, Xian wrote: > > I've had enough of playing Diplomacy and, from his writings, it's > clear that Garfield had had enough too. He didn't want VTES to be > essentially the same game. True. > >Nice try at a troll, but aren't you referencing something about this > >happening at a UK event below? > > No, the UK can be considered one city for this purpose. I can list Ah. It all makes sense now. > specifics but you're really not paying attention. I'd expect this to Of course I'm not...I'm an uneducated American. Specifics wouldn't hurt. > be an issue in European-level events which bring together players from > several countries but don't have much experience of those. Well, you could, of course, check Deja/Google for the last couple of giant European tournaments and see if there were many claims of this sort of thing, but I wouldn't go to the bother if you expect it in European play as well. Although you certainly could have just mentioned it as a symptom of any large tournament, but why bother? > >If it maximizes his chances of winning ... would this not be valid? > > This is what role-players call being a twink - playing the game like a > cost accountant. Garfield wanted players to act aggressively, not sit > on their hands and do arbitrage deals. Agreed, he did want players to act aggressively, and was (as James notes) surprised that everyone else played more defensively. However, he didn't seem to have any indication that people wouldn't make deals... "The alliances which do evolve in Jyhad are a function of the players' individual positions rather than a consequence of the rules or the players' whims." (The Eternal Struggle, p. 13) Then later, he states that "Some players complain that knocking out a person other than your prey should give you an advantage, such as a victory point or blood, or at least knowing that hte predator of the victim will not be rewarded...If a player is inclined to remove a player other than her prey then she is either gaining some advantage from the move, and hence is being rewarded, or she should reconsider her strategy" (ibid.) He compares this mentality to RPGS where the character that dealt the death blow to the monster got all the points, with which he punctuates with a "Blechh!" (ibid.) :) There's no indication that he didn't think that deals should be part of the game, however, and that VPs were the final measuring stick. Garfield seemed more concerned with stagnation and the game becoming (like Diplomacy) a round of everyone pointing fingers at the biggest threat, not whether or not deals which called for minimal aggression over a certain period were valid or not. > >Under *no* circumstances? Interesting. Anyway, some players are just > >morons, and you can't convince them to do things in their own interest. > > We've heard from many such players who explain clearly that their > plans to to sacrifice short-term loss for the sake of long-term > prosperity. They hope to reap substantial benefit by doing powerful > deals with others across an extended series of games. It's a credible > plan but is tantamount to collusion, IMO. Noted. In *your* opinion. Doing so within one game should be seen as attempting to win the game, if you ask me. Doing so *aross* games, and with premeditation is obviously (not just tantamount to) collusion. Unless, of course, you're talking about social pressure to conform to a certain set of loosely defined ethics about deal-breaking. I rarely break deals within a game, mainly because it's not worth it to sit there and have some weirdo rant and rave for half an hour and try to oust you cross-table in the next 10 games just because you broke a deal of supporting him on one political action, when your minions votes proved to be inconsequential. People do play with that mindset, and it amazes me, but...it's just not.worth.the.trouble. to antagonize them if they're going to be that upset over a minor matter. People gang up on me enough as it is because I'm often the biggest threat at the table, and I don't need to add to it. > >[shadowfist - rah rah] > > Do you play anything apart from VTES? That's the trouble with CCGs - Actually, I play Shadowfist. I also play INWO, and have played Babylon 5, Rage, and Magic got it all started, of course...though I think the last time I bought Magic cards was from the Dark expansion. Anyway, In V:tES, where I play, alliances usually *are* fleeting affairs, but mostly because people are afraid to make long-term deals, because they would come under social pressure from certain players if they actually ended up breaking (intentionally or unintentionally) their deals. Shadowfist, on the other hand, tends to have short-term deals, mainly because you can attack anyone, and anyone can get ahead very quickly...there are fewer actual *deals* than one-turn, "let's gang up on the leader" coalitions. I'm given to understand that in a more highly-evolved area of play, it's usually "let's gang up on the loser", but I haven't actually witnessed that. > they are populated by fanboys who support their game as if it were a > football team. Me, I like to play lots of different games and so like > to compare and contrast. VTES has better multi-player mechanics than > most CCG but that doesn't mean that it's perfect. Never said it was. You just come off as a Shadowfist fanboy. > >I can't imagine a good reason to cross-table rush someone that is > >weak... > > You've lost the thread. The point is that players are forbidden to Probably because you're responding only to small fragments of my post. > rush someone purely because they are known to be a strong player > (though I'm getting mixed signals on this now). The converse of this Define mixed signals. I think that it's pretty clear, but then again, I play a lot of rush and think about the table balance a lot, and it's pretty obvious who you should rush, and why you should rush them. > is declining to rush someone who is known to be a weak player even > though their table position might otherwise suggest that it would be a > good idea. Ah. I that clears things up a little. The way it was phrased, I thought that you meant "declining to rush someone who is in a weak table position"...i.e. duking some poor sap who is about to be ousted, in order to speed up the game, or for some other (unmentioned) benefit. Xian

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:05:20 -0500, Xian wrote: >Of course I'm not...I'm an uneducated American. I see you've taken this as a knock against the US which was not my point. Try this alternate theory. Now that I think about it, all the incidents that I'm thinking of (not just VTES) have involved players from LA. Gaming in LA may have an unusually high proportion of sore-loser cry-babies and nit-picking jerks (no offence intended <grin>). Tactics like hiding your pool and insisting on transfers before control seem typical. When gamers from LA come into contact with players from other gaming circles, i.e. players from other US cities, then sparks fly and rival camps form. >(The Eternal Struggle, p. 13) I'd like to read this. What exactly is it and is the text online? I bought a copy of Darkness Unveiled but that doesn't have any material by Garfield in it. >Noted. In *your* opinion. From what you go to say, we have similar opinions about deal-making and play in a similar style. I don't think there's much between us. >Actually, I play Shadowfist. I also play INWO, and have played Babylon 5, >Rage, and Magic got it all started, of course...though I think the last time >I bought Magic cards was from the Dark expansion. B5 tournaments have some odd features which generate some interesting out-of-game considerations. The game's just lost its licence so we shall see if it can survive a fallow period as VTES and Shadowfist did. >in a more highly-evolved area of play, it's usually "let's gang up >on the loser" That's not highly-evolved play - quite the contrary. >Define mixed signals. It was something that Robert Goudie said, I think. If I sit down at a table with Rob Treasure and rush across table at him ASAP, I might be challenged as to why I'm doing this. Suppose I say, "he's Rob Treasure and everyone knows that he's the best player in the world. Of course he's my first target - do you think I'm stupid?". My impression now is that this is a valid defense, right? It's only if I say something like "I want to knock him off the top of the rating list." that my action is invalid, right? In the latter case, what happens next? Is my action cancelled? Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > Now that I think about it, all the incidents that I'm thinking of > (not just VTES) have involved players from LA. Gaming in LA may > have an unusually high proportion of sore-loser cry-babies and > nit-picking jerks Y'know...I've started picking up on that too. Last year, I played a Malkavian "Princes & Protean" deck that used Madness Network/Homunculus to bleed every turn and 5th Traditional Hopsital to fill them up after spending lots of blood to untap. Despite my not doing that well in the tournament because I had a bloat deck as a prey every round (the next incarnation will be packing intercept), a couple of guys from Michigan overheard a number of people bitching about it. When I inquired who was doing the complaining, it turned out they were from L.A. Apparently, Las Vegas doesn't have a corner on the market of fear and loathing. > In the latter case, what happens next? Is my action cancelled? Interesting question. The tournament rules refer to the VEKN Penalty Guidelines, but I can't find any such section. I'll have to find out what's up. Regards, Noal

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.01062...@posting.google.com... > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > > Now that I think about it, all the incidents that I'm thinking of > > (not just VTES) have involved players from LA. Gaming in LA may > > have an unusually high proportion of sore-loser cry-babies and > > nit-picking jerks > > Y'know...I've started picking up on that too. > > Last year, I played a Malkavian "Princes & Protean" deck that used > Madness Network/Homunculus to bleed every turn and 5th Traditional > Hopsital to fill them up after spending lots of blood to untap. > Despite my not doing that well in the tournament because I had a > bloat deck as a prey every round (the next incarnation will be > packing intercept), a couple of guys from Michigan overheard a > number of people bitching about it. > > When I inquired who was doing the complaining, it turned out they > were from L.A. Apparently, Las Vegas doesn't have a corner on the > market of fear and loathing. Whoa. We must be talking about GenCon and rest-assured that the "guys" from Michigan were mistaken. There isn't anyone from my group that went there that would complain about *any* deck let alone a deck like yours. I'm really get puzzled as to how we can be portrayed by some LV players as hard-asses and by another town as cry-babies. Yes, there are cry-babies at our events but they are usually people not from the area who are upset about: 1) deal-making and/or 2) being forced to play by the rules. -Robert

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > In the latter case, what happens next? Is my action cancelled? Never mind, I found it: http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/veknPenalty.html Whenever possible, it seems the Penalty Guidelines attempt to ensure game play. As there doesn't seem to be a guideline listed for this particular infraction, so I guess it's up to the judge (which is always the case, anyway) on how best to handle the situation. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:DB09680574E529E2.7C5E9F5A...@lp.airnews.net... > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:05:20 -0500, Xian wrote: > > >Of course I'm not...I'm an uneducated American. > > I see you've taken this as a knock against the US which was not my > point. Try this alternate theory. Now that I think about it, all the > incidents that I'm thinking of (not just VTES) have involved players > from LA. Gaming in LA may have an unusually high proportion of > sore-loser cry-babies and nit-picking jerks (no offence intended > <grin>). Tactics like hiding your pool and insisting on transfers > before control seem typical. *Hiding* your pool isn't typical and isn't a feature of the local tournament scene. I am, however, a nit-picking jerk and don't allow players to transfer to vampires they've already flipped-up. I also don't allow take-backs. I also don't allow you to take the pool for the edge if you forgot to do it during your untap phase, etc. We have a real respect for the rules and make it a point to play by them. Let me add that when you play with the larger groups that we do and when we often attract players from around the U.S., you can't possibly have a local play culture that will please everybody. So, what we do try to provide is a *consistent* playing experience so that players know exactly what to expect when they come to L.A. >When gamers from LA come into contact > with players from other gaming circles, i.e. players from other US > cities, then sparks fly and rival camps form. So far, the *sparks* usually come from players who want "do-overs" and dis-like deal-making. > It was something that Robert Goudie said, I think. If I sit down at a > table with Rob Treasure and rush across table at him ASAP, I might be > challenged as to why I'm doing this. Suppose I say, "he's Rob > Treasure and everyone knows that he's the best player in the world. > Of course he's my first target - do you think I'm stupid?". My > impression now is that this is a valid defense, right? You don't have to act as though you don't know that Rob Treasure is a good player and has a high-rating, etc. It already happens in this game when you are afraid of some players and are sometimes harder on them because they are perceived as a bigger threat. You may take into account that Rob T. is at your table but it alone is not enough to justify ousting him cross-table from the get-go. -Robert

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:DB09680574E529E2.7C5E9F5A...@lp.airnews.net.. . > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:05:20 -0500, Xian wrote: [snip] > incidents that I'm thinking of (not just VTES) have involved players > from LA. Gaming in LA may have an unusually high proportion of > sore-loser cry-babies and nit-picking jerks (no offence intended Robert has already responded to this, but I have played with a bunch of them, and I was impressed by the "professionalism" of the regular players. There were some newbies at the event, and some people from out of town who weren't up to snuff, but as far as I've seen the regular LA crowd are pretty damned good. I can't say that a strict interpretation of the rules is a bad thing. > >(The Eternal Struggle, p. 13) > > I'd like to read this. What exactly is it and is the text online? I > bought a copy of Darkness Unveiled but that doesn't have any material > by Garfield in it. It's basically the original version of Darkness Unveiled (not that I have a copy of that, but perhaps I should pick one up from Potomac), and there's a whole initial chapter by Garfield about designing the game. I'll see what I can do about scanning some of it in. Most of the rest of the book is on flawed/out-dated strategy or background, but the first chapter makes pretty interesting reading. Ulugh Beg was originally a tuba, and Rat's Warning originally had a picture of a horse. It'll all make sense later. > From what you go to say, we have similar opinions about deal-making > and play in a similar style. I don't think there's much between us. If you say so...from what you were saying, it seemed that you held most/all deal-making in contempt. I'm still learning to integrate it into my play, and I have offered 3/2 splits before, but so far only when sitting next to a combat deck that was almost as fearsome as mine. > B5 tournaments have some odd features which generate some interesting > out-of-game considerations. The game's just lost its licence so we Haven't touched the tournament scene. From what I saw (and the rumblings I've heard from other sources), it was far too easy to stay insular and *not* interact with the other factions on your way to victory. I suppose that still makes it a game, but it seems like you almost might as well play solitaire and try to beat an arbitrary time limit. But that's just hearsay. > shall see if it can survive a fallow period as VTES and Shadowfist did. I admit I got into it more for the background than actually being interested in the gameplay...but I'll say that it could have potential, I just haven't given it enough of a chance, and I'm not sure that there's enough support around here. I also hear that there's a Judge Dredd CCG, which I'd love to hear more about or get some cards for, but I haven't seen anything about it being available in the US. Mmm...Judge Dredd. > >in a more highly-evolved area of play, it's usually "let's gang up on the loser" > > That's not highly-evolved play - quite the contrary. Perhaps I was listening to the wrong people, or it was misreported. I *thought* it seemed kind of sketchy that people would continue to gang up on the weakest until only one was left. > >Define mixed signals. > > It was something that Robert Goudie said, I think. If I sit down at a > table with Rob Treasure and rush across table at him ASAP, I might be > challenged as to why I'm doing this. Suppose I say, "he's Rob > Treasure and everyone knows that he's the best player in the world. > Of course he's my first target - do you think I'm stupid?". My > impression now is that this is a valid defense, right? It's only if I > say something like "I want to knock him off the top of the rating > list." that my action is invalid, right? Well, Robert answered this one too...I'd say it would be up to the judge. If *I* were the judge, I'd take that as a possibility the first time around, but I'd: a) think you were pretty dumb for rushing cross-table that early, b) keep an eye on you for a similar pattern through that game and the rest of the tournament. Your first justification passes, but just barely, IMO. Then again, I've only been a backup judge at a tournament, so YMMV. With any rush deck, there's rarely a reason to rush cross-table unless you're being handed vote damage across the table (or retaliation for some other form of ungood stuff), or if all of the other players (except the one you're rushing) are low on pool and are not in danger of ousting their own prey before you can finish them off. Consider A (bleeding) -> B (ousted) -> C -> D -> E. C and E have no minions available because you've been pulverizing them. D is getting set to plow through E and start bleeding you. Even in this case, I wouldn't rush D unless C has less than about 10 pool, so that he doesn't come up with a surprise vampire, rescue another one or two of his, and perform a quick oust of D. You're almost always better off finishing off your own prey, guaranteeing your victory point, and then proceeding to deal with the guy cross-table. If you go cross-table at the start of the game, there is very infrequently any good reason for it. I still can't think of one. > In the latter case, what happens next? Is my action cancelled? Noal got to this one. In general, I don't think that the judge would make you take back the action (he might, though...I've never seen anything like this occur), but I'd be inclined to hand you a loss, possibly even eject you from the event. Which could, I suppose, for all intents and purposes, cancel the action...or as good as. Xian

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:41:31 -0500, Xian wrote: >I also hear that there's a Judge Dredd CCG, which I'd love to hear more >about or get some cards for, but I haven't seen anything about it being >available in the US. Mmm...Judge Dredd. I tried it. The art is quite good and by classic Dredd artists though it came out too dark. The game mechanics are similar to the old GW game and I didn't like them. They use dice to resolve perp/judge combat which is a big no-no for a CCG IMO. The producers seemed fairly clueless. I broke the game system almost immediately (why put crimes in your deck?) and they didn't have a good answer to this. They've clearly not made enough money to keep the game going - I hear the artists haven't been paid. Pinnacle were acting as US agents for a while but I believe they've stopped now. The bottom line is that it's a good collector's item for a serious Dredd fan but not much of a game. If you want a good game set in this universe, the one to track down is Block Mania - that's an awesome design but is out-of-print. >Noal got to this one. In general, I don't think that the judge would >make you take back the action (he might, though...I've never seen >anything like this occur), but I'd be inclined to hand you a loss, >possibly even eject you from the event. Which could, I suppose, for all >intents and purposes, cancel the action...or as good as. There was a relevant incident tonight when we played a four-handed game with the FN starters. The Ravnos player went across table against the Set player by giving the Assamite enough intercept to torp one of the Set vampires. He then diablerized the vampire so that he could steal all its blood. This seemed a reasonable ploy to me as he got 4 blood out of it but the Set player got the hump and transferred himself out (= the winning VP for me!) I can't see the Ravnos player's actions being open to question but what about the Set player? Is transferring yourself out of the game allowed by the new rule? He's clearly not trying to win but there's little point in giving someone a loss for this as that's what he's trying to achieve anyway. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:6E02ABFC0AF2D74B.896E35F7...@lp.airnews.net.. . [Dredd CCG] Ick. Dice + CCG = definite bad. > The bottom line is that it's a good collector's item for a serious > Dredd fan but not much of a game. If you want a good game set in this That would, of course, be me. I mean, there aren't *that* many Dredd fans that have the pinball game, are there? Especially this side of the Atlantic? Well, now I know what to tell geeky friends visiting England to find for me. Discount Dredd CCG packs. Cool! > universe, the one to track down is Block Mania - that's an awesome > design but is out-of-print. Yeah, I never got around to playing that, but it always looked cool. Dredd stuff can be spectacularly hard to find here. It was a GW game too, right? > There was a relevant incident tonight when we played a four-handed > game with the FN starters. The Ravnos player went across table > against the Set player by giving the Assamite enough intercept to torp > one of the Set vampires. He then diablerized the vampire so that he > could steal all its blood. This seemed a reasonable ploy to me as he > got 4 blood out of it but the Set player got the hump and transferred > himself out (= the winning VP for me!) Could have been an okay move, depending on how threatening the Setite player seemed, but probably not something *I'd* go about regularly. > I can't see the Ravnos player's actions being open to question but > what about the Set player? Is transferring yourself out of the game > allowed by the new rule? He's clearly not trying to win but there's > little point in giving someone a loss for this as that's what he's > trying to achieve anyway. My personal interpretation (IANALSJ, of course...I can't remember if I've heard his opinion on this one.) is that transferring out could conceivably be disallowed/looked upon unfavorably by the new rule. Again, this is something that I'm not sure on myself. I'd probably issue a caution, and tell them to make sure it didn't happen again, as it's unsportsmanlike. Xian

Xian wrote: > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > news:6E02ABFC0AF2D74B.896E35F7...@lp.airnews.net.. > > I can't see the Ravnos player's actions being open to question but > > what about the Set player? Is transferring yourself out of the game > > allowed by the new rule? He's clearly not trying to win but there's > > little point in giving someone a loss for this as that's what he's > > trying to achieve anyway. > > My personal interpretation (IANALSJ, of course...I can't remember if > I've heard his opinion on this one.) is that transferring out could > conceivably be disallowed/looked upon unfavorably by the new rule. > Again, this is something that I'm not sure on myself. I'd probably > issue a caution, and tell them to make sure it didn't happen again, as > it's unsportsmanlike. If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an alternative as anything else. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B329AAB...@white-wolf.com... > If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an > alternative as anything else. Understood. However, I've seen people decide to start transferring out when they have approximately 10+ pool left. I realize that handing them a loss or DQ or whatever is probably not the best option, but if, for example, I were judging, and the prey (and, for argument's sake, grandprey) of the player who has announced he's going to transfer out complains that this is going against the spirit of the game or whatever, is it reasonable for me to force the player to continue to play, or is the player's call that he can no longer gain VPs to be accepted as fact, or is there another recommendation? Just curious, and looking for alternatives. Xian

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:08:59 -0400, LSJ wrote: >If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an >alternative as anything else. I'm with Derek Ray on this - it's never hopeless because you never know what other unexpected stuff might happen. The mechanics of transferring out make it difficult to stop. In this case, he had lots of pool when he lost his vamp. He then brought out a huge vampire which might have been a cunning plan. But this only left him with 2 pool and that made him too vulnerable to my stealth bleeds. I only figured out what he was up to when he transferred himself out using the last two pool. You might forbid the last bit but the real damage was done when he brought out the 10-cap. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] It is up to the judge. The player's call alone is not sufficient. The judge must use the table situation as evidence as well. > Just curious, and looking for > alternatives. If the judge deems the player to be in severe violation of the rules (so as "keep playing" won't produce a satisfactory result), then she is free to DQ the player and set up whatever measures she likes to imitate the DQ'ed player (leaving some pool behind for the predator to work through, or whatever). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:08:59 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an > >alternative as anything else. > > I'm with Derek Ray on this - it's never hopeless because you never > know what other unexpected stuff might happen. It's almost never hopeless, I agree (as I've said). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in > >If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an > >alternative as anything else. > > I'm with Derek Ray on this - it's never hopeless because you never > know what other unexpected stuff might happen. I agree. Also, getting 1/2 of a VP is better than 0 VP therefore sometimes it would be better to... well not stall exactly, but wait it out in hopes of a time-out. I made it into the finals at the pre-release by doing exactly this. I actually made sure everyone knew that I was not 'stalling' by doing my turns as quickly as possible (actually, at that point there was little else to do, so it was easy). I made my intentions of hoping for a time-out clear. I think everyone was ok with this since I was so obviously dead in the water and not going out of my way to cause problems for the other players. I just protected my last few pool (literally 1 or 2) and watched several of my minions take dirt-naps until the timer went... I don't like the idea of 'transferring out'. Even if things are hopeless, it seems... ignoble somehow. I don't recall any game where I thought this would be a solution. Even when I've had the crappiest hand-jam ever, I'm always hoping that the next card I get could push me out of my rut. Cheers, WES

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:42:10 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:08:59 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an >>alternative as anything else. > >I'm with Derek Ray on this - it's never hopeless because you never >know what other unexpected stuff might happen. And the heavens did open, and lightning did strike forth upon the newsgroup. Careful who you stand next to when you say that. =) But really, he IS right - all it takes is someone with an Autarkis Persecution in hand, or someone with some Eagle's Sight, or a Life Boon that someone stuck in their bloat deck... there's all KINDS of things that could happen. If nothing else, transferring out makes it TOO easy for your predator, who should at least have to take the actions to bleed through your remaining pool. >The mechanics of transferring out make it difficult to stop. In this >case, he had lots of pool when he lost his vamp. He then brought out >a huge vampire which might have been a cunning plan. But this only >left him with 2 pool and that made him too vulnerable to my stealth >bleeds. I only figured out what he was up to when he transferred >himself out using the last two pool. You might forbid the last bit >but the real damage was done when he brought out the 10-cap. Someone who intends to suicide from 12+ pool is way off the edge, IMO. Most of the "transfer out" incidents I've seen are when someone is down to 1-4 pool and either goes for the "screw you" revenge self-oust, or just the "screw this" ticked-off self oust. Someone bringing out a 10-cap? (shrug) Can't even TRY to prevent that. Chalk it up to "players are permitted to play DUMB." -- Derek

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >It's almost never hopeless, I agree (as I've said). Can't we then say that you should always, in all circumstances, play to win, not going for second place? It's hard (although possible, so don't bother giving any silly counterexamples, anyone) to imagine a situation where losing would be totally, 100 % inevitable. Yes, it would preclude following up on a losing deal, but then, you wouldn't be allowed to make a losing deal in the first place. [ quoted text not captured ]

jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>It's almost never hopeless, I agree (as I've said). > >Can't we then say that you should always, in all circumstances, play >to win, not going for second place? It's hard (although possible, so >don't bother giving any silly counterexamples, anyone) to imagine a >situation where losing would be totally, 100 % inevitable. No. See the "almost" in the quote above. In a truly lost position, where ever action or choice (including inaction) results in a loss, how to you define "playing to win"? Every action results in a loss, so the player cannot legally play at all under a "must play to win" rule. No silly counterexample. Just a realization that the rules must be robust. >Yes, it would preclude following up on a losing deal, but then, you >wouldn't be allowed to make a losing deal in the first place. Agreed, as always. [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote: >jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>>It's almost never hopeless, I agree (as I've said). >> >>Can't we then say that you should always, in all circumstances, play >>to win, not going for second place? It's hard (although possible, so >>don't bother giving any silly counterexamples, anyone) to imagine a >>situation where losing would be totally, 100 % inevitable. > >No. See the "almost" in the quote above. But surely it's a hopeless situation for the judge to decide this, unless it's clear that no matter what happens, and no matter what any othe player chooses to do (including playing Life Boon, so actually the game probably could never be said to be fully lost). >In a truly lost position, where ever action or choice (including >inaction) results in a loss, how to you define "playing to win"? Every >action results in a loss, so the player cannot legally play at all >under a "must play to win" rule. Even including hoping for help from another player? Eagle's Sight or Life Boon could let you survive almost any situation. >No silly counterexample. Just a realization that the rules must be >robust. I think you take the phrase "Lost Game" too lightly. Theoretically, a game is virtually never lost, and the player him/herself would rarely be able to tell it anyway. Unless, of course, someone else already has three VP's. Another thing: You must play to win. But once you have 3 VP's, you have *already* won. Can you do whatever you feel like after that? Say, just transferring out to give another player two VP's, because you liked his deck, good sportsmanship, or whatever? [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote: > >jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: > >>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> > >>>It's almost never hopeless, I agree (as I've said). > >> > >>Can't we then say that you should always, in all circumstances, play > >>to win, not going for second place? It's hard (although possible, so > >>don't bother giving any silly counterexamples, anyone) to imagine a > >>situation where losing would be totally, 100 % inevitable. > > > >No. See the "almost" in the quote above. > > But surely it's a hopeless situation for the judge to decide this, > unless it's clear that no matter what happens, and no matter what any > othe player chooses to do (including playing Life Boon, so actually > the game probably could never be said to be fully lost). > > >In a truly lost position, where ever action or choice (including > >inaction) results in a loss, how to you define "playing to win"? Every > >action results in a loss, so the player cannot legally play at all > >under a "must play to win" rule. > > Even including hoping for help from another player? Eagle's Sight or > Life Boon could let you survive almost any situation. If all the players were playing with open hands or ((no available MPA to spend on Life Boon or only one pool) and no ready vampires with AUS), you could easily see if this would be the case or not. > >No silly counterexample. Just a realization that the rules must be > >robust. > > I think you take the phrase "Lost Game" too lightly. Theoretically, a I think you take the phrase "never" too lightly. > game is virtually never lost, and the player him/herself would rarely > be able to tell it anyway. That's good theory. But, if you read this newsgroup for any length of time, you'll see that players want to know what happens in the cases that "virtually never" happen. > > Unless, of course, someone else already has three VP's. > > Another thing: You must play to win. But once you have 3 VP's, you > have *already* won. Can you do whatever you feel like after that? Say, > just transferring out to give another player two VP's, because you > liked his deck, good sportsmanship, or whatever? Sure. Just so long as the judge agrees. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >If all the players were playing with open hands or ((no available MPA to spend >on Life Boon or only one pool) and no ready vampires with AUS), you could easily >see if this would be the case or not. Alright. I think it should be emphasized just how much is required for a game to be 'provably lost': * Your losing should not depend on predicted actions by anyone, only by effects or actions currently in place (X is bleeding you, there's an Anarch Revolt in play, and so on, *not* 'He could bleed me to death if he wanted to'). * No one else at the table could, even theory, save you. This includes a (theoretical) Life Boon, Eagle's Sight or anything else. * Even card cycling with a perfect draw by you, or anyone else, could save you even in theory. * If anyone can construe a hypothetical solution, no matter how unlikely, that lets you get off the hook, you're not allowed to play as though you had lost. (LSJ, do you agree on these?) This situation is highly, no, *extremely* unlikely to occur. I even think there are situations where it couldn't possibly occur. For instance, you would never be allowed to transfer out, if the conditions could never apply in the transfer phase (which, as far as I can see, they can't). ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:46:48 GMT, jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >Alright. I think it should be emphasized just how much is required for >a game to be 'provably lost': > >* Your losing should not depend on predicted actions by anyone, only >by effects or actions currently in place (X is bleeding you, there's >an Anarch Revolt in play, and so on, *not* 'He could bleed me to death >if he wanted to'). This is the biggie, IMO. If there are three Anarch Revolts out on the table, and you have three pool, you are a dead man; you now REQUIRE someone else's assistance to save you. (If you happen to be in your transfer phase at this point, however, you must realize that transferring out is a bad idea; it's very likely that people will start calling votes to remove the Anarchs, even if it's only your grandpredator who'll do so.) I have been in situations where I had one pool, three (untapped) minions, and a predator with four vampires behind me. I had no Wakes in hand, and knew that if my predator simply took four bleed actions, that he would oust me. But my predator, for THREE TURNS, decided not to bleed me with more than 3 minions, while i frantically cycled prevent and combat for a Minion Tap. From what I can tell, he thought that if he tapped out and I had a Wake, he would be ousted himself. >* No one else at the table could, even theory, save you. This includes >a (theoretical) Life Boon, Eagle's Sight or anything else. Well, don't hold your breath on the Life Boon. And by the point in time you're about to be ousted, Eagle's Sight has usually been played at least once, so you KNOW whether there's an Eagle's Sight deck on the table. But if there is one, don't underestimate the will of the player; I've reached across-table and intercepted three actions in a row with Eagle's Sight, just to make sure the table fell in the right order. >* Even card cycling with a perfect draw by you, or anyone else, could >save you even in theory. Something many people underestimate. If you wall up for awhile, sometimes you WILL get a bunch of good cards all at once and can start pushing pool back into your bin. >This situation is highly, no, *extremely* unlikely to occur. I even >think there are situations where it couldn't possibly occur. For >instance, you would never be allowed to transfer out, if the >conditions could never apply in the transfer phase (which, as far as I >can see, they can't). People never transferring themselves out is fine by me. -- Derek

In message <gpa9jtgluiopfn75h...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >People never transferring themselves out is fine by me. Well, you can, effectively, do it anyway. Just transfer down to 1 pool, etc. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:17:23 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <gpa9jtgluiopfn75h...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>People never transferring themselves out is fine by me. > >Well, you can, effectively, do it anyway. Just transfer down to 1 pool, >etc. Still requires that their predator take an action, which is important if you're the grandpredator of the person in question. It gives the most-screwed person a chance to DO SOMETHING about it, such as oust their prey. =) -- Derek

In message <p9d9jtoupas4ilf38...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Well, you can, effectively, do it anyway. Just transfer down to 1 pool, >>etc. > >Still requires that their predator take an action, which is important >if you're the grandpredator of the person in question. > >It gives the most-screwed person a chance to DO SOMETHING about it, >such as oust their prey. You mean every deck you play doesn't have Reversal of Fortunes in it, specifically for this situation? Tch. The yoof of today. *tic* [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:46:15 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <p9d9jtoupas4ilf38...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>It gives the most-screwed person a chance to DO SOMETHING about it, >>such as oust their prey. > >You mean every deck you play doesn't have Reversal of Fortunes in it, >specifically for this situation? Well, I used to do that, but I found that it just messes things up after awhile. I also never managed to get very far with my Consanguineous Condemnation deck, despite being sure that it was VERY well-built and proportioned. >Tch. The yoof of today. *tic* Careful there, you l'il whippersnapper. I'll get my cane and we'll SEE who's all yooful. -- Derek

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >If all the players were playing with open hands or ((no available MPA to spend > >on Life Boon or only one pool) and no ready vampires with AUS), you could easily > >see if this would be the case or not. > > Alright. I think it should be emphasized just how much is required for > a game to be 'provably lost': I was just pointing out that it is not as impossible as you claim. > * Your losing should not depend on predicted actions by anyone, only > by effects or actions currently in place (X is bleeding you, there's > an Anarch Revolt in play, and so on, *not* 'He could bleed me to death > if he wanted to'). Assuming that someone will play well, or toward the goal of the game, is valid. > * No one else at the table could, even theory, save you. This includes > a (theoretical) Life Boon, Eagle's Sight or anything else. Assuming that people who have no reason (from a increase-their-own-position standpoint) to save you will not save you is also valid. > * Even card cycling with a perfect draw by you, or anyone else, could > save you even in theory. > * If anyone can construe a hypothetical solution, no matter how > unlikely, that lets you get off the hook, you're not allowed to play > as though you had lost. > > (LSJ, do you agree on these?) No, as above. Assuming that players will play toward the stated goal is valid. If that means they won't save you, then you can assume they won't. Even without that, it's reasonable to calculate your moves based on odds and probability. Although, since transferring yourself out is 100% likely to end your VP-gain, any other action that leads to a larger than 0% chance (with the other players playing selfishly) to your VPs should take priority. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >No, as above. Assuming that players will play toward the stated goal is >valid. If that means they won't save you, then you can assume they won't. Saving someone from being ousted when they're on the ropes can often be a good idea. Since I don't know what cards the player has on his hand (could be a Dramaitc Upheaval fro all I know), I can't rule out that it might be rational for him to save me. Situations where my chance of surviving (and therefore gaining a shot at a VP) would be exactly 0 % would still be rare, even with your proviso. >Even without that, it's reasonable to calculate your moves based on odds >and probability. Although, since transferring yourself out is 100% likely >to end your VP-gain, any other action that leads to a larger than 0% >chance (with the other players playing selfishly) to your VPs should take >priority. Alright. I would maintain that it would be pretty rare that you can't do better than 0 %. You might as well ban transferring out, as it's *never* better than any alternative... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b352f77...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >Alright. I would maintain that it would be pretty rare that you can't >do better than 0 %. You might as well ban transferring out, as it's >*never* better than any alternative... Players A, B, C, D and E sit down at a table. A ousts B and C, getting 2 VP. So, current situation: A: 2 D: 0 E: 0 However, because A went through B and C like a bulldozer, D managed to amass a great deal of power. D is working slowly at E - and has just managed to burn E's final minion. The great likelihood is that D will oust E and then oust A, giving D 3 VPs. E throws his hands up in despair. "Ye gods, what did I do to deserve this?" A transfers himself out, giving E 6 pool and a VP - and stopping A from coming second on the table, unless E manages to oust D - which with Ds deck, isn't going to happen. D gets 2 VP when he ousts E. So A comes joint first instead of second. Why would preventing A from doing this benefit him? [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >No, as above. Assuming that players will play toward the stated goal is > >valid. If that means they won't save you, then you can assume they won't. > > Saving someone from being ousted when they're on the ropes can often > be a good idea. Yes. Note that "can often" != "always", per the discussion you clipped and hence my response above. > Since I don't know what cards the player has on his hand (could be a > Dramaitc Upheaval fro all I know), I can't rule out that it might be > rational for him to save me. Situations where my chance of surviving > (and therefore gaining a shot at a VP) would be exactly 0 % would > still be rare, even with your proviso. But not 0. This is the same conversation we've already had. Anything new to add or can we finally quit now? > >Even without that, it's reasonable to calculate your moves based on odds > >and probability. Although, since transferring yourself out is 100% likely > >to end your VP-gain, any other action that leads to a larger than 0% > >chance (with the other players playing selfishly) to your VPs should take > >priority. > > Alright. I would maintain that it would be pretty rare that you can't > do better than 0 %. You might as well ban transferring out, as it's > *never* better than any alternative... Right, as per the quote of mine. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [snip example] >So A comes joint first instead of second. > >Why would preventing A from doing this benefit him? This brings up a very interesting question. You must play to win - but is a tied win considered a win? If it's not, A must attempt to win, even if it seems unlikely, as long as it's even remotely possible. If it is, then in your example A does benefit from transferring out - but it would leave a sour taste in my mouth, and I can't say I'd hate to see this forbidden, either. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >This is the same conversation we've already had. Anything new to add >or can we finally quit now? No, I think we're done. >> >Even without that, it's reasonable to calculate your moves based on odds >> >and probability. Although, since transferring yourself out is 100% likely >> >to end your VP-gain, any other action that leads to a larger than 0% >> >chance (with the other players playing selfishly) to your VPs should take >> >priority. >> >> Alright. I would maintain that it would be pretty rare that you can't >> do better than 0 %. You might as well ban transferring out, as it's >> *never* better than any alternative... > >Right, as per the quote of mine. What I meant was to specifically forbid transferring out as a tournament rule, as it never is it can only be abused or completely neutral, and never actually a good idea (but see also my response to James). [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:vBbrNR96...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Players A, B, C, D and E sit down at a table. > > A ousts B and C, getting 2 VP. So, current situation: > > A: 2 > D: 0 > E: 0 [snip transferring out by A] > So A comes joint first instead of second. > > Why would preventing A from doing this benefit him? Nice point, James...this is one of the many things I love ya for. :) This is a pretty blurry line between in-game considerations and out-of-game considerations. This is a serious factor that needs to be taken into consideration for the whole "table win" discussion. The possibility of throwing away your current position to guarantee a tie instead of going for a win is more serious, IMO, than the 3/2 splits that people are all up in arms about...at least if we're heading in the direction of table wins. I'd like to see a "cannot transfer out" rule in place, but that's just my own take on it. Any other opinions? I see little reason to allow people to transfer out when you might as well make the predator push through that final bleed or two...I understand the position that if no further VPs are within reach, you might as well let the player choose their method of demise, but...as Johan said, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Xian

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote > I'd like to see a "cannot transfer out" rule in place, but that's just > my own take on it. Any other opinions? I see little reason to allow > people to transfer out when you might as well make the predator push > through that final bleed or two...I understand the position that if no > further VPs are within reach, you might as well let the player choose > their method of demise, but...as Johan said, it leaves a sour taste in > my mouth. I totally agree, but it's not just a tournament thing. My predator and grand-predator influenced-out last night after getting beat up by the far-upstream POT/CEL rush. It saved him at least 2 turns of actions, which is just about what I was short in finding my Governs and stealth that had been hiding all game. Very frustrating stuff. - Jason Bell

In message <3b358fe6...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>Why would preventing A from doing this benefit him? > >This brings up a very interesting question. You must play to win - but >is a tied win considered a win? It would give him the same number of victory points, but a higher number of tournament points than an alternative where he ended up 3-2. This certainly seems like playing to win to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>This brings up a very interesting question. You must play to win - but >>is a tied win considered a win? > >It would give him the same number of victory points, but a higher number >of tournament points than an alternative where he ended up 3-2. > >This certainly seems like playing to win to me. If you could tell for certain that he would loose, yes. What if it looked bad, but not all lost? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b36bb22...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>>This brings up a very interesting question. You must play to win - but >>>is a tied win considered a win? >> >>It would give him the same number of victory points, but a higher number >>of tournament points than an alternative where he ended up 3-2. >> >>This certainly seems like playing to win to me. > >If you could tell for certain that he would loose, yes. What if it >looked bad, but not all lost? Certainly, the situation is difficult to judge. However, I was merely attempting to counter the idea that transferring out should be banned. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >I wrote: >>If you could tell for certain that he would loose, yes. What if it >>looked bad, but not all lost? > >Certainly, the situation is difficult to judge. Granted. But I was asking mostly of the principles. That you're allowed to settle for a tie when winning is impossible would seem to be a given. However, would you be allowed to transfer out in order to tie when you could still be said to have a chance (albeit low) to win? The rules say that you must try to win. But what is a tie? A win? In that case, you're allowed to transer out in order to tie whenever you want to. Half a win? You would be alllowed to transfer out to get a tie in case your chance of winning the games seem 50% or less. Not a win? You would be alloed to transfer out for a tie only if there is no demonstrable way for you to win the game. >However, I was merely attempting to counter the idea that transferring >out should be banned. Personally, I think it should be banned (in tournament) anyway, along with all other instances of killing yourself with an effect [1]. I think killing yourself for an improved placing (or out of spite) is contrary to the spirit of the game. [1] Unless, of course, you get a VP by doing it, like Anarchist Uprising. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b378f24....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >Personally, I think it should be banned (in tournament) anyway, along >with all other instances of killing yourself with an effect [1]. I >think killing yourself for an improved placing (or out of spite) is >contrary to the spirit of the game. Out of spite is a different matter. Why is trying to maximise the number of victory and tournament points you get contrary to the spirit of the game? You're doing your best to win - which may involve some "odd" plays in tricky situations. Is the spirit of the game that you shouldn't be allowed to do as well as you're able to? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Why is trying to maximise the number of victory and tournament points >you get contrary to the spirit of the game? You're doing your best to >win - which may involve some "odd" plays in tricky situations. Is the >spirit of the game that you shouldn't be allowed to do as well as you're >able to? Because this is a highly uncommon corner-case, which I wouldn't mind see sacrificed. The *vast* majority of self-ousting cases are (in my experience) a desire to get out of the game as fast as possible, or a desire to 'punish' someone at the table. And if we made a rule like "You're not allowed to spend blood in such a way that you oust yourself", it's just one rule among many. Right now you're allowed to, so of course you can use it improve your position, should that come up. If you're forbidden to do it, then you can't. You're always allowed to do as well as you're able to, within the rules. I propose a change of a particular rule. After that, you're still allowed to as well as you're able to, within the new rules. Self-ousting is much more of a nuisance than a legitimate tactic (although you've demonstrated that it *could* be one). I wouldn't be sorry to see it go. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b38ee63...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Why is trying to maximise the number of victory and tournament points >>you get contrary to the spirit of the game? You're doing your best to >>win - which may involve some "odd" plays in tricky situations. Is the >>spirit of the game that you shouldn't be allowed to do as well as you're >>able to? > >Because this is a highly uncommon corner-case, which I wouldn't mind >see sacrificed. So are you going to explain to a player why he isn't allowed to do the tactically best move, giving him the best possible outcome? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >So are you going to explain to a player why he isn't allowed to do the >tactically best move, giving him the best possible outcome? Because, if the rule is changed, it's against the rules. I thought that would be obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b3903f9...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>So are you going to explain to a player why he isn't allowed to do the >>tactically best move, giving him the best possible outcome? > >Because, if the rule is changed, it's against the rules. I thought >that would be obvious. Why would you wish to stop players playing competitively, to win? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Why would you wish to stop players playing competitively, to win? That's like claiming the NRA stops people from playing competitively. That's a complete non-sequitur. I expect everyone to play by the rules, whatever the rules are. *Of course* some rules stops you from doing something you'd like. So what? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b396d06....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>Why would you wish to stop players playing competitively, to win? > >That's like claiming the NRA stops people from playing competitively. >That's a complete non-sequitur. I expect everyone to play by the >rules, whatever the rules are. Not using NRA provides infinite loop decks, like the Gangrel ones - providing a broken environment for everyone. Allowing transferring out, when it is competitively in your interests to do so, does not. Difference == Large. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Not using NRA provides infinite loop decks, like the Gangrel ones - >providing a broken environment for everyone. > >Allowing transferring out, when it is competitively in your interests to >do so, does not. Correct, of course, but that wasn't my point. I think the benefits of forbidding transferring out in general far outweighs the consequence of not being able to strategically transfer out. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ZEoY6.573$CF3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message >news:DB09680574E529E2.7C5E9F5A...@lp.airnews.net... >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:05:20 -0500, Xian wrote: >> >> >Of course I'm not...I'm an uneducated American. >> >> I see you've taken this as a knock against the US which was not my >> point. Try this alternate theory. Now that I think about it, all the >> incidents that I'm thinking of (not just VTES) have involved players >> from LA. Gaming in LA may have an unusually high proportion of >> sore-loser cry-babies and nit-picking jerks (no offence intended >> <grin>). Tactics like hiding your pool and insisting on transfers >> before control seem typical. > >*Hiding* your pool isn't typical and isn't a feature of the local tournament >scene. I am, however, a nit-picking jerk and don't allow players to transfer > to >vampires they've already flipped-up. I also don't allow take-backs. I also >don't allow you to take the pool for the edge if you forgot to do it during > your >untap phase, etc. We have a real respect for the rules and make it a point to >play by them. > >Let me add that when you play with the larger groups that we do and when we >often attract players from around the U.S., you can't possibly have a local > play >culture that will please everybody. So, what we do try to provide is a >*consistent* playing experience so that players know exactly what to expect > when >they come to L.A. > Just out of interest I seem to recall a certain article about advice for tournament play in an article about just that subject being on the old Madness Network VEKN site. That article seemed to suggest you -should- hide your pool in a cup or something as a tactic. Who wrote that article? Maybe they should be to blame for suggesting it as a tactic on what was the then main website for support of the game? >;-> Certainly when I was starting out it affected my attitude towards how I would play a tournament in some ways as it seemed to suggest going for the throat and to wily tactics such as the hiding of pool to achieve your ends in what seemed at least a somewhat Machiavellian method. Incidently, I too tend towards an anal tendency for nit-picking in games but that I fear is because of my past as a judge in the game where you need to watch for such factors in your role as a law-keeper. >;-> >>When gamers from LA come into contact >> with players from other gaming circles, i.e. players from other US >> cities, then sparks fly and rival camps form. > >So far, the *sparks* usually come from players who want "do-overs" and dis-like >deal-making. > >> It was something that Robert Goudie said, I think. If I sit down at a >> table with Rob Treasure and rush across table at him ASAP, I might be >> challenged as to why I'm doing this. Suppose I say, "he's Rob >> Treasure and everyone knows that he's the best player in the world. >> Of course he's my first target - do you think I'm stupid?". My >> impression now is that this is a valid defense, right? > >You don't have to act as though you don't know that Rob Treasure is a good >player and has a high-rating, etc. It already happens in this game when you > are >afraid of some players and are sometimes harder on them because they are >perceived as a bigger threat. You may take into account that Rob T. is at your >table but it alone is not enough to justify ousting him cross-table from the >get-go. > >-Robert > > Simidh, Maintainer of the Succubus Club >;->

In article <24780DECFDF1B475.186435A1...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:08:59 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>If you cannot gain any more VPs, transferring out is as reasonable an >>alternative as anything else. > >I'm with Derek Ray on this - it's never hopeless because you never >know what other unexpected stuff might happen. Agree totally with this. Have seen players throw the dummy and start to give up on several occasions when things looked bleak and they were down to a few and in some cases only one pool. I tend to encourage them to hang in there and have seen that defensive mode then change to winning mode as cards start to flow their way again at times. The game isn't over as they say till Cassandra starts singing... >;-> > >The mechanics of transferring out make it difficult to stop. In this >case, he had lots of pool when he lost his vamp. He then brought out >a huge vampire which might have been a cunning plan. But this only >left him with 2 pool and that made him too vulnerable to my stealth >bleeds. I only figured out what he was up to when he transferred >himself out using the last two pool. You might forbid the last bit >but the real damage was done when he brought out the 10-cap. > >Andrew