Can a deal 1-2-2 be legal at the beginning of the game?

Can a player make a deal with two other players on the 5-player table to split the table 1-2-2 if that player is going to gain only one VP from the deal? (I mean, would he violate PTW this way?) Can he propose the deal on the first turn of the game? Does the player gaining only 1VP from the deal need to prove his inability of getting more than 1VP? What about the players gaining 2VPs? Thanks in advance, Ector

Ector wrote: > Can a player make a deal with two other players on the 5-player table > to split the table 1-2-2 if that player is going to gain only one VP > from the deal? (I mean, would he violate PTW this way?) Can he propose It would if it does violate PTW. That is, if he has some way to get more than 1 VP, then working toward a 1VP finish is not PTW. If it doesn't (he has no way to reasonably get more than 1 VP), then it doesn't violate PTW. > the deal on the first turn of the game? Unlikely, since it would be nearly impossible to get into a position where he could not have some other way to get more VPs. > Does the player gaining only 1VP from the deal need to prove his > inability of getting more than 1VP? What about the players gaining > 2VPs? No one need prove anything -- if there's a question, call the judge in to evaluate the game state and render a judgment. You can offer whatever advice ("proof") you like to the judge, but the judge ultimately relies on his judgment (and likewise, the judge need not "prove" anything, either). -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Ector wrote: > Can a player make a deal with two other players on the 5-player table > to split the table 1-2-2 if that player is going to gain only one VP > from the deal? Yes, if the current game state allows this (i.e, he cannot hope to get a GW or more than 1 VP otherwise). > (I mean, would he violate PTW this way?) This depends on the current state of the game. If he cannot win the game, he has to maximize his VPs. > Can he propose > the deal on the first turn of the game? At the start of the turn: No, since there is no game state that would prevent him from winning or getting more than 1 VP. At the end of the turn (i.e., after some cards have been played or vampires have been influenced out): Depends on the current state of the game. And note that both players going for just 2 VP also can only accept that deal if they have no way to win in the current state of the game. > Does the player gaining only 1VP from the deal need to prove his > inability of getting more than 1VP? What about the players gaining > 2VPs? The judge decides what the current game state does or does not allow. If he needs "proof" (i.e., a more informed basis for his personal opinion), he is free to get his information from whatever sources he needs (e.g., looking through a player's library, or have the players explain their reasoning). Regards, Hardy Range

[ quoted text not captured ] The technical answer (as already provided) is maybe. The practical answer is no. There is virtually no way for a player to convince the judge that he has no way of winning on the first turn of the game. The only way it would be even close to reasonable might be if he has influenced out several weenies and his prey has Aranthebes. But I would think that a reasonable judge would insist that he try to burn Aranthebes, or try to get someone else to do it for him. Further, it's not inconceivable that he has larger vampires in the crypt, or something else he can do besides bleed. I would think any reasonable judge would say, "just play the stupid game". Deals are all fine and good and are an important part of the game, but there's a point where deal-making gets ridiculous.

LSJ wrote: > Ector wrote: > > Can a player make a deal with two other players on the 5-player table > > to split the table 1-2-2 if that player is going to gain only one VP > > from the deal? (I mean, would he violate PTW this way?) Can he propose > > It would if it does violate PTW. That is, if he has some way to get more > than 1 VP, then working toward a 1VP finish is not PTW. > If it doesn't (he has no way to reasonably get more than 1 VP), then it > doesn't violate PTW. AFAIK, *every* player has some way to oust all other players - at least, the probability of this is greater than zero. Does this mean that ALL table-splitting deals are illegal? Anyway, how can a judge determine the EXACT number of VPs any player can get? When a player wants to deal for 1 VP, somebody would call a judge... and the judge should determine the minimal number he could deal for, doesn't he? > > the deal on the first turn of the game? > > Unlikely, since it would be nearly impossible to get into a position where > he could not have some other way to get more VPs. As I said, SOME way to get more VPs always exist - an extremely bad draw for all opponents, for instance. But why do I have to prohibit a player from getting 1VP if the player thinks that it would be the best way for him? > > Does the player gaining only 1VP from the deal need to prove his > > inability of getting more than 1VP? What about the players gaining > > 2VPs? > > No one need prove anything -- if there's a question, call the judge > in to evaluate the game state and render a judgment. You can offer > whatever advice ("proof") you like to the judge, but the judge > ultimately relies on his judgment (and likewise, the judge need > not "prove" anything, either). Please, clarify the things for me: should the judge really examine all decks on the table to get the information needed for such decision? How much time this may take? And does he need to do the same for ANY table-splitting deal (i.e. "you can get more than 3 VPs, so your deal is illegal")? Are table-splitting deals really possible, then? Yours, Ector

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:1140023250....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > LSJ wrote: >> Ector wrote: >> > Can a player make a deal with two other players on the 5-player table >> > to split the table 1-2-2 if that player is going to gain only one VP >> > from the deal? (I mean, would he violate PTW this way?) Can he propose >> >> It would if it does violate PTW. That is, if he has some way to get more >> than 1 VP, then working toward a 1VP finish is not PTW. > >> If it doesn't (he has no way to reasonably get more than 1 VP), then it >> doesn't violate PTW. > AFAIK, *every* player has some way to oust all other players - at > least, the probability of this is greater than zero. Does this mean > that ALL table-splitting deals are illegal? Usually on the first turn of the game they are illegal, correct. Of course, time goes by, turns are taken, decisions are made, and the state of the game frequently changes such that one or more players can no longer reaonably hope for more than one or two VP and have no realistic chance to win the game. At such a point, a table splitting deal might be legal. > Anyway, how can a judge determine the EXACT number of VPs any player > can get? When a player wants to deal for 1 VP, somebody would call a > judge... and the judge should determine the minimal number he could > deal for, doesn't he? Yep. That's how it works. As for the "how can a judge determine the exact number of VP" question, sometimes it's easy to make a few common sense observations and have a good idea, sometimes it's hard. If it's really hard to see how a player is limited to fewer victory points than what it takes to currently win the game, the judge probably should determine that he can still win - and therefore he cannot deal to let another player win. > As I said, SOME way to get more VPs always exist - an extremely bad > draw for all opponents, for instance. But why do I have to prohibit a > player from getting 1VP if the player thinks that it would be the best > way for him? Because the rules don't allow it. The rules also don't allow switching cards in your deck between game even if a player thinks that it would be the best way for him. What are you confused about? > Are table-splitting deals really possible, then? Of course they are. The game has to have progressed to a point where one or more players no longer have any realistic chance of winning. Fred

In message <1140023250....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >AFAIK, *every* player has some way to oust all other players - at >least, the probability of this is greater than zero. Does this mean >that ALL table-splitting deals are illegal? >Anyway, how can a judge determine the EXACT number of VPs any player >can get? When a player wants to deal for 1 VP, somebody would call a >judge... and the judge should determine the minimal number he could >deal for, doesn't he? You're missing the point. The judge doesn't have to determine the EXACT number of VPs any player can get. The judge has to use his judgement of whether the player is playing to win (bearing in mind that players make mistakes), and that the deal is - in his or her opinion - reasonable enough that they don't feel obliged to block it at any appropriate point in the future. The judge is not required to create a cast-iron case against a player such that it would stand up in a court of law - though most will feel obliged to be able to justify their judgement if challenged. (Potentially, they won't feel able to justify it there and then, since they will have accurate knowledge that each player doesn't have - the state of a given hand or uncontrolled region, for example.) It's simply a judgement call. Is each player playing to win, or to maximise VPs if not? And are they taking a reasonable cause of action towards that goal? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Ector wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Ector wrote: >>>Can a player make a deal with two other players on the 5-player table >>>to split the table 1-2-2 if that player is going to gain only one VP >>>from the deal? (I mean, would he violate PTW this way?) Can he propose >> >>It would if it does violate PTW. That is, if he has some way to get more >>than 1 VP, then working toward a 1VP finish is not PTW. > >>If it doesn't (he has no way to reasonably get more than 1 VP), then it >>doesn't violate PTW. > > AFAIK, *every* player has some way to oust all other players - at > least, the probability of this is greater than zero. Does this mean > that ALL table-splitting deals are illegal? No. "Reasonable" is not the same as "some non-zero probability, no matter how remote". > Anyway, how can a judge determine the EXACT number of VPs any player > can get? When a player wants to deal for 1 VP, somebody would call a He cannot. Nor does he need to. > judge... and the judge should determine the minimal number he could > deal for, doesn't he? The judge just makes a judgment as to whether the game state is such that 1VP is the most that that player could reasonably expect to get. > Please, clarify the things for me: should the judge really examine all > decks on the table to get the information needed for such decision? How > much time this may take? And does he need to do the same for ANY > table-splitting deal (i.e. "you can get more than 3 VPs, so your deal > is illegal")? The judge examine whatever information he feels that he should examine. He takes as much time as he needs. > Are table-splitting deals really possible, then? Yes, when they don't violate PTW. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The technical answer (as already provided) is maybe. The practical > answer is no. There is virtually no way for a player to convince the > judge that he has no way of winning on the first turn of the game. The > only way it would be even close to reasonable might be if he has > influenced out several weenies and his prey has Aranthebes. But I > would think that a reasonable judge would insist that he try to burn > Aranthebes, or try to get someone else to do it for him. Further, it's > not inconceivable that he has larger vampires in the crypt, or > something else he can do besides bleed. I would think any reasonable > judge would say, "just play the stupid game". Deals are all fine and > good and are an important part of the game, but there's a point where > deal-making gets ridiculous. I would say that If I can convince a judge and the rest of the table on the first turn of the game that I am that small of a threat, then I can probably take the table. Further, I'd have to break the deal to do that, and as such, would be an asshole (with 5 vps) for doing it. -BEAR

[ quoted text not captured ] I would see this as just a bunch of talk, because there are two players still involved in the game that aren't part of the deal. 3 players could make all manner of theoretical "if you do this I'll do that" and "I won't oust until you do this" kind of deals to go for 1-2-2 VP's, but it's just talk until it's a 3-player game. As for first turn of the game - so long as Mr. Chatterbox isn't keeping the game from starting or continuing, he can try to arrange his daughter's hand in marriage to another player for all it matters. Now, for example, if three buddies show up and have decided on the drive in that if one of them gets to play the Nergal deck, the other two will throw their game just so they get to take the deck home - that's cheating. At least IMO.

LSJ wrote: > No. "Reasonable" is not the same as "some non-zero probability, no > matter how remote". Then please determine, at least roughly, what percentage is "reasonable". And how the judge has to calculate that percentage? If a player is going to be quickly ousted unless he draw his single Aranthebes, for instance? Maybe, a judge should examine his library to know how quickly he's going to get it? Unfortunately, I have to judge the local tournaments and I'm really unable to make such judgements. So I'm not just curious... > > Anyway, how can a judge determine the EXACT number of VPs any player > > can get? When a player wants to deal for 1 VP, somebody would call a > > He cannot. Nor does he need to. Doesn't he? When a judge prohibits a deal for 1VP, most players will immediately ask "OK, can I deal for 2VPs, then?" Another situation: what if a newbie player doesn't see a way to get more VPs, but the judge sees it, should he demonstrate the way? Without that, the ruling may seem extremely harsh. > > judge... and the judge should determine the minimal number he could > > deal for, doesn't he? > > The judge just makes a judgment as to whether the game state is > such that 1VP is the most that that player could reasonably > expect to get. Let's take a 4-player table (players A, B, C and D). Player A feels that he is unable to get more than 1 VP and he proposes an 1-3 deal to his grandprey, player C. Player D calls the judge, and the judge determines that player A *can* get more than 1VP, so the deal would be illegal. Then player B proposes a 2-2 deal to player C, and this time the judge thinks the deal is legal. But player A immediately states, that WITH THAT DEAL he's clearly unable to get more than 1VP, so he again proposes his 1-3 deal to player C. If the judge believes that with the 2-2 deal player A would really be unable to get more than 1VP, should he call the not-yet-made 2-2 deal illegal now, as player C can get 3 VP with the more beneficial deal? Wouldn't this be extremely ridiculous? > > Please, clarify the things for me: should the judge really examine all > > decks on the table to get the information needed for such decision? How > > much time this may take? And does he need to do the same for ANY > > table-splitting deal (i.e. "you can get more than 3 VPs, so your deal > > is illegal")? > > The judge examine whatever information he feels that he should > examine. He takes as much time as he needs. Please, tell me, where do you get such omniscient judges? Unfortunately, I'm unable to make such decisions in any reasonable time. Even if I examine all decks, what's the guideline to determine "reasonable VPs" for a player? For instance, can a player with a voting deck without additional stealth sitting between two intercept decks deal for 1 VP or not? Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: [stuff] use your judgement. pretend like you are the player who wants to deal for only 1 vp. look at his hand, have a quick flip through his library to get a feel for the deck, try and gauge his playing ability. then, think reasonably about whether you think that player could get more than 1 vp without the deal, playing in a reasonable manner, knowing only what that player knows. there is no percentage, there is no right or wrong. sure, with luck this guy might draw all the right cards while everyone else gets crap and he could end up sweeping. but is it reasonable to think that here and now, at the time of the deal? it all depends on the situation. if you can't make a reasonable judgement as to whether he could get more or not, get an assistant judge, or trust the player, or something. but, you know, make a judgement. don't dick around going "ohh, but i think he has a 33% chance of more, and i call the reasonable level to be 35%, so therefore he can make the deal...". Get real. there is no possible way you could practicably apply number to these sorts of situations. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] Very good point. I don´t like that judges determine if deals are legal or not because that hinders the "dealmaking with intention of breaking" a lot. Of course I have to offer a deal that is not so good for me in order to lure somebody into the trap. Then some other idiot calls the judge and the judge looks at my deck and judges: the deal is not legal, because you can win the game. By doing this he spoiled the wonderfull plan where I would not only win with 3, but with 5 VPs. It is rather absurd but the judge (in this case) was preventing me from playing to win :-/ And he has given away information to the other players (e.g that my current state is stronger than they think) which is an unfair advantage for them. Kick the stupid "legal-deal-judging" in the bin, unless situations where deals are REALLY cheating (e.g collusion) but they are VERY rare (never appeared to me and I judged quite some events). -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] This is exactly something I would expect a dirty cheater like you to say. ;P Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: >>Kick the stupid "legal-deal-judging" in the bin, unless situations where >>deals are REALLY cheating (e.g collusion) but they are VERY rare (never >>appeared to me and I judged quite some events). > > > This is exactly something I would expect a dirty cheater like you to > say. ;P In fact I have never broken a deal. That I can remember. At least I think so. :) -- johannes walch

> > The judge just makes a judgment as to whether the game state is > > such that 1VP is the most that that player could reasonably > > expect to get. > > Let's take a 4-player table (players A, B, C and D). Player A feels > that he is unable to get more than 1 VP and he proposes an 1-3 deal to > his grandprey, player C. Player D calls the judge, and the judge > determines that player A *can* get more than 1VP, so the deal would be > illegal. Then player B proposes a 2-2 deal to player C, and this time > the judge thinks the deal is legal. But player A immediately states, > that WITH THAT DEAL he's clearly unable to get more than 1VP, so he > again proposes his 1-3 deal to player C. > If the judge believes that with the 2-2 deal player A would really be > unable to get more than 1VP, should he call the not-yet-made 2-2 deal > illegal now, as player C can get 3 VP with the more beneficial deal? > Wouldn't this be extremely ridiculous? Ector, I see your struggle, and I appreciate it. I have been there. I've spent many hours trying to understand the play to win rules, and trying to become a better judge. Sit back, relax, and allow me to teach you what I know. :) If you want to skip to the really good part, here's the thread to read: http://tinyurl.com/acvaw It goes to the heart of your issue: how does a judge define "reasonable?" Elsewhere in that thread, it also touches on assigning numbers to "reasonable," if it would improve consistency of rulings across all judges, and why it makes no sense to even attempt to assign a number to it (since "reasonable" isn't a probability, it's a risk analysis.) Remember that all of this discussion stems from this rule: Players are expected to behave in a respectful and sportsmanlike manner at all times. (Tournament Rule 2.3.) That includes more than just "play to win." Play to win is defined as: 1) You must try to get a GW. If you already have a GW, you can play however you choose (give away other VPs, try to get more VPs, doesn't matter.) 2) If you don't have a reasonable chance at a GW, you must try to maximize your VPs. 3) If you don't have a reasonable chance at any VPs, you can earn 0 VPs in whatever manner you choose (including self-oust, walling up, cross table whatever, etc.) There have already been some revelant discussions on these points. The link above is a good starting point. Here is one regarding Play to Win in the finals: http://tinyurl.com/dtql6 And another one that clarifies Play to Win in the finals: http://tinyurl.com/8ptfz To address your specific question above, you should remember another thing: an illegal deal can be proposed and accepted. Talk is cheap. The judge only needs to step in when an actual illegal play occurs. Let's break down your example above: > Player A feels that he is unable to get more than 1 VP and > he proposes an 1-3 deal to his grandprey, player C. Remember it's not "unable to get more than 1 VP." It is, "no reasonable chance to get more than 1 VP," as defined by a risk analysis of "reasonable" by the judge. The player's opinion of "reasonable" will also likely sway the judge. > Player D calls the judge, and the judge determines that > player A *can* get more than 1VP, so the deal would be illegal. Remember it's not "can get more than 1 VP," it's "has a reasonable chance to get more than 1 VP," where "reasonable" can include the consequences of failure (i.e. risk analysis.) For purposes of example, let's say that the judge determines that A could reasonably get more than 1 VP. In that case, the deal would be illegal - you're right. BUT - the judge should not announce that information to the table. The judge should let A know privately that it's an unenforceable deal (so that if A was planning on transferring out later, he'll know that it would be illegal.) I clearly recall a thread on this topic where LSJ was quite illuminating, but unfortunately I couldn't find it (and I did look!) If anyone else can scrounge it up, please do. The judge should also make it clear to everyone at the table that they must play to win. You can tell D that if A actually does something that's not play to win, then he can call you over again. > <snip the rest of the example> > Wouldn't this be extremely ridiculous? Yes, which is why the judge need not (and should not) announce to the table if the deal is legal or not. The only thing the judge should actively prohibit is anything that's not play to win. Dealmaking is just talk. > Please, tell me, where do you get such omniscient judges? > Unfortunately, I'm unable to make such decisions in any reasonable time. Of course you can. When in doubt, let the player decide his own fate, unless it's clearly not play to win. I hope this helps. I welcome more discussion on this interesting topic (IMO.) I especially welcome any corrections, if I've made any mistakes, though I feel confident about the accuracy of everything I posted. :) Cheers, Ira

Salem wrote: > Ector wrote: > [stuff] > > it all depends on the situation. if you can't make a reasonable > judgement as to whether he could get more or not, get an assistant > judge, or trust the player, or something. but, you know, make a > judgement. don't dick around going "ohh, but i think he has a 33% chance > of more, and i call the reasonable level to be 35%, so therefore he can > make the deal...". Get real. there is no possible way you could > practicably apply number to these sorts of situations. > Thank you. That WAS exactly my point of view - determining the real chances of getting more VPs is IMPOSSIBLE, so I generally trust the players UNLESS I have some other reasons to suspect them in violation of PTW. For instance, if a player needed only 1 VP to get into the finals and tried to make a deal for that 1 VP, then I investigated the case. Anyway, it seems very strange that the judge has such powerful control on the game. And I don't think I'm ready for such high responsibility :( But as long as LSJ said so, I'm forced to oblige... Yours, Ector

Ira, Thanks for your attitude! This really helps a lot! But, unfortunately, I still have some questions, if you don't mind. ira...@gmail.com wrote: > For purposes of example, let's say that the judge determines that A > could reasonably get more than 1 VP. In that case, the deal would be > illegal - you're right. BUT - the judge should not announce that > information to the table. The judge should let A know privately that > it's an unenforceable deal (so that if A was planning on transferring > out later, he'll know that it would be illegal.) I clearly recall a > thread on this topic where LSJ was quite illuminating, but > unfortunately I couldn't find it (and I did look!) If anyone else can > scrounge it up, please do. > > The judge should also make it clear to everyone at the table that they > must play to win. You can tell D that if A actually does something > that's not play to win, then he can call you over again. So what's the difference? Player A now knows that his deal is going to be illegal, but player C doesn't know this, right? So player A can break the deal, but cannot give up through it, and that's all? If player A doesn't want to be a dealbreaker, he would refuse his proposal, and everyone would understand that the deal wasn't legal. Yours, Ector

I am confused. Surely the main point of making a 1 - 2 - 2 split would either i) you only need 1 VP to quailfy for the final and so in the wider tournament sense you are PTW ii) you are fast talking your way out of a tight spot in the hope that the guy that is bleeding you / blocking you backs off and gives you some space to manuver in the hope that one of the other 2 memembrs of your cabal weakens your prey/predator enough to allow you a VP and if they get killed in the process well ... all well and good iii) you are lying and intend to sweep the table but need to get a combo engine running that will take 3 turns to set up. If after this sort of 'deal' the judge took me to one side and said that I was in breach of the rules I would point out, in private, that I have no intention to stick to the deal but was just maximizing my chance to win by removing a threat from 2 of my opponents. Since no deals are binding in the rules and the Judge lacks the power to read my mind he can't know if I am lying to him or lying to the other members of my cabal so how can he rule either way? I have always thought this rule a little daft and have seen some amazing posts about certain votes or minion actions being in breach simply because they don't give a player an immediate game advantage. Giving your preys main vamp Fortitude might seem daft but if your plan is to graverob him in 2 turns and you haven't got any vamps that can use the fortitude card and you want to shift it out of your hand then its a fair strategy. Unless I actually committ suicide by transfering or spending my last drop of blood no one can ever know my intent. Even if my strategy stinks so does putting 85 copies of Smuge the Ignored in my Crypt and your not going to disqualify me for that ....

jibbajibba wrote: > Surely the main point of making a 1 - 2 - 2 split would either > i) you only need 1 VP to quailfy for the final and so in the wider > tournament sense you are PTW That's called "out of game consideration", and doesn't factor into deciding if something is play to win (also that category: players' rankings, win records, body odor, command of the common language, etc.) > iii) you are lying and intend to sweep the table but need to get a > combo engine running that will take 3 turns to set up. The discussion of PTW with regard to deals is always about honoring the deal when the time come to honor it and honoring it involves doing something that is not in and of itself playing to win (if the activity were in and of itself playing to win, then the presence or absence of a deal has no bearing). You are free to make any deal at all, so long as every game activity is in and of itself play to win (i.e., you break your deal whenever it conflicts with play to win). > If after this sort of 'deal' the judge took me to one side and said > that I was in breach of the rules I would point out, in private, that I > have no intention to stick to the deal but was just maximizing my > chance to win by removing a threat from 2 of my opponents. Since no > deals are binding in the rules and the Judge lacks the power to read my > mind he can't know if I am lying to him or lying to the other members > of my cabal so how can he rule either way? He doesn't. The judgment only comes in at the time where a player seeks to honor a deal instead of playing to win. It is legal to honor the deal if making the deal (to honor it) was an example of playing to win at the time the deal was made. That is, it is legal to honor a legally-made deal. It is legal to break a deal. It is legal to make an illegal-to-honor deal, but then you'd have to break it when it came time to play to win vs. keep the deal.

LSJ said - > He doesn't. The judgment only comes in at the time where a player > seeks to honor a deal instead of playing to win. So making a deal on round 1 doesn't matter since there can be no judgement on the deal until the point in time when the cruch comes and you have to decide whether to honour it or not which could be 5 or 6 or indeed 9 or 10 turns hence. Hmm... moving down the logical path of this does the PTW rule cover inaction as well as action. Take the instance where your prey takes an action you could block and in doing so increase your chance of winning substatially but you choose not to block. Now other players might suspect you could block but of course no one knows unless you have an open hand. Can they call the judge over to adjudicate? Also what if you just rubbish? Must there be an intention to not win (mens rea in the legal sense)? If you could steath in and bleed your prey out but don't realise because you forgot that his only remaining minion is unable to block older vampires or whatever... are you in breach?

jibbajibba wrote: > LSJ said - > > He doesn't. The judgment only comes in at the time where a player > > seeks to honor a deal instead of playing to win. > > So making a deal on round 1 doesn't matter since there can be no > judgement on the deal until the point in time when the cruch comes and > you have to decide whether to honour it or not which could be 5 or 6 or > indeed 9 or 10 turns hence. Well, you could certainly ask the judge if the deal is a legal deal at the time, sure -- just to make sure everyone understands what's involved in the deal making process. > Hmm... moving down the logical path of this does the PTW rule cover > inaction as well as action. Take the instance where your prey takes an Of course. > action you could block and in doing so increase your chance of winning > substatially but you choose not to block. Now other players might > suspect you could block but of course no one knows unless you have an > open hand. Can they call the judge over to adjudicate? Also what if you > just rubbish? Must there be an intention to not win (mens rea in the > legal sense)? If you could steath in and bleed your prey out but don't > realise because you forgot that his only remaining minion is unable to > block older vampires or whatever... are you in breach? Intention doesn't matter, but PTW doesn't legislate stupid play. If the question comes up, of course, "forgetting" doesn't really come into the picture, though -- the player who raised the issue is actually just reminding you of what you forgot.

Not to egg the pudding here but doesn't this encourage you to interfere in other players strategy/tactics. This is is a sin I myself an oftimes guilty of and find myself having to hold my tongue rather than exclaiming, 'No use the manuver from IR goggles first, then you aren;t committed to using the gun and you can keep the manuver from the magnum in case he flashes or save it for the next round !'.

[ quoted text not captured ] Nothing wrong with that -- helping your allies make the plays that help you is a common practice.

> So what's the difference? Player A now knows that his deal is going to > be illegal, but player C doesn't know this, right? So player A can > break the deal, but cannot give up through it, and that's all? Yes, that is my understanding. > If player A doesn't want to be a dealbreaker, he would refuse his > proposal, and everyone would understand that the deal wasn't legal. That sounds about right. I'd say the solution to your dilemma is that the judge should very rarely prevent a player from following their desired course of action regarding play to win. There may be some cases of a very spiteful player transferring out, or collusion, but most of the time, I think players will choose to play to win. If you ask player A, "Do you really think you don't have any reasonable chance at getting more than 1 VP?" And he says, "Yes," then if I were the judge, I'd probably let him make the deal. If I prevent the deal, he can just play poorly instead. And I could try to prevent that as a judge, too, but it gets very difficult to enforce. So, as a judge, I would remind the players of the play to win rule, ensure they understood it, and then generally let them play how they desire. Remember the basis for the play to win rule is the sportsmanship rule, so let that guide you and the players, too. It sounds to me like you're talking about a situation where players honestly want to follow the rules; if you're actually talking about a situation where the judge believes A and C are colluding, then I would be much more strict as the judge, and more willing to disallow such deals. Fortunately, I haven't been put in that situation. :) Finally, in your specific example, if, as the judge, I was going to be bold enough to deem a deal from A illegal, it's likely that I'd also prevent B from making a deal that gave away the game. And regarding A's offer to hand the game to C, you're never obligated to accept a deal by Play to Win, because deals can be broken. I hope this helps, Ira

I am sorry to use this thread, I cannot make my own threads fro some reason. I was thinking,...i would like to see the 2-2-1 outcome be better rewarded than 3-2 outcome. No particular reason then that it would seem logical to me. Tournament points already make some difference, but, them being only the last tiebreaker i would like to see a bigger difference. Wouldnt it be possible to grant 0.5 GW for the ones with 2 VP's in a 2-2-1 (or 2-2 for a 4playertable) split? I mean, you didnt lose the game, you just didnt win it either,...you drew the game with someone else,...both of you could get something for that, right? I have no idea if it would make a difference in a lot of cases, but just out of principle it seems more fair to me, W

In message <1140349498.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: >Wouldnt it be possible to grant 0.5 GW for the ones with 2 VP's in a >2-2-1 (or 2-2 for a 4playertable) split? It would, but it re-introduces problems of its own. One of the reasons[0] the GW rule was introduced was the problem of e.g. combat decks deciding to split a table. The problem was particularly pronounced in combat decks when they sat next to each other, but other decks could benefit from the same situation. The textbook situation is to have two combat decks sitting next to each other which will mutually annihilate each other. No VP each. So they decide to nuke the other three players together, and one of the combat players gets 3VP and the other gets 2VP. Prior to the GW rule, the difference between 3VP and 2VP was 1VP - which is not a lot, in the grand scheme of 10 or 15 possible VPs. In the GW world, however, one of the players gets 1GW and the other gets 0GW. Which with only two or three GWs available is a significant difference, meaning that each player wants to be on the 3VP end of the split, meaning that skilled players build decks which won't get into that situation or which can rule it like a God if they do. i.e. they design and play for the game win first and foremost, rather than thinking "Well, even if I sit next to another combat deck, I can still get 2VP so it's still pretty good." Going to a situation where they can say "Well, I'll get half a VP and you'll get half a VP and that's just fine" (on a 4 player table) or where they decide to oust someone cross-table and then split the other 2 each is therefore problematic. I'd be wary of such a rule change as a result. [0] There were a number of inter-related and complex reasons at the time, but this is one of the more important. I'm not saying it's the only reason, though! [ quoted text not captured ]

Cooper <wouterkuy...@gmail.com> writes: >Wouldnt it be possible to grant 0.5 GW for the ones with 2 VP's in a >2-2-1 (or 2-2 for a 4playertable) split? Coupe wrote: "It would, but it re-introduces problems of its own." That's possible. But could also depend on the way how you would incorporate it. At this moment i think it is intrinsicly wrong that you get as much reward for losing with 2 VP's as with drawing (i.e. NOT losing) with 2 VP's. If there are problems that cannot be overcome by introducing a way to better reflect that difference,..well too bad,...but if not, let's try it! [ quoted text not captured ] (i assume you meant GW here instead of VP) I can see this perhaps being a problem. But only if the PTW-rule would not be properly followed. I think it is VERY possible that one of these combat decks will win the game, even if they are next to eachother. That would mean that making a deal for a 2-2-1 split would be illegal, and therefor cannot be followed upon. I mean, the rules should be clarified perhaps. "One should always play for a full GW, if chances for that reasonable. Only if that is nigh impossible one can play for a part-GW." or somethinglike that. Coupe wrote: "[0] There were a number of inter-related and complex reasons at the time, but this is one of the more important. I'm not saying it's the only reason, though! " This was discussed already? I mean, having the option of half a GW? If so, could you point me to the discussion? Dont get me wrong, I think the system of getting GW's was all good, i am just exploring the possiblity of getting part GW's for drawing. W

Cooper wrote: > At this moment i think it is intrinsicly wrong that you get as much > reward for losing with 2 VP's as with drawing (i.e. NOT losing) with 2 > VP's. If you get 2 VPs at a 2-2-1-0-0 table, you get 54 TPs. If you get 2 VPs at a 3-2-0-0-0 table, you get 48 TPs. If Bob and Sue have equal performances except in the last round where Bob finishes tied for first with 2-2-1 and Sue finishes (at a different table) at with second at a 3-2-0-0-0 table, Bob will finish ahead of Sue. That is, not losing is better.

In message <1140529605.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: Hello, and welcome to the latest in a series of How To Use Google Groups comments. When replying, hit "Show Options" on the post you are replying to, then hit "Reply". This quotes the post you are replying to, using normal quotation techniques - addition of > at the start of each line, and so forth. >I think it is VERY possible that one of these combat decks >will win the game, even if they are next to eachother. That would mean >that making a deal for a 2-2-1 split would be illegal, and therefor >cannot be followed upon. Experience shows otherwise, as does a little application of player psychology. The evidence of two combat decks sitting next to each other mutually annihilating each other in pre-GW days is legion, forcing the relevant table splits. I think you'll need to do a LOT of work to show that this doesn't happen that isn't just a one line "I think it is VERY possible". You also need to understand that the play-to-win rule does not allow a judge to intervene and educate players about the fuller impact of their actions. A judge cannot, for example, point out a way for a player to get a GW that they miss. A judge cannot legislate for mistakes, poor play or similar. However, in a situation where I can get 0VP (mutual annihilation) as has been shown by multiple situations throughout Jyhad history, or I can get 1 GW (but it's very, very unlikely) or I can aim for a solid 0.5 GW, a judge does not necessarily have to stop you getting the 0.5 GW if the 1 GW is going to be exceedingly hard to get. Nor can the judge force you to make a deal - which may be the only sensible way you can get a 1 GW (by allowing a player in a losing position to maximise VPs, say). Further, if mutual annihilation is likely, a player who could get 2 VPs out of a deal with you (where you net 3 VPs) may refuse to do so if he knows he can get 0.5 GW. At which point, if you need the help, you may well be in a situation where the 0.5 GW is the much better option for you (the 1 GW being a remote possibility). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I know there is already a difference, yes. But i would like to see a bigger difference. TP's only matter when you have the exact same amount of VP's. for instance: i would like to see someone who played: 3VP-win, 2VP-draw, 0VP-loss be ranked above: 3VP-win, 2VP-loss, 1VP-loss W

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1140529605.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: > > Hello, and welcome to the latest in a series of How To Use Google Groups > comments. When replying, hit "Show Options" on the post you are > replying to, then hit "Reply". This quotes the post you are replying > to, using normal quotation techniques - addition of > at the start of > each line, and so forth. Thanx. Any chance that you also know how to make a new thread when using the online google groups? > > >I think it is VERY possible that one of these combat decks > >will win the game, even if they are next to eachother. That would mean > >that making a deal for a 2-2-1 split would be illegal, and therefor > >cannot be followed upon. > > Experience shows otherwise, as does a little application of player > psychology. > > The evidence of two combat decks sitting next to each other mutually > annihilating each other in pre-GW days is legion, forcing the relevant > table splits. I think you'll need to do a LOT of work to show that this > doesn't happen that isn't just a one line "I think it is VERY possible". I think the experience shows us that it is also very possible that the 2 combat decks annihilate eachother. This however says nothing (or at least very little) about the possiblity of either of the 2 getting a GW. I have also seen numerous occasions in which one of the two got the gamewin (without making a deal with the other). And since those numerous occasions reflect an ok chance, one cannot deal for something less then the gamewin. I agree that the chance is smaller then the 2 decks annihilating eachother. This does not change the fact however. > > You also need to understand that the play-to-win rule does not allow a > judge to intervene and educate players about the fuller impact of their > actions. A judge cannot, for example, point out a way for a player to > get a GW that they miss. A judge cannot legislate for mistakes, poor > play or similar. This is true. A judge can however tell that a deal is illegal, even if the parties don't see how to get more points than they would by making their deal. > However, in a situation where I can get 0VP (mutual annihilation) as has > been shown by multiple situations throughout Jyhad history, or I can get > 1 GW (but it's very, very unlikely) or I can aim for a solid 0.5 GW, a > judge does not necessarily have to stop you getting the 0.5 GW if the 1 > GW is going to be exceedingly hard to get. I think a judge should stop you in this case. ofcourse "very very unlikely" is up to the judge. If it is really "very very unlikely" he shouldnt stop you. If it is however "unlikely but still rather possible" the judge should stop you. Imagine a similar situation. 3rd round of tournament. I need 2 VP's to be certain of a place in the finals. I can make an easy losing deal for my 2 VP's. I am not allowed however, because there is still a reasonable chance that i get the GW. Even if going for that chance would decrease my chances of getting in the finals. Nor can the judge force you > to make a deal - which may be the only sensible way you can get a 1 GW > (by allowing a player in a losing position to maximise VPs, say). Agreed. (i always found that a little strange however,..how can you put down a certain GW for an uncertain one) > Further, if mutual annihilation is likely, a player who could get 2 VPs > out of a deal with you (where you net 3 VPs) may refuse to do so if he > knows he can get 0.5 GW. Which is good for gameplay from my point of view. This means more actually playing the game is involved. English is not my native language, that might be the problem, but "likely" does not not mean that the other options all have a "not reasonable" chance, right? In other words, even if mutual annihilation is "likely", chances that mutual annihilation does not happen can still be "reasonable" At which point, if you need the help, you may > well be in a situation where the 0.5 GW is the much better option for > you (the 1 GW being a remote possibility). This would be playing for a draw. I would advocate that this can only be done in situations where you are allowed to make a losing deal in the current situation. (in other words, chances being less than reasonable for the GW) You now have something else to play for: the DRAW (instead of giving someone else teh GW in a 3-2 deal) Playing for a draw is much more fun than playing for a loss too i think. W

"Cooper" <wouter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140608987.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > James Coupe wrote: >> In message <1140529605.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Hello, and welcome to the latest in a series of How To Use Google Groups >> comments. When replying, hit "Show Options" on the post you are >> replying to, then hit "Reply". This quotes the post you are replying >> to, using normal quotation techniques - addition of > at the start of >> each line, and so forth. > > Thanx. Any chance that you also know how to make a new thread when > using the online google groups? > 1. Log In 2. click to the usenet group you want to post ing 3. Click the "Start a New Topic" link, found in the tan bar on the top page for each group. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Thx,...for some reason i kept overlooking it for i dont know how long,...even after you mentioned where to look,...(perhaps because it is written in Dutch or something,...dunno,..) but now i found it thx :-) W

> > However, in a situation where I can get 0VP (mutual annihilation) as has > > been shown by multiple situations throughout Jyhad history, or I can get > > 1 GW (but it's very, very unlikely) or I can aim for a solid 0.5 GW, a > > judge does not necessarily have to stop you getting the 0.5 GW if the 1 > > GW is going to be exceedingly hard to get. > > I think a judge should stop you in this case. ofcourse "very very > unlikely" is up to the judge. If it is really "very very unlikely" he > shouldnt stop you. If it is however "unlikely but still rather > possible" the judge should stop you. I think it's very rare that the judge should step in and force a player to play a certain way, if the player confirms that he's playing to win, where playing to win is defined as: 1) Get a GW. 2) If you don't have a reasonable chance at a GW, get as many VPs as possible. 3) If you don't have a reasonably chance to gain any more VPs, get zero more VPs however you want. > Imagine a similar situation. 3rd round of tournament. I need 2 VP's to > be certain of a place in the finals. I can make an easy losing deal for > my 2 VP's. I am not allowed however, because there is still a > reasonable chance that i get the GW. Even if going for that chance > would decrease my chances of getting in the finals. You should not consider the finals, correct. But, remember that "reasonable" includes risk analysis. That is, you can consider what happens in the failure states. If you say, "I have a small chance to get a GW. If I go for it and fail, I'll get zero VPs. OR, I could take 2 VPs practically guaranteed." In that situation, you might not have a "reasonable" chance at a GW because the consequences of failure are so high. Therefore, a player in that situation could take the 2 VP deal, and I think a good judge would not prevent them from doing so (assuming the player is only considering the consequences of that game, and not thinking about getting into the finals.) Regarding playing to get into the finals, I think that problem can be avoided in many cases by not sharing the results of already completed games. Sure, it's not completely secret, but you can minimize problems by not publicly announcing, "If you get 2 VPs, you're guaranteed to get into the finals!" Also, to elaborate on the example, let's say the player has a small chance to get a GW, but if he goes for it and fails, he still gets 2 VPs. In this case, a good judge would rule that it's unreasonably to give up the GW just yet. The failure states matter. Finally, because I think the link below is one of the most illuminating play-to-win discussions provided by LSJ, and it includes information that many people haven't internalized, I'm including it again: http://tinyurl.com/acvaw Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > > However, in a situation where I can get 0VP (mutual annihilation) as has > > > been shown by multiple situations throughout Jyhad history, or I can get > > > 1 GW (but it's very, very unlikely) or I can aim for a solid 0.5 GW, a > > > judge does not necessarily have to stop you getting the 0.5 GW if the 1 > > > GW is going to be exceedingly hard to get. > > > > I think a judge should stop you in this case. ofcourse "very very > > unlikely" is up to the judge. If it is really "very very unlikely" he > > shouldnt stop you. If it is however "unlikely but still rather > > possible" the judge should stop you. > > I think it's very rare that the judge should step in and force a player > to play a certain way, if the player confirms that he's playing to win, > where playing to win is defined as: Ok, ok, A judge should probably not stop you here, because he is not all-knowing. Suppose the judge could look into every players head and see what they are thinking,...in other words, know what kind of riskanalysis they made, he should stop this. I know he cannot, so he should not stop anyone here. But as a rule for playing the game myself it would be good to follow this,... > You should not consider the finals, correct. But, remember that > "reasonable" includes risk analysis. That is, you can consider what > happens in the failure states. If you say, "I have a small chance to > get a GW. If I go for it and fail, I'll get zero VPs. OR, I could > take 2 VPs practically guaranteed." In that situation, you might not > have a "reasonable" chance at a GW because the consequences of failure > are so high. > we are getting away from the subject here. And again into the "what exactly is "likely"/"reasonable"/"small chance"". Since i don't seem to get a grip on that, i would, as a judge, almost always rule that someone has "a reasonable chance to win". Ofcourse "being ousted by the next bleed" or having no minions or that kind of things would be something else,... But my point was something completely different. I think that getting 2-VPs out of a 2-2-1 game is a LOT better (since it is a draw) than getting 2 VP's out of a 3-2 losing table. I think this should be reflected in the ranking, and more obvious than in TP's. My idea was to use o.5 GW for a draw (as is a fairly common practice in games) W

"Cooper" <wouter...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140634660.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Thx,... NP... > for some reason i kept overlooking it for i dont know how > long,...even after you mentioned where to look Its probably because its a simple text link, and not the graphic "button" that one would expect (and a competent interface would use). Google is great as an archive, and I get by with the interface when I need it, but it really is a pain. DZ AW

> Ok, ok, A judge should probably not stop you here, because he is not > all-knowing. > Suppose the judge could look into every players head and see what they > are thinking,...in other words, know what kind of riskanalysis they > made, he should stop this. I know he cannot, so he should not stop > anyone here. But as a rule for playing the game myself it would be good > to follow this,... It's not the player's risk analysis that defines what's legal. It's the judge's risk analysis. Nonetheless, I think most good judge's will take into account the player's opinions. > we are getting away from the subject here. And again into the "what > exactly is "likely"/"reasonable"/"small chance"". Since i don't seem to > get a grip on that, i would, as a judge, almost always rule that > someone has "a reasonable chance to win". If you can't get a grip on that, you might consider deferring to the player. There are many times that a player may not have a reasonable chance to win, and should be provided the freedom to negotiate. > But my point was something completely different. > I think that getting 2-VPs out of a 2-2-1 game is a LOT better (since > it is a draw) than getting 2 VP's out of a 3-2 losing table. OK. I understand your point. For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that a 2-2-1 draw should be a *little* bit better than a 3-2 loss. I'd say it should be about... I don't know... 6 TPs better? ;) Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > Ok, ok, A judge should probably not stop you here, because he is not > > all-knowing. > > Suppose the judge could look into every players head and see what they > > are thinking,...in other words, know what kind of riskanalysis they > > made, he should stop this. I know he cannot, so he should not stop > > anyone here. But as a rule for playing the game myself it would be good > > to follow this,... > > It's not the player's risk analysis that defines what's legal. It's > the judge's risk analysis. It i sthe judges risk analysis, but only with the knowledge that player has. This makes it very close to the players risk analysis Nonetheless, I think most good judge's will > take into account the player's opinions. > > > we are getting away from the subject here. And again into the "what > > exactly is "likely"/"reasonable"/"small chance"". Since i don't seem to > > get a grip on that, i would, as a judge, almost always rule that > > someone has "a reasonable chance to win". > > If you can't get a grip on that, you might consider deferring to the > player. There are many times that a player may not have a reasonable > chance to win, and should be provided the freedom to negotiate. That is one thing i could do yes. Another would be to interpret the words above as i wish. Meaning i can read "reasonable chance" as "small, unlikely, but none the less very possible chance. Just for educating me,.. 80-20 percentages (doesnt have to relate to VTES) i would say the "80" part is likely to happen, the "20" part is unlikely to happen. But i would also say that the 20 part is still a very reasonable chance. Would this be within range of the likely-unlikely-reasonable stuff? > > But my point was something completely different. > > I think that getting 2-VPs out of a 2-2-1 game is a LOT better (since > > it is a draw) than getting 2 VP's out of a 3-2 losing table. > > OK. I understand your point. For what it's worth, my personal opinion > is that a 2-2-1 draw should be a *little* bit better than a 3-2 loss. > I'd say it should be about... I don't know... 6 TPs better? ;) :-) I have a tendency to fight losing fights in this kinda thing. But dont you think that drawing in one game (say 2-2-1) and losing in another (say 1 VP) should be ranked higher than getting 4 VP's but losing both games? W

> It is the judges risk analysis, but only with the knowledge that player > has. This makes it very close to the players risk analysis In theory, the judge can gather a lot of information. In practice, I agree with you, which is why I rarely interfere on the basis of play-to-win. > That is one thing i could do yes. Another would be to interpret the > words above as i wish. Sure. You can run tournaments ignoring the grouping rules, and have everyone play with 10 card hands, and whatever you want. Nonetheless, my personal goal in this dialog is to explain the current tournament rules, so that hopefully judges around the world will make consistent rulings given the same situations. > Meaning i can read "reasonable chance" as "small, unlikely, but none > the less very possible chance. > > Just for educating me,.. > 80-20 percentages (doesnt have to relate to VTES) > i would say the "80" part is likely to happen, the "20" part is > unlikely to happen. > But i would also say that the 20 part is still a very reasonable > chance. This is a great example, Wouter! Consider these two cases: 1) You pay me $1. 20% of the time you win $100. 80% you get nothing. I would say that is a "reasonable" risk. 2) You pay me $1. 20% of the time, you win $100. 80% you DIE. I would say that is NOT a "reasonable" risk. In both situations, the positive outcome is the same (win $100.) But one is reasonable and the other is not, because of the failure states. That is why risk analysis is necessary, and you can't simply assign a numerical value to "reasonable." It depends what the other outcomes are. > But dont you think that drawing in one game (say 2-2-1) and losing in > another (say 1 VP) should be ranked higher than getting 4 VP's but > losing both games? We're just talking about personal opinions here? In my personal opinion, I think the current tournament rules regarding GWs, VPs, and TPs are excellent, and do not need to be modified. Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > It is the judges risk analysis, but only with the knowledge that player > > has. This makes it very close to the players risk analysis > > In theory, the judge can gather a lot of information. In practice, I > agree with you, which is why I rarely interfere on the basis of > play-to-win. > > > That is one thing i could do yes. Another would be to interpret the > > words above as i wish. > > Sure. You can run tournaments ignoring the grouping rules, and have > everyone play with 10 card hands, and whatever you want. Nope, that i cannot do. That's in the rules. "reasonable" however is upto the judge how to interpret that. > > Nonetheless, my personal goal in this dialog is to explain the current > tournament rules, so that hopefully judges around the world will make > consistent rulings given the same situations. I am striving for the same thing ofcourse, just playing devil's advocate here. (sssht dont tell anyone) > > > Meaning i can read "reasonable chance" as "small, unlikely, but none > > the less very possible chance. > > > > Just for educating me,.. > > 80-20 percentages (doesnt have to relate to VTES) > > i would say the "80" part is likely to happen, the "20" part is > > unlikely to happen. > > But i would also say that the 20 part is still a very reasonable > > chance. > > This is a great example, Wouter! Consider these two cases: > > 1) You pay me $1. 20% of the time you win $100. 80% you get nothing. > I would say that is a "reasonable" risk. > > 2) You pay me $1. 20% of the time, you win $100. 80% you DIE. I > would say that is NOT a "reasonable" risk. This would be not the answer to my question. I was just asking for an English course here on the subject if i use the words reasonable and (un-)likely corrcetly. Or are you telling me that for the word "reasonable" to be used in these (even non-game-related) circumstances you always have to consider the risk? "There is a reasonable chance a comet will hit earth and we all die" "There is a reasonable chance Australia will become world champion soccer" "There is a reasonable chance 10km speedskating goldmedal will go to Hedrick or a Dutch guy" But to get back to your point: it is not a reasonable risk, it is however a reasonable chance. IMO. strange word,...reasonable,... I do think i've had this converstaion with Derek a while ago though. If i recall we went from this point into what would "dying" mean in VTES terms... say, you have x% chance of winning (x being small) and 100-x chance of losing with 0 VP's. With a deal you will decrease your chance of winning to 0% and will get 2 VP's. What exactly is the "dying" part here? I will advocate that "not winning" is dying here. No matter what number of VP's you have. This makes risk analysis a lot easier too ;-) (...need......to.....win.....) > That is why risk analysis is necessary, and you can't simply assign a > numerical value to "reasonable." It depends what the other outcomes > are. and to what values you give to the other outcomes. (see the not-winning=dying) > > But dont you think that drawing in one game (say 2-2-1) and losing in > > another (say 1 VP) should be ranked higher than getting 4 VP's but > > losing both games? > > We're just talking about personal opinions here? In my personal > opinion, I think the current tournament rules regarding GWs, VPs, and > TPs are excellent, and do not need to be modified. Yeah, just personal opinion. Thanx. I agree that the current system works pretty good. i just think drawing is a lot better then losing :-) W > > Ira

In message <1140785140.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: >> Sure. You can run tournaments ignoring the grouping rules, and have >> everyone play with 10 card hands, and whatever you want. > >Nope, that i cannot do. That's in the rules. "reasonable" however is >upto the judge how to interpret that. Incorrect. You can run unofficial tournaments, you could run a build your own storyline with that as an alternate rule and, for grouping, you can run sealed tournaments (which explicitly overrule the grouping rules). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1140785140.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> Sure. You can run tournaments ignoring the grouping rules, and have > >> everyone play with 10 card hands, and whatever you want. > > > >Nope, that i cannot do. That's in the rules. "reasonable" however is > >upto the judge how to interpret that. > > Incorrect. > > You can run unofficial tournaments, you could run a build your own > storyline with that as an alternate rule and, for grouping, you can run > sealed tournaments (which explicitly overrule the grouping rules). Yeah allright, you are right ofcourse, i was sloppy in not mentioning the "official" thing. Besides the point though,... W

> > Nonetheless, my personal goal in this dialog is to explain the current > > tournament rules, so that hopefully judges around the world will make > > consistent rulings given the same situations. > > I am striving for the same thing ofcourse, just playing devil's > advocate here. (sssht dont tell anyone) OK. ;) > This would be not the answer to my question. I was just asking for an > English course here on the subject if i use the words reasonable and > (un-)likely corrcetly. Ah... I understand now. Yes, I think you were using "reasonable" in the correct English meaning. English language is not nearly as precise as VTES language. Don't let the English meaning(s) confuse you for VTES meaning. In VTES, we use "reasonable" as I described it, which considers the failure states. > What exactly is the "dying" part here? I will advocate that "not > winning" is dying here. No matter what number of VP's you have. > This makes risk analysis a lot easier too ;-) As a player, you can choose to see it this way. As a judge, I will allow players to value 2 VPs above 0 VPs (and I will require them to do so if a GW is already unreasonable.) Personally, as a player, I prefer a GW the most, but I don't see all "not winning" states the same. 2 VPs is better than 1 VP, is better than 0 VPs. It's not just about winning. > i just think drawing is a lot better then losing :-) Fair enough. From my experience running 10-20 player tournaments, 6 TPs makes a difference in one place or another. Ira

In message <1140824747....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Cooper <wouter...@gmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Incorrect. >> >> You can run unofficial tournaments, you could run a build your own >> storyline with that as an alternate rule and, for grouping, you can run >> sealed tournaments (which explicitly overrule the grouping rules). > >Yeah allright, you are right ofcourse, i was sloppy in not mentioning >the "official" thing. >Besides the point though,... Sealed tournaments *are* official. [ quoted text not captured ]