1. Can a player be accused in violating PTW if he's just pressing on
his prey, completely ignoring his own safety? For instance, if a
player is playing an intercept deck, but does nothing to block actions
of his predator, using his vamps just to bleed for 1. His prey has a
lot of pool, so he cannot reasonably expect to oust his prey before
his predator can oust him. Unfortunately, some of our players seem to
believe that "pressing on my prey cannot be a PTW violation".
2. Do I understand it right that in the final round of a tournament,
where players play solely for GW, a "lost position" is a position
where a player cannot reasonably get the GW?
3. Can a player that is repeatedly calling a judge claiming that he is
in "lost position" while his position is obviously not lost be accused
in PTW violation?
4. Can a player legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether
my position is lost or not" if the player himself does NOT think that
his position is lost? IMHO, such player should just continue to play
without disturbing a judge.
On 25 mai, 11:39, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> 1. Can a player be accused in violating PTW if he's just pressing on
> his prey, completely ignoring his own safety? For instance, if a
> player is playing an intercept deck, but does nothing to block actions
> of his predator, using his vamps just to bleed for 1. His prey has a
> lot of pool, so he cannot reasonably expect to oust his prey before
> his predator can oust him. Unfortunately, some of our players seem to
> believe that "pressing on my prey cannot be a PTW violation".
If he is just setting up a sweep for his predator, yes it is a PTW
violation. But there might be legitimate reasons, for example if his
predator packs combat he cannot handle.
> 2. Do I understand it right that in the final round of a tournament,
> where players play solely for GW, a "lost position" is a position
> where a player cannot reasonably get the GW?
No, the PTW rule does not change in the final round. Players will be
less likely to give up the GW and play for mere VP, but this does not
change the definition of a lost position.
> 3. Can a player that is repeatedly calling a judge claiming that he is
> in "lost position" while his position is obviously not lost be accused
> in PTW violation?
I do not see the link with PTW, but this can be seen as arguing with
the judge or even stalling.
> 4. Can a player legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether
> my position is lost or not" if the player himself does NOT think that
> his position is lost? IMHO, such player should just continue to play
> without disturbing a judge.
A player can legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether my
position is lost or not". How do you intend to check what the player
thinks?
On May 25, 6:43 am, Bob <boris.mai...@free.fr> wrote:
> On 25 mai, 11:39, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > 1. Can a player be accused in violating PTW if he's just pressing on
> > his prey, completely ignoring his own safety? For instance, if a
> > player is playing an intercept deck, but does nothing to block actions
> > of his predator, using his vamps just to bleed for 1. His prey has a
> > lot of pool, so he cannot reasonably expect to oust his prey before
> > his predator can oust him. Unfortunately, some of our players seem to
> > believe that "pressing on my prey cannot be a PTW violation".
>
> If he is just setting up a sweep for his predator, yes it is a PTW
> violation. But there might be legitimate reasons, for example if his
> predator packs combat he cannot handle.
Correct. If it's a case of futile lunging vs. not-necessarily-futile
<some other course>, then the futile course of action violates PTW, by
definition.
> > 2. Do I understand it right that in the final round of a tournament,
> > where players play solely for GW, a "lost position" is a position
> > where a player cannot reasonably get the GW?
>
> No, the PTW rule does not change in the final round. Players will be
> less likely to give up the GW and play for mere VP, but this does not
> change the definition of a lost position.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8df4392e2abea41> > 3. Can a player that is repeatedly calling a judge claiming that he is
> > in "lost position" while his position is obviously not lost be accused
> > in PTW violation?
>
> I do not see the link with PTW, but this can be seen as arguing with
> the judge or even stalling.
Calling a judge does not violate PTW, of course. And, yes, it could be
indicative of some violation of sportsmanship. Or it may be an earnest
inquiry that may occur when players who are accustomed to playing
under non-official rules are brought into conformance with the
official rules.
> > 4. Can a player legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether
> > my position is lost or not" if the player himself does NOT think that
> > his position is lost? IMHO, such player should just continue to play
> > without disturbing a judge.
>
> A player can legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether my
> position is lost or not". How do you intend to check what the player
> thinks?
If a player thinks there's a play that improves his position, then he
should make that play, of course, whether his position is "lost" or
not. Either he's wrong and loses nothing (it wouldn't matter what he
did), or he's right and he stands to gain something.
And there's nothing wrong with calling a judge, of course, unless it
violates some other rule (as above).
LSJ wrote:
> On May 25, 6:43 am, Bob <boris.mai...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On 25 mai, 11:39, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. Can a player be accused in violating PTW if he's just pressing on
> > > his prey, completely ignoring his own safety? For instance, if a
> > > player is playing an intercept deck, but does nothing to block actions
> > > of his predator, using his vamps just to bleed for 1. His prey has a
> > > lot of pool, so he cannot reasonably expect to oust his prey before
> > > his predator can oust him. Unfortunately, some of our players seem to
> > > believe that "pressing on my prey cannot be a PTW violation".
> >
> > If he is just setting up a sweep for his predator, yes it is a PTW
> > violation. But there might be legitimate reasons, for example if his
> > predator packs combat he cannot handle.
>
> Correct. If it's a case of futile lunging vs. not-necessarily-futile
> <some other course>, then the futile course of action violates PTW, by
> definition.
Thanks for the answer, but I'd like to clarify. Do I understand it
right that the player concentrating on his prey and neglecting his
predator violates PTW if the chance of being ousted by the predator
greatly exceeds the chance of ousting his prey and he has some ways of
stopping the predator?
For instance, a rush deck player has Enkidu and 3 pool. His predator
has Arika with Blithe Acceptance, and he has no ways of blocking or
redirecting Arika's bleed. Assuming that his position isn't completely
lost, but he isn't going to oust his prey immediately, would rushing
his prey's minion instead of Arika be a PTW violation?
> > > 2. Do I understand it right that in the final round of a tournament,
> > > where players play solely for GW, a "lost position" is a position
> > > where a player cannot reasonably get the GW?
> >
> > No, the PTW rule does not change in the final round. Players will be
> > less likely to give up the GW and play for mere VP, but this does not
> > change the definition of a lost position.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8df4392e2abea41
The only words that can be applied for this situation are: "The PTW
aspect is handled differently in the final round. In the finals, each
player is assumed to be playing to win." So, I am right, and a player
with no reasonable chances of getting GW can self-oust?
> > > 3. Can a player that is repeatedly calling a judge claiming that he is
> > > in "lost position" while his position is obviously not lost be accused
> > > in PTW violation?
> >
> > I do not see the link with PTW, but this can be seen as arguing with
> > the judge or even stalling.
>
> Calling a judge does not violate PTW, of course. And, yes, it could be
> indicative of some violation of sportsmanship. Or it may be an earnest
> inquiry that may occur when players who are accustomed to playing
> under non-official rules are brought into conformance with the
> official rules.
AFAIK, in most games players are punished for repeatedly calling
judges for the false reasons. But the judge shouldn't apply this to
the newbies, of course.
> > > 4. Can a player legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether
> > > my position is lost or not" if the player himself does NOT think that
> > > his position is lost? IMHO, such player should just continue to play
> > > without disturbing a judge.
> >
> > A player can legally call a judge and ask him to "estimate whether my
> > position is lost or not". How do you intend to check what the player
> > thinks?
>
> If a player thinks there's a play that improves his position, then he
> should make that play, of course, whether his position is "lost" or
> not. Either he's wrong and loses nothing (it wouldn't matter what he
> did), or he's right and he stands to gain something.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with calling a judge, of course, unless it
> violates some other rule (as above).
There's nothing wrong with calling a judge? There surely is.
Determining whether the position is lost or not is not simple. Judge
may need a lot of time to make his decision. A player who isn't
considering his position lost should be issued at least a warning for
wasting the judge's time on the completely useless things. IMHO,
players should apply for "lost position" only if they really want to
self-oust.
If you call the police without a reason, you will pay a fine. What
prevents from treating this situation in the same way?
On May 25, 7:41 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Correct. If it's a case of futile lunging vs. not-necessarily-futile
> > <some other course>, then the futile course of action violates PTW, by
> > definition.
>
> Thanks for the answer, but I'd like to clarify. Do I understand it
> right that the player concentrating on his prey and neglecting his
> predator violates PTW if the chance of being ousted by the predator
> greatly exceeds the chance of ousting his prey and he has some ways of
> stopping the predator?
Not necessarily.
A player violates PTW when he makes some activity (or pass) that
cannot reasonably lead to him acquiring <N> or more VPs where there is
some other activity (or pass) that can reasonably lead to him getting
<N> VPs (unless the former activity can reasonably lead to the GW, of
course).
Stopping the predator does not gain VPs in and of itself -- so it is
not the goal.
If he has a course of action that can reasonably lead to gaining VPs
(like: stop one or a series of predators long enough to oust prey),
then some other course of action that cannot reasonably lead to a VP
(like neglecting a predator when doing so means there's no reasonable
way to oust the prey before the predator ousts him), then that
violates PTW.
> For instance, a rush deck player has Enkidu and 3 pool. His predator
> has Arika with Blithe Acceptance, and he has no ways of blocking or
> redirecting Arika's bleed. Assuming that his position isn't completely
> lost, but he isn't going to oust his prey immediately, would rushing
> his prey's minion instead of Arika be a PTW violation?
If his position isn't completely lost, then that means there is one
(or more) course of action that can reasonably lead to a VP. If
rushing his prey's minion is one of those courses, then it is allowed.
If it is not, then it is not.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8df...>
> The only words that can be applied for this situation are: "The PTW
> aspect is handled differently in the final round. In the finals, each
> player is assumed to be playing to win." So, I am right, and a player
> with no reasonable chances of getting GW can self-oust?
In the final, yes: players in the final are assumed to be playing to
win (assuming no other rules violation is involved).
> > > > 3. Can a player that is repeatedly calling a judge claiming that he is
> > > > in "lost position" while his position is obviously not lost be accused
> > > > in PTW violation?
>
> > > I do not see the link with PTW, but this can be seen as arguing with
> > > the judge or even stalling.
>
> > Calling a judge does not violate PTW, of course. And, yes, it could be
> > indicative of some violation of sportsmanship. Or it may be an earnest
> > inquiry that may occur when players who are accustomed to playing
> > under non-official rules are brought into conformance with the
> > official rules.
>
> AFAIK, in most games players are punished for repeatedly calling
> judges for the false reasons. But the judge shouldn't apply this to
> the newbies, of course.
For "false reasons", yes.
That wasn't part of the set-up, though, so I gave a more complete
answer.
> > If a player thinks there's a play that improves his position, then he
> > should make that play, of course, whether his position is "lost" or
> > not. Either he's wrong and loses nothing (it wouldn't matter what he
> > did), or he's right and he stands to gain something.
>
> > And there's nothing wrong with calling a judge, of course, unless it
> > violates some other rule (as above).
>
> There's nothing wrong with calling a judge? There surely is.
Not inherently, no. And the rest is covered above (hence, the "as
above" bit).
> If you call the police without a reason, you will pay a fine. What
> prevents from treating this situation in the same way?
Nothing. See above.
On 25 mai, 13:41, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > > > 2. Do I understand it right that in the final round of a tournament,
> > > > where players play solely for GW, a "lost position" is a position
> > > > where a player cannot reasonably get the GW?
>
> > > No, the PTW rule does not change in the final round. Players will be
> > > less likely to give up the GW and play for mere VP, but this does not
> > > change the definition of a lost position.
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8df...>
> The only words that can be applied for this situation are: "The PTW
> aspect is handled differently in the final round. In the finals, each
> player is assumed to be playing to win." So, I am right, and a player
> with no reasonable chances of getting GW can self-oust?
Sorry, I misread you. I thought you were talking about the last
qualifying round.
[ quoted text not captured ]
If Arika's has stealth and bleed to oust Enkidu's player, and tells
him "I will never bleed you if you don't rush me". Can Enkidu rush
forward in an attempt to play to win regardless of what a judge says?
Because at that point, Endiku is in no danger of being ousted.
Can this declaration protect Arika from an Enkidu rush? Say Arika
says this and then Enkidu back rushes. Can Arika say to a judge that
Enkidu is not PTW since he is not going forward?
Just curious how far PTW can force a player's decisions or how players
can use it to their advantage.
On May 25, 3:13 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If Arika's has stealth and bleed to oust Enkidu's player, and tells
> him "I will never bleed you if you don't rush me". Can Enkidu rush
> forward in an attempt to play to win regardless of what a judge says?
> Because at that point, Endiku is in no danger of being ousted.
Can a player do <X> "regardless of what a judge says"?
No. The (head) judge is the final authority at the tournament.
The Enkidu player still faces the danger of a broken deal, of course.
And there's the question of whether the deal is PTW at all for Arika's
controller (if it is not, then Arika's controller is obliged to break
it at the first opportunity where upholding it is contrary to PTW).
But yes, if the Enkidu player can rush forward with some reasonable
chance to get a VP, then rushing forward is not an example of being
unable to reasonably get a VP.
> Can this declaration protect Arika from an Enkidu rush? Say Arika
> says this and then Enkidu back rushes. Can Arika say to a judge that
> Enkidu is not PTW since he is not going forward?
No. The Enkidu player is never forced to trust that a deal will be
honored.
> Just curious how far PTW can force a player's decisions or how players
> can use it to their advantage.
A better plan is to oust a series of preys.
On May 25, 12:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 3:13 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If Arika's has stealth and bleed to oust Enkidu's player, and tells
> > him "I will never bleed you if you don't rush me". Can Enkidu rush
> > forward in an attempt to play to win regardless of what a judge says?
> > Because at that point, Endiku is in no danger of being ousted.
>
> Can a player do <X> "regardless of what a judge says"?
>
> No. The (head) judge is the final authority at the tournament.
Check. I suppose the real question would be; how would you, as a
judge, rule Enkidu's action to rush forward with that "deal" on the
table.
> The Enkidu player still faces the danger of a broken deal, of course.
Yes of course. I suspect Arika would definitely be breaking this
deal.
> And there's the question of whether the deal is PTW at all for Arika's
> controller (if it is not, then Arika's controller is obliged to break
> it at the first opportunity where upholding it is contrary to PTW).
Are all deals that say something along the lines of "I'll never go
forward" a violation of PTW? I would suspect so. What if they have
some sort of unreasonable time frame, say "18 turns of no forward
pressure", hell even "3 turns of no forward pressure".
> But yes, if the Enkidu player can rush forward with some reasonable
> chance to get a VP, then rushing forward is not an example of being
> unable to reasonably get a VP.
>
> > Can this declaration protect Arika from an Enkidu rush? Say Arika
> > says this and then Enkidu back rushes. Can Arika say to a judge that
> > Enkidu is not PTW since he is not going forward?
>
> No. The Enkidu player is never forced to trust that a deal will be
> honored.
>
> > Just curious how far PTW can force a player's decisions or how players
> > can use it to their advantage.
>
> A better plan is to oust a series of preys.
In this case, I suspect Arika would be better able to accomplish this
task out of torpor.
Thanks for the quick response.
Jeff Poole
Jeff Poole <Perr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 12:18�pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> And there's the question of whether the deal is PTW at all for Arika's
>> controller (if it is not, then Arika's controller is obliged to break
>> it at the first opportunity where upholding it is contrary to PTW).>
>Are all deals that say something along the lines of "I'll never go
>forward" a violation of PTW?
No.
a) A player could be lying - at which point, the lies are irrelevant
(like any other lies that don't misrepresent public knowledge).
b) A player may be in a position where he is reasonably unable to get
any VPs on a table (except possibly time-out, or maybe withdrawal). The
canonical example is two combat decks sitting next to each other that
would annihilate each other. That player might then reasonably make a
deal to help the other player get the game win, and then have the player
who has won roll over. (Deals are off at this point, but since the
winning player has won, he can do what he likes - including honouring
the deal.) So I may reasonably see going forward as a chance at zero
VPs, and not putting any pressure on you as a chance at 2VPs.
>I would suspect so. What if they have
>some sort of unreasonable time frame, say "18 turns of no forward
>pressure", hell even "3 turns of no forward pressure".
Assess the deal based on what's reasonable in the circumstances.
Is the player doing reasonably well out of the deal? Is the player
giving up a reasonable chance at getting a GW? Does anything else lead
you to believe that the player is doing something nefarious (e.g. you
have reason to suspect collusion)?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On May 25, 2:29 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 12:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 3:13 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If Arika's has stealth and bleed to oust Enkidu's player, and tells
> > > him "I will never bleed you if you don't rush me". Can Enkidu rush
> > > forward in an attempt to play to win regardless of what a judge says?
> > > Because at that point, Endiku is in no danger of being ousted.
>
> > Can a player do <X> "regardless of what a judge says"?
>
> > No. The (head) judge is the final authority at the tournament.
>
> Check. I suppose the real question would be; how would you, as a
> judge, rule Enkidu's action to rush forward with that "deal" on the
> table.
>
> > The Enkidu player still faces the danger of a broken deal, of course.
>
> Yes of course. I suspect Arika would definitely be breaking this
> deal.
Unless Arika's controller is planning on ousting with votes, of
course!
> > And there's the question of whether the deal is PTW at all for Arika's
> > controller (if it is not, then Arika's controller is obliged to break
> > it at the first opportunity where upholding it is contrary to PTW).
>
> Are all deals that say something along the lines of "I'll never go
> forward" a violation of PTW? I would suspect so. What if they have
> some sort of unreasonable time frame, say "18 turns of no forward
> pressure", hell even "3 turns of no forward pressure".
when the table is down to 2 players, you could say, "I'm not going
forwards, I'm actually bleeding backwards!"
the rules mandate that all alliances and deals expire at that point
anyway.
I don't think Judges need to be called every time someone proposes a
deal. if someone is colluding or not PTW, it would be apparent from
their actions, not their words.
Jeff Poole wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> Jeff Poole wrote:>>> If Arika's has stealth and bleed to oust Enkidu's player, and tells
>>> him "I will never bleed you if you don't rush me". Can Enkidu rush
>>> forward in an attempt to play to win regardless of what a judge
>>> says? Because at that point, Endiku is in no danger of being ousted.>>
>> Can a player do <X> "regardless of what a judge says"?
>>
>> No. The (head) judge is the final authority at the tournament.>
> Check. I suppose the real question would be; how would you,
> as a judge, rule Enkidu's action to rush forward with that "deal"
> on the table.
Jeff, are you seriously asking LSJ if a dealbreak can be stopped
by a judge's ruling??? :) lol
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
[ quoted text not captured ]> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/> Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Mainly asking if the judge would force Enkidu to rush backwards to
PTW.
The question is can a player accept a blatantly dishonest deal and
then just do whatever he thinks will get him more VPs, aka PTW?
Kevin, what would you as a judge say to a player who accepted that
deal. Would you DQ this player for not playing to win? This player
could argue that they have no fear of being ousted by Arika so they
should concentrate on going forward. How would you justify your
ruling, would you tell everyone why you judged that way or would just
make a judgment and then move on with the tournament?
Jeff Poole
Jeff Poole wrote:
> "Kevin M." wrote:>> Jeff Poole wrote:>>> LSJ wrote:>>>> Jeff Poole wrote:>>>>> If Arika has stealth and bleed to oust Enkidu's player, and>>>>> tells him "I will never bleed you if you don't rush me". Can
>>>>> Enkidu rush forward in an attempt to play to win regardless of
>>>>> what a judge says? Because at that point, Endiku is in no danger
>>>>> of being ousted.>>>>
>>>> Can a player do <X> "regardless of what a judge says"?
>>>>
>>>> No. The (head) judge is the final authority at the tournament.>>>
>>> Check. I suppose the real question would be; how would you,
>>> as a judge, rule Enkidu's action to rush forward with that "deal"
>>> on the table.>>
>> Jeff, are you seriously asking LSJ if a dealbreak can be stopped
>> by a judge's ruling??? :) lol>> Mainly asking if the judge would force Enkidu to rush backwards
> to PTW.
>
> The question is can a player accept a blatantly dishonest deal and
> then just do whatever he thinks will get him more VPs, aka PTW?
>
> Kevin, what would you as a judge say to a player who accepted that
> deal. Would you DQ this player for not playing to win? This player
> could argue that they have no fear of being ousted by Arika so they
> should concentrate on going forward. How would you justify your
> ruling, would you tell everyone why you judged that way or would just
> make a judgment and then move on with the tournament?
Firstly, I wouldn't be adjudicating the table. I'd let them play.
I can't imagine that any player at any tournament I've ever judged
would call me over for something like this. They have better things
to do. Like play.
Seriously, I just don't understand why any kind of ruling is necessary
here. What is happening that a judge needs to come over and rule on
anything?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/> Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Were I judging, I would be of the same state of mind as you Kevin. I
don't think judges should meddle unless called over by players.
This though, is a hypothetical discussion on what you WOULD do if you
were to have to make a call on the situation (aka players called you
over to judge if Enkidu's actions were indeed PTW). Don't deflect the
question. If you think whatever action Enkidu's takes is ok, then say
so. The situation, as stated several messages ago, is if Enkidu could
torpor Arika and stay in the game, but then Arika says "blah blah
don't rush me and I won't oust you" can then Enkidu rush his prey and
set the table up for Erika and not be violating PTW?
This thread is pretty stupid in general and doesn't have much to do
with 99% of games. I'm just interested to see how other judges would
rule in the situation so I can take their opinions into account when I
judge an event. Help me understand your PoV on the situation.
Jeff Poole
[ quoted text not captured ]
Start from the front: Bad play is not illegal.
1) If the player is playing with intention to earn the Game Win, play
on.
2) If he's playing with the intention to earn VPs, you need only make
a ruling on whether he's throwing away a reasonable chance at the Game
Win (or a greater number of VPs than he's currently playing for). Note
that risk assessment is okay, so if the player is choosing a very
certain shot at one VP over a very risky shot at two (which gives him
zero if he fails), he still meets the PTW criteria.
3) If he's not playing for any of the above, you need to ascertain
whether he's throwing away a reasonable chance at VPs and then return
to step 2.
The question can't be answered more definitively than that without
quite a bit more information.
-witness1
[ quoted text not captured ]> Were I judging, I would be of the same state of mind as you Kevin.
> I don't think judges should meddle unless called over by players.
>
> This though, is a hypothetical discussion on what you WOULD do if
> you were to have to make a call on the situation (aka players called
> you over to judge if Enkidu's actions were indeed PTW).
Since I don't believe that a judge can force a player to move his
game pieces in a particular way, I would only have to take the Enkidu
player away from the table for a moment to ask him what he was doing
to achieve Victory Points. I'd guess that he would tell me "My plan
is to blahblahblah..." and then I'd let him proceed.
As a judge, I can't tell him he's acting stupidly. All I can do is
to make sure that he is continuing to PTW. His method of PTW isn't
my issue.
I had something like this happen at a final table some years back,
and the player was a high-level pro who had made such a BAD deal
that the other three players at the table asked me to judge the PTW
of the deal. I took him aside and asked him wtf he was doing. His
answer? "I'm lying." We went back to the table and I allowed the
play to continue while verifying it was PTW. The three players were
perplexed but that was only because they had gotten too caught-up
to realize that "I'm lying" was one of that player's PTW options.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/> Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
That's a great way to handle it.
I feel like players should be able to make bad decisions/lie without a
judge needing to interfere.
Jeff Poole
LSJ wrote:
> On May 25, 7:41 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:>> LSJ wrote:>>>> If his position isn't completely lost, then that means there is one
> (or more) course of action that can reasonably lead to a VP. If
> rushing his prey's minion is one of those courses, then it is allowed.
> If it is not, then it is not.
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8df...>> The only words that can be applied for this situation are: "The PTW
>> aspect is handled differently in the final round. In the finals, each
>> player is assumed to be playing to win." So, I am right, and a player
>> with no reasonable chances of getting GW can self-oust?>
> In the final, yes: players in the final are assumed to be playing to
> win (assuming no other rules violation is involved).
>
>
Playing to win the tournament, correct? Not the game itself.
best -
chris
Ok,
Let me try to get into this debate...
Not PTW is a lot like porn, we all know it when we see it, yet we
would be hard pressed to give a single definition. We've all been at
a table where someone gets frustrated and just says "fuck it"
sometimes they know they are assholes, other times they don't really
see the "results of their actions" which is likely why they are in the
position they are in now.
I see the purpose of this ruling as "you no longer have the right to
wreck the game just because you are losing"
Does anyone REALLY have a problem with that? It is a game by game
consideration, made not by clear X then Y circumstances, it really
must be a judgement call, and the "judge" must weigh in their
"judgement".
It is ok to ask for guidance here, but hypothetical situations really
muddy the discussion, unless you think that the rule is a bad one. If
you think the rule is bad, do you think that players should able to
lose as they wish, aka throw the game?
Listening to each other, makes us all better, so please do.
David
Ann Arbor, MI