Withdrawing from the game.

I was just wondering how often people actually attempt to withdraw, and successfully manage to. Last night at the Cambridge Temple meeting, I was playing with my pizza delivery deck, and ran out of cards. My Prey and my predator were both gangrel combat decks, I had two Brujah out with 1 blood each, and 3 pool. In my untap phase I declared that I would attempt to withdraw from the game, and passed play to my prey. He left me alone and concentrated on his prey. His prey then concentrated on my predator, and took the only two actions he had to bleed my predator out. Thus passing play to me, and I successfully withdrew. (Gaining that all important 1 VP to ensure I came at least joint 2nd). However, this is the first time I have ever attempted to withdraw, and also successfully managed to. Is this common? If you attempt to withdraw, does it usually mean you will? Comments please. Andy Setite Ruler of Cambridge http://www.geocities.com/setitesuk -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

"Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3BDFB0CA...@sanger.ac.uk... > I was just wondering how often people actually attempt to withdraw, > and successfully manage to. > > Last night at the Cambridge Temple meeting, I was playing with my > pizza delivery deck, and ran out of cards. My Prey and my predator > were both gangrel combat decks, I had two Brujah out with 1 blood each, > and 3 pool. > > In my untap phase I declared that I would attempt to withdraw from the > game, and passed play to my prey. > > He left me alone and concentrated on his prey. > > His prey then concentrated on my predator, and took the only two actions > he had to bleed my predator out. Thus passing play to me, and I > successfully > withdrew. (Gaining that all important 1 VP to ensure I came at least > joint > 2nd). > > However, this is the first time I have ever attempted to withdraw, and > also successfully managed to. > > Is this common? If you attempt to withdraw, does it usually mean you > will? I think that it rarely happens unless you make some kind of deal with your predator and/or prey who will let you withdraw. This can happen if for example predator think you're too tough to oust but that they can handle your prey. It can also happen when the withdraw is mutual. This happened to me in the first round of Swedish Championships in August. I was playing a setite (of course!) corruption deck and had ousted all but my predator. I had Nerferiti up and 8 other minions, all 5 cap or lower plus a corrupter Courier. My pool was 30+ and still I suggested we both withdrew. Why? Because my predator was playing Toerdaor with Francois Villon and I had only a Mr Winthrop out to block with on Nepata (who had SER) and only one blood on her. Francois also had a Magnum .44 so I couldn't block him in the long run since I had almost ran out of Majesties. The major problem was however that he had Felicia Mostrom out with Atonement and a skillcard on her so she was a 6 cap! Now she could block all but Nefertiti without tapping and she had a Magnum too. So I had almost no way to get her. My only chance would be to try corrupt her with Nefertiti and use my Opium Den to eventuelly stealth by enough of times. He had quite a few intercept cards in the deck though (but I suspect he had run out of most). I had already 3 counters on her so it could have been possible, but risky. I had also only one single corruption card left (which was in my hand) and only one stealth card left in library, which would mean I'd have to not get blocked on that very last Corruption action or I could never take her over. He on the other hand had only 3 minions and couldn't bleed me for that much since I had 9 minions to block with and he had no stealth. Sure he had Magnums but almost no additional strikes and I could always hunt with my minions so they could take another hit after a block. My pool was extremely high and I had also Khobar Towers. Neferiti was on 5 blood or so after I had Khobar Towered her (she was a 11 cap too then having a fortitude skillcard on her) and brought out a new fresh Neferiti :) I could have done the maneuver again to hold out from Francois but it would only probably have prolonged the inevitable - that I'd eventuelly would have had all blood stolen of her and no new one to bring out after Khobar Towering. I had only 3 crypt cards left; 2 Nefertitis and an Aabbt. It was pretty much a stalemate so I suggested a withdraw. I still had librarycards left but if he agrees on a withdraw I can just discard down till I have no library left and then make the withdraw. A few more rounds later I suggested a withdraw agtain and he accepted. Thus I got 3 VP and he got 1. I think it was a good deal for both. I've only seen one successful withdraw without the others agreeing to the withdraw I think. But it was so long ago I don't really remember the details and I wasn't playing. Roger

>Is this common? If you attempt to withdraw, does it usually mean you >will? The only time I can remember someone I know successfully withdrawing was one time when my predator succeeded in doing so. It was a 5-player game and 2 Methusalehs had already been ousted (one by me, one by my current prey). My predator and prey were both playing combat decks. My predator eventually ran out of cards and my predator and prey each managed to beat each other's vampires in torpor. With no minions to bleed him with (and with me being unable to work through my prey fast enough, and no (D) actions in my hand), my predator managed to withdraw. (Leaving me to sweep up the mess!). Halcyan 2

Roger Carhult skrev i meddelandet <9rohsd$v1gi6$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de>... >I think that it rarely happens unless you make some kind of deal with your >predator and/or prey who will let you withdraw. This can happen if for >example predator think you're too tough to oust but that they can handle >your prey. It can also happen when the withdraw is mutual. This happened to >me in the first round of Swedish Championships in August. I was playing a >setite (of course!) corruption deck and had ousted all but my predator. I >had Nerferiti up and 8 other minions, all 5 cap or lower plus a corrupter >Courier. My pool was 30+ and still I suggested we both withdrew. Why? >Because my predator was playing Toerdaor with Francois Villon and I had only >a Mr Winthrop out to block with on Nepata (who had SER) and only one blood >on her. Francois also had a Magnum .44 so I couldn't block him in the long >run since I had almost ran out of Majesties. The major problem was however >that he had Felicia Mostrom out with Atonement and a skillcard on her so she >was a 6 cap! Now she could block all but Nefertiti without tapping and she >had a Magnum too. So I had almost no way to get her. My only chance would be >to try corrupt her with Nefertiti and use my Opium Den to eventuelly stealth >by enough of times. Yeah, or simply burn the Atonement with Nefertiti/opium den, and then bleed him 'til he bleed no more! :p

Andy Brown wrote: > However, this is the first time I have ever attempted to withdraw, and > also successfully managed to. > > Is this common? If you attempt to withdraw, does it usually mean you > will? Not common. Usually, you will not be able to withdraw without your predator's agreement and sometimes your prey's or other crosstable players' agreements as well. And usually, if you want to withdraw it's a situation where your predator would not want you to withdraw. It happens. If, for instance, you don't feel you can oust anyone else and will sooner or later be ousted yourself but your predator for some reason feels like he's better off with you out of the game quicker than he can oust you, then he might find a reason to agree. Also, in tournaments I've seen players negotiate mutual withdrawals where they all quickly draw and discard through their turns until they run out of cards and then announce their withdrawals. This will likely happen a lot less often when the table-win rules kick in. Also, it's been pointed out in this forum that the withdrawal rules don't always have to result in an actual withdrawal to affect a game. If a player can attempt to withdraw and for an opposing player to do something he'd rather not do (e.g. send a vulnerable vampire to bleed him) to prevent the withdrawal, that may change the outcome of the game. Fred

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in message news:9rp28c$v4siv$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] It wasn't just to "simply" burn the Atonement. Mind you that Setites have -1 stealth on bruining the card, so I'd need +3 stealth to even have the chance, I dind't have a stealth card in hand and only one left in library. Roger

> Is this common? If you attempt to withdraw, does it usually mean you > will? It's far from common, at least within the Seekonk group. Aside from players allowing a person to withdraw for whatever reason, I see few successful attempts to withdraw. One of the most common ways to pull it off is through passive, costless bleed defense cards like Telepathic Counter and Redirection. Even then, withdrawing from the Jyhad is, at best, a last-ditch attempt to save face. Grant Garvin The Prince of Seekonk, MA http://www.rustwurk.net/

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3BDFF265...@netcom.com... > Andy Brown wrote: > > However, this is the first time I have ever attempted to withdraw, and > > also successfully managed to. > > > > Is this common? If you attempt to withdraw, does it usually mean you > > will? > > Not common. Usually, you will not be able to withdraw without your > predator's agreement and sometimes your prey's or other crosstable > players' agreements as well. And usually, if you want to withdraw it's > a situation where your predator would not want you to withdraw. > > It happens. If, for instance, you don't feel you can oust anyone else > and will sooner or later be ousted yourself but your predator for some > reason feels like he's better off with you out of the game quicker than > he can oust you, then he might find a reason to agree. Also, in > tournaments I've seen players negotiate mutual withdrawals where they > all quickly draw and discard through their turns until they run out of > cards and then announce their withdrawals. This will likely happen a lot > less often when the table-win rules kick in. One instance this will still happen occasionally, is if a game's about to time out. Then all could withdraw to gain an rxtra 0,5 VP. Roger

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:05:30 +0000, Andy Brown <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote: >I was just wondering how often people actually attempt to withdraw, >and successfully manage to. In the National Championship, 2 of us withdrew at the same table in the first round so we would get 1 VP (and the last player got a VP as well) instead of all of us getting 0.5 as we had 5 minutes left. ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin saa...@yahoo.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:58:15 +0100, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > >One instance this will still happen occasionally, is if a game's about to >time out. Then all could withdraw to gain an rxtra 0,5 VP. > >Roger > You still need to get your library empty.

In message <k5k0ut08vc6v41hrr...@4ax.com>, J Bond <Bl...@home.com> writes: >On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:58:15 +0100, "Roger Carhult" ><rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >>One instance this will still happen occasionally, is if a game's about to >>time out. Then all could withdraw to gain an rxtra 0,5 VP. > >You still need to get your library empty. With a five minute warning, this is far from hard. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F If I had a dick, I'd go get laid. We can do the B457CA213D7E6 next best thing. Let's kill people. Oh, not *you*. 68C3695D623D5D

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:44:09 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >With a five minute warning, this is far from hard. With 1 discard per turn? Wouldnt this take the full collusion of the entire table?

In message <k6m0utoms4s0el7qu...@4ax.com>, J Bond [ quoted text not captured ] A group of people who decided to do it, in the 3 way situation given, could simply discard one card, every turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J Bond" <Bl...@home.com> wrote in message news:k6m0utoms4s0el7qu...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It would take the full cooperation of the entire table. Collusion has negative implications and infers that something illegal is taking place--which isn't the case. With 5 Minutes remaining in the game, if it's clear that no one else can be ousted in that time, players soon to receive .5 VP are all likely to cooperate and gain themselves a full VP. -Robert Robert Goudie rob...@vtesinla.org

[ quoted text not captured ] Collusion is what is going on in that case

Andy wrote: >>I was just wondering how often people actually attempt to withdraw, and successfully manage to.>> I'm sure plenty of folks *attempt* to withdraw, but you can really only succeed if your opponents let you. If you are ous of cards and in not such good shape, you lose nothing by saying at the start of each turn "I declare my intention to withdraw from the jyhad!", it just isn't going to happen unless your predator lets you. Sure, it is *possible* to withdraw because you have no cards left in your deck and a hand full of Telepathic Counters to reduce every bleed your predator throws at you, but in all likelyhood, you are going to lose a pool or a vampire is going to lose a blood, and it is going to fail. On the other hand, it can work if you can make a deal with your predator or prey to let you withdraw--the last (and probably only) time I sucessfully withdrew (with my Rush deck, none the less), I convinced my prey in a game that had gotten down to 3 players not to mess with me, I wouldn't mess with him, and he could concentrate on the third guy at the table. My predator's (his prey) last vampire got torporized by the Renegade Garou with a Meat Hook my prey was using, and I was left completely alone for a full turn. Thus, I sucessfully withdrew--I got my 1 VP and my prey got 4 for killing everyone else. Granted, I didn't have much to deal with, and my prey let me go mostly out of spite at the third guy at the table, but it worked out for all of us. Well, except the third guy. And in a game at Origins, an entire table sucessfully withdrew apparently--it was a long miserable game that no one was willing, and Tatu managed to convince everyone that the best course of action was for everyone to withdraw. So they all did. So if you can convince someone to let you withdraw, it works, otherwise you have mostly no hope. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

"J Bond" <Bl...@home.com> wrote in message news:vcq0utooj10cdlgja...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You are mistaken. The tournament rules even make mention of this tactic. Section 3.7 ...Declaring an intentional draw has the same results for competitors as playing to the time limit (so in general it would be better for the players to take advantage of the withdrawal rules if possible, see the V:TES rulebook for the rules on withdrawal). -Robert Robert Goudie rob...@vtesinla.org

J Bond wrote: >>Collusion is what is going on in that case>> No it isn't. Collusion is specifically an act of behaving in such a way that someone is gaining an unfair advantage due to people teaming up for out of game reasons (I want to get my pal in the finals; you said you'd give me 10 bucks if I help you kill some guy; we decided at the start of the tournament tomake sure that the guy from out of town never wins a game; whatever). A table deciding, in a given game, that they all are better off if they withdraw from the game, and they cooperating to accomplish this goal in no way falls under the rubric of "collusion". No one is acting on out of game considerations, no one is giving anyone an unfair advantage, no one is behaving in any way that is inappropriate to the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 22:12:17 GMT, "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Collusion is what is going on in that case > >You are mistaken. The tournament rules even make mention of this tactic. > >Section 3.7 >...Declaring an intentional draw has the same results for competitors as playing >to the time limit (so in general it would be better for the players to take >advantage of the withdrawal rules if possible, see the V:TES rulebook for the >rules on withdrawal). > Uhh no, im not, im not saying it is illegal, im saying it is collusion

On 31 Oct 2001 22:16:12 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >J Bond wrote: >>>Collusion is what is going on in that case>> > >No it isn't. Collusion is specifically an act of behaving in such a way that >someone is gaining an unfair advantage due to people teaming up for out of game >reasons (I want to get my pal in the finals; you said you'd give me 10 bucks if >I help you kill some guy; we decided at the start of the tournament tomake sure >that the guy from out of town never wins a game; whatever). > >A table deciding, in a given game, that they all are better off if they >withdraw from the game, and they cooperating to accomplish this goal in no way >falls under the rubric of "collusion". No one is acting on out of game >considerations, no one is giving anyone an unfair advantage, no one is behaving >in any way that is inappropriate to the game. > Collusion has nothing to do with out of game considerations. Collusion is not illegal. Agreeing to all withdraw is colluding.

J Bond wrote: >>Collusion has nothing to do with out of game considerations.>> Specifically in the context of this game, it does. In the context of competetive VTES, the term "collusion" specifically refers to that which I explained in the previous post--working together to provide a given player (or players) unfair advantage based on out of game considerations. The defenition of "collusion" that I can find (in a Mirriam-Webster dictionary) is: "a secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose". >>Collusion is not illegal.>> It specifically *is* in competetive VTES. Cooperation is not illegal. Making deals is not illegal. Collusion is. >>Agreeing to all withdraw is colluding.>> By the defenition set in this context, it is not. Everyone agreeing to withdraw from the game is cooperating and making a deal. You can argue semantics and defenitions all you would like, but in this particular context (competetive VTES), "collusion" specifically has to do with out of game considerations and is specifically illegal. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J Bond" <Bl...@home.com> wrote > On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:53:56 GMT, "Robert Goudie" > >"J Bond" <Bl...@home.com> wrote in message > > >> With 1 discard per turn? > >> Wouldnt this take the full collusion of the entire table? > > > >It would take the full cooperation of the entire table. Collusion has negative > >implications and infers that something illegal is taking place--which isn't the > >case. With 5 Minutes remaining in the game, if it's clear that no one else can > >be ousted in that time, players soon to receive .5 VP are all likely to > >cooperate and gain themselves a full VP. > > > > Collusion is what is going on in that case Sweet, another collusion thread. It is really unfortunate that collusion has been the term used to describe non-competitive or outcome-rigging agreements in Jyhad games, since that particular term requires more than just that. In the case of a table agreeing to all withdraw, of course all the players are making a deal where they cease playing the game to oust their respective preys and are attempting to rig the outcome of the game, but they are presumably doing it openly. Anyway, collusion requires secrecy, and there's just none to be had in this example. I'm not defending the practice, I'm really more criticizing the decision to base Jyhad rules violations on the standard of "Collusion to alter the results of a game." The problem with this standard bit Magic in the butt several years ago when a judge allowed a player to openly bribe his opponent into throwing a match (the judge was later suspended and the result voided under the "unsporstmanlike" rubrik). I doubt the players in the Jyhad example would be cited for unsportsmanlike conduct. I'm not even sure that they should be, since they are maximizing their victory points (though not their game-wins). - Jason Bell

"J Bond" <Bl...@home.com> wrote in message news:b5u0ut0sg2ro8ngm8...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Section 5.1 lists Collusion as a type of Cheating. -Robert Robert Goudie rob...@vtesinla.org

J Bond <Bl...@home.com> wrote in message news:<k5k0ut08vc6v41hrr...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Most tournaments, from what I'e heard, don't care too much about that rule, and save you the wear and tear on your cards... ~SV

On 31 Oct 2001 15:02:15 -0800, vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote: > >Most tournaments, from what I'e heard, don't care too much about that >rule, and save you the wear and tear on your cards... That wouldnt go in my tourneys, and any official ones at that.

"J Bond" <Bl...@home.com> wrote in message news:h711uto67m1h8j85s...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Mine either. As an aside, having the players go through the motions allows one of them the chance to break the deal as well. Letting players just pick up their cards robs them all of the opportunity. -Robert Robert Goudie rob...@vtesinla.org

>It is really unfortunate that collusion has been the >term used to describe non-competitive or >outcome-rigging agreements in Jyhad games, >since that particular term requires more than >just that. Easier to say than "undesirable cooperation" or "undesirable manipulation of the scoring system" or "throwing games". >In the case of a table agreeing to all withdraw, >of course all the players are making a deal where >they cease playing the game to oust their respective >preys and are attempting to rig the outcome of the >game, but they are presumably doing it openly. Presumably, but whether secret or open, the result is the same. >Anyway, collusion requires secrecy, and there's >just none to be had in this example. If people want to limit it to secret cooperation, I don't think there's much that can be done about it except come up with a different term for undesirable manipulation of the scoring system. But, the result is the same. The players are cooperating in a way that hurts players at other tables. More generally, there are ways of playing that unfairly benefit or penalize other players that are extremely difficult to defend against which aren't secret and don't require cooperation which will produce similar results as true collusion. With such a narrow definition of collusion, worrying about whether people are actually colluding or not doesn't seem worthwhile. Most discussions about undesirable play behavior become arguments over the definition of collusion rather than whether there's some way to deal with the behavior or even if there's some reason to deal with the behavior.

[ quoted text not captured ] DANGER, DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!! WE ARE IN DIRE PERIL OF SEMANTIC ARGUMENTATION!!! This is stupid. Yes, you can make a very good argument that everyone agreeing to withdraw amounts to, by dictionary definition, "collusion". Two players agreeing not to attach each other for a turn is also "collusion" by the same definition. So what? Three or four different people have pointed out to you that the most meaningful definition of "collusion" under *these* circumstances is not some dictionary definition but the tournament-rules-specific definition of the term. Is it so important to appear as if you're not being corrected that you have to talk past and around the obvious point everyone is making? If so, just get to the point - "I meant the dictionary definition of 'collusion', not what's written in your tournament rules." - and we can all move on. Fred

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:fH%D7.4966$S4.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Although I could understand why some judges would let the players not bother going through the motions of discarding their entire library I would probably make them do it for the reason you stated, it could be a clever ploy by someone to cycle through their cards until they get to their killer card and break the deal.

In message <b5u0ut0sg2ro8ngm8...@4ax.com>, J Bond <Bl...@home.com> writes: >Uhh no, im not, im not saying it is illegal, im saying it is collusion Collusion is illegal; this is not illegal, therefore it is not collusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 02:00:57 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>Uhh no, im not, im not saying it is illegal, im saying it is collusion > >Collusion is illegal; this is not illegal, therefore it is not >collusion. Collusion is not illegal. Something that the writers of the tournament rules have called collusion is. LARGE difference

[ quoted text not captured ] OK. You're all right. Collusion, when not used as per the definition used in this game, is not inherently illegal in this game. Let's move on. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Fred wrote: >>This is stupid. Yes, you can make a very good argument that everyone agreeing to withdraw amounts to, by dictionary definition, "collusion".>> Nah--I cut that one off at the pass. I posted said dictionary defenition, which is close enough to the VTES defenition of "collusion", such that even trying to fall on the dictionary defenition is pointless here :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

J Bond wrote: >>Collusion is not illegal.>> In this context it is. >>Something that the writers of the tournament rules have called collusion is.>> That is all that is important here. >>LARGE difference>> Again--in this particular context (competetive VTES), the term "collusion" means something very specific. The "real" defenition of collusion is unimportant, much like the real defenition of "pool". Given this context (competetive VTES), collusion is illegal, and collusion specifically deals with out of game considerations. And it is considered cheating. That is all that is important here. Arguing semantics gets you nowhere. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 01 Nov 2001 02:45:28 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >J Bond wrote: >>>Collusion is not illegal.>> > >In this context it is. > >>>Something that the writers of the tournament rules have called collusion >is.>> > >That is all that is important here. > >>>LARGE difference>> > >Again--in this particular context (competetive VTES), the term "collusion" >means something very specific. The "real" defenition of collusion is >unimportant, much like the real defenition of "pool". Given this context >(competetive VTES), collusion is illegal, and collusion specifically deals with >out of game considerations. And it is considered cheating. > >That is all that is important here. Arguing semantics gets you nowhere. > > And when i brought up collusion, i wasnt using the VEKN Tournament definition, i had no idea that one existed. I was using the accepted ENGLISH one. It is Collusion, it is Legal.

On 01 Nov 2001 02:45:28 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Again--in this particular context (competetive VTES), >the term "collusion" means something very specific. No it doesn't - that's the trouble. The tournament rules give some examples of what might be considered collusion but it's not an exhaustive definition. For example, the veteran players planning to go to the Milton Keynes tournament have been discussing the decks they should or would be playing. Are they cheating? Note that the word just means to co-lude or to play together, from the Latin word for game. Defining when co-operative behaviour is illegal or against the public interest is not easy or obvious - see the laws on insider trading or cartels. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 01 Nov 2001 02:45:28 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > >Again--in this particular context (competetive VTES), > >the term "collusion" means something very specific. > > No it doesn't - that's the trouble. The tournament rules give some > examples of what might be considered collusion but it's not an > exhaustive definition. For example, the veteran players planning to go > to the Milton Keynes tournament have been discussing the decks they > should or would be playing. Are they cheating? If they're negotiating with each other to gain advantage in the metagame somehow, perhaps they are in a technical sense. My experience with such things is that people are simply making conversation and drawing on each other's wisdom to decide which deck they want to play. > Note that the word just means to co-lude or to play together, from the > Latin word for game. Defining when co-operative behaviour is illegal or > against the public interest is not easy or obvious - see the laws on > insider trading or cartels. I don't think it's as nebulous as all that. Like a lot of things with the tournament game, it's easy to find kind of fuzzy/borderline situations in which a player is technically in the wrong but you wouldn't really want to slap him for it because it's unlikely to gain him much advantage and he probably wasn't doing the thing to gain significant advantage. For instance when a guy clumsily drops a cards out of his hand. Or I have this thing I sometimes do where I dramatically announce my WwEF and pull out and wave some master card at the acting vampire...."Oops!...I meant THIS card not that one!" I just reached for the wrong card. Was I showing my master card to the table on purpose? Of course not. Colluding between players seems pretty straightforward to me. It's just a question of when they're doing it deliberately to gain unfair tournament advantage for one or more of them. It's the out-of-game consideration rules that pertain to not playing for victory (e.g. agreeing to settle for 2 VPs when you still have a legitimate hope to gain 3 VPs or more) that seem hard to judge to me. Fred

On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:55:57 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: >> >> On 01 Nov 2001 02:45:28 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >> >> >Again--in this particular context (competetive VTES), >> >the term "collusion" means something very specific. >> >> No it doesn't - that's the trouble. The tournament rules give some >> examples of what might be considered collusion but it's not an >> exhaustive definition. I wrote an Article on Collusion in my most recent Toreador-Antitribu newsletter. Maybe it'll add some insight into this discussion : http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=65 In regards to discussing decks with fellow players, if it's not secret and done maliciously then it's not collusion. Openly talking with your playgroup about merits of certain decks shouldn't be discouraged. Planning to put Contracts in your deck (that has no Assamites) because your friend is bringing an Assamite Death deck should be discouraged. Oh, and that's my opinion. My name is unfortunately nowhere in the credits for any existing V:TES product. :-( ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin saa...@yahoo.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

J Bond wrote: >>And when i brought up collusion, i wasnt using the VEKN Tournament definition, i had no idea that one existed.>> If you don't have the basic information necessary to contribute to a particular discussion, why are you involving yourself in it? >>I was using the accepted ENGLISH one.>> The English defenition I have available, again: "A secret agreement or cooperation for a fradulent or deceitful purpose." Under the defenition provided (which is a standard, English defenition out of a standard, English dictionary), how is a group of players deciding amongst themselves that it is mutually beneficial to withdraw, and then doing so in any way, shape or form a secret agreement or cooperation (it isn't in secret--everyone at the table is privy to the same information) for a fradulent or deceitful purpose (being how withdrawing from the game is perfectly legal, non fradulent, nor deceitful)? Please explain. I'm not even using any implications brought in through this specific context (competetive VTES), just the "accepted ENGLISH" defenition of the word Collusion. >>It is Collusion,>> Not by any defenition I can come up with. Please provide another one to support your argument. >>it is Legal.>> If it is collusion, it is not legal, as collusion is illegal according to the VTES tournament rules, which are under discussion here. What is your point, exactly? Do you just like arguing semantics? [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>No it doesn't - that's the trouble. The tournament rules give some examples of what might be considered collusion but it's not an exhaustive definition. For example, the veteran players planning to go to the Milton Keynes tournament have been discussing the decks they should or would be playing. Are they cheating?>> Possibly--it depends on their intentions. I'm not saying that Collusion is easy to identify (it is like porn in that way...), but the instance in question (5 players deciding at the table to all withdraw) doesn't really fit under any defenition of colluison as I am are of it. The necessary parts of any collusive act are a secret agreement and ill gotten gains. >>Note that the word just means to co-lude or to play together, from the Latin word for game. Defining when co-operative behaviour is illegal or against the public interest is not easy or obvious - see the laws on insider trading or cartels.>> Again, secret agreement and ill gotten gains. These are the pretty comonly understood basic aspects of collusion in this context. Yes--very difficult to point to and say "that is collusion!", but the basic concept is pretty well defined. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 01 Nov 2001 21:29:17 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >J Bond wrote: >>>And when i brought up collusion, i wasnt using the VEKN Tournament >definition, i had no idea that one existed.>> > >If you don't have the basic information necessary to contribute to a particular >discussion, why are you involving yourself in it? You should go read the thread again. There was nothing alluding to a super secret definition only used by VEKN tournaments. It is collusion. Period.

J Bond wrote: >>You should go read the thread again. There was nothing alluding to a super secret definition only used by VEKN tournaments.>> Please go re-read my previous post (you know, the one you just responded to). Using a plain, brown, non VTES related at all defenition of collusion, I have refuted your point. Even under a standard english defenition of collusion, I fail to see how the situation in question can be called collusion. There is nothing secretive about it, nor is there any attempt to do anything deceitful or fradulent. At all. What defenition of collusion are you looking at? >>It is collusion. Period.>> Hey now! Don't go and throw "Period" out there! Them's fighting words! ... How is it collsuion? By what defenition of collusion is it collusion? Please explain. Collusion involves secret agreement and deceit. The situation in question contains neither a secret agreement (as it is made openly amongst all the players involved) nor deceit involved (no one is doing anything illegal, against the rules, or even slightly underhanded). You have any better response than "Period."? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >J Bond wrote: > >>>And when i brought up collusion, i wasnt using the VEKN Tournament > >definition, i had no idea that one existed.>> > > > >If you don't have the basic information necessary to contribute to a particular > >discussion, why are you involving yourself in it? > > > You should go read the thread again. There was nothing alluding to a > super secret definition only used by VEKN tournaments. > > It is collusion. Period. Not that I don't think this hasn't been enough discussed or that I want to get involved in all this, but you don't seem to have ANY arguments left at all. If you can't come up with anything better than to say "It is collusion. Period." as an answer to a good and viable question then you would be better off keeping you mouth shut. As Peter proved [1] collusion by the dictionary's definition requires secrecy which was never a case in the example given. Now answer why it is still collusion or just plain admit you were wrong don't answer at and and we can all assume you don't because you realised you were wrong. Roger [1] as long as you don't counter it with a similar source I consider it proved.

On 01 Nov 2001 21:33:39 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Again, secret agreement and ill gotten gains. These are the pretty comonly >understood basic aspects of collusion in this context. "Ill-gotten" is circular reasoning - it's wrong because it's wrong. And secrecy is not a necessary ingredient - players might decide to co-operate in a game because they are from the same country/city or because they are relatives or because one offers another a bribe. If such an out-of-game consideration is public knowledge, that doesn't make it right. The problem with a joint agreement to withdraw is not that it's collusion. It's that it subverts the intent of the scoring system. If the time limit is approaching and it's clear that the remaining players are only going to score another 0.5 VP then why wouldn't they _always_ agree to a joint withdrawal and so gain an extra 0.5 VP? Why do surviving players only get 0.5 VP rather than 1 VP when time runs out? It's presumably an incentive to play quickly and aggressively. If players routinely agree a joint withdrawal to avoid this penalty, then the incentive will cease to work as intended. It's not obvious how you can stop this though. Maybe surviving players _should_ get 1 VP as standard so that they don't have go through the motions of a fake withdrawal and can just keep playing the game properly until time is up. It doesn't help that the VEKN tournament rules require judges to announce time-limits and tell players when 5 minutes is left. This obviously encourages end-of-time tactics such stalling and agreements to withdraw. I try to use fuzzy time limits when I run a CCG tournament to discourage clock-watching. Last Saturday, we had a 5-player final which was going slowly - too much caution and hanging back. I warned the players at 19:50 that I was going to call time at some point before 21:00 - the game might have gone on all night otherwise. I made a mental note that I would call time at 20:30 - I usually set an alarm clock but had forgot to bring it on this occasion. I duly called time and this caught out one player who had been expecting longer. It served him right as he had been one of the cautious ones - he could have won the tie-break if he'd been more prepared to stick his neck out. Next time, I trust that he will be bolder and the game will be more fun for everyone in consequence. Andrew

> The problem with a joint agreement to withdraw is not that it's > collusion. It's that it subverts the intent of the scoring system. If > the time limit is approaching and it's clear that the remaining players > are only going to score another 0.5 VP then why wouldn't they _always_ > agree to a joint withdrawal and so gain an extra 0.5 VP? The problem here is as I've argued before. Far too many people take upholding deals as law. This is further exacerbated by judges that foolishly allow players to just quit out, rather than "go through the motions." Actual physical discarding is what allows someone to draw into the perfect hand and break the deal, and go for the oust, and get 1.5 VPs instead of 1. A far more important critique of the scoring system was seen in practice at the Invitational: Getting 2-2 on a 4 player table means no one gets a game win, but 3-2 on a 5 player table does. In theory, you need 3VPs in any case, and 2-1-1 seems more likely that 2-1-1-1, and 2-2-1 hoses the 5 player table. While it's not clear cut that one type of table is easier to get a Game Win on, it IS clear that the two certainly aren't parallel. It's a discrepancy people have ignored in the past, but the "winner take all" Game Win scoring means it's going to have to be examined more closely. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Pat Ricochet wrote: > A far more important critique of the scoring system was seen in practice > at the Invitational: Getting 2-2 on a 4 player table means no one gets a > game win, but 3-2 on a 5 player table does. In theory, you need 3VPs in any > case, and 2-1-1 seems more likely that 2-1-1-1, and 2-2-1 hoses the 5 player > table. While it's not clear cut that one type of table is easier to get a > Game Win on, it IS clear that the two certainly aren't parallel. Point 1: 3 VPs wins in both cases. Getting 2VP in the 2-2 4 player game gets you just as many game wins as getting 2VP in the 3-2 5 player game. Point 2: 2-1-1 is no more likely, IMO, than 2-1-1-1. Point 3: 2-2-1 hoses the 5 player table in exactly the same way that 2-2 hoses the 4 player table. Point 3: It is easier to win a 4-player table (25% chance assuming no tie and equally matched opponents) than a 5-player table (20%). The increased chance of ties in the 4-player case serves as a counterbalance to this discrepancy. > It's a discrepancy people have ignored in the past, but the "winner take > all" Game Win scoring means it's going to have to be examined more closely. Heh. The discrepancy was not ignored in the past - the optimal seating charts are an indication of this. This "game win" criteria seems much more parallel between the 4 and 5 player cases than the "total VPs" criteria, which is much more slanted toward the 5 player case. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > A far more important critique of the scoring system was seen in practice > at the Invitational: Getting 2-2 on a 4 player table means no one gets a > game win, but 3-2 on a 5 player table does. In theory, you need 3VPs in any > case, and 2-1-1 seems more likely that 2-1-1-1, and 2-2-1 hoses the 5 player > table. While it's not clear cut that one type of table is easier to get a > Game Win on, it IS clear that the two certainly aren't parallel. I think I'll want to play it myself to see if this is truly a problem. I sort of doubt it'll make that much difference it would certainly be good for VEKN to keep track of this sort of thing just to see if over time one's better or the other. One advantage to the 4-player table you may be ignoring: the game win counts just as much despite the fact that there are only four players competing for it. This is not true of victory points, for which a 5-player table distributes one more of than a 4-player table. So it's not just a matter of counting how many times a 4-player vs. a 5-player table produces no game win. It has to be counted by looking at how often an *individual player* at a 4-player table scores a game win vs. a player at a 5-player table. We may even find that the guy at the 4-player table has the distinct advantage. Fred

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 11:24:38 +0100, Roger Carhult wrote: >As Peter proved [1] collusion by the dictionary's definition requires >secrecy which was never a case in the example given. Now answer why it is >still collusion or just plain admit you were wrong don't answer at and and >we can all assume you don't because you realised you were wrong. My dictionary gives several usages for the word but I'm not going to type them all out as they prove little. Allow me to straighten you guys out. In the context of the VEKN rules, the word "collusion" is only used to indicate a misrepresentation of the result of a game by the players. Secrecy only comes into it to the extent that the players would obviously keep the actual result of the game secret. In the case in question, collusion would arise if the parties to an agreed simultaneous withdrawal didn't actual play it out properly but just pretended that they did. I can easily see this arising in practise as it would be silly for everyone to go round the table just discarding and drawing from their deck. Even if they went through the motions, if they weren't actaully playing the game properly then I would consider this fraudulent collusion. Clearly what they are really doing is agreeing an intentional draw and this is scored differently. They would be misrepresenting the intentional draw as a genuine result so that they can improve their score and this is cheating. Note also that the rules also state "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook". The rulebook says "Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methusalehs." Conniving to allow rival Methusalehs to freely withdraw is making a mockery of this goal. Tsk. If intentional draws are allowed then they should be scored the same as withdrawals and then this nonsense won't arise. If, on the other hand, you expect players to always play competitively, then you should take it seriously and not tolerate play-acting. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > In the context of the VEKN rules, the word "collusion" is only used to > indicate a misrepresentation of the result of a game by the players. Incorrect. It is used to indicate an illegal agreement to attempt change the (future) result of a game. > Secrecy only comes into it to the extent that the players would > obviously keep the actual result of the game secret. In the case in > question, collusion would arise if the parties to an agreed simultaneous > withdrawal didn't actual play it out properly but just pretended that > they did. No. That would be misrepresentation, not collusion. > I can easily see this arising in practise as it would be > silly for everyone to go round the table just discarding and drawing > from their deck. Even if they went through the motions, if they weren't > actaully playing the game properly then I would consider this fraudulent > collusion. Going though the motions *is* playing the game properly. That's the whole point of going through the motions. > Clearly what they are really doing is agreeing an > intentional draw and this is scored differently. They would be > misrepresenting the intentional draw as a genuine result so that they > can improve their score and this is cheating. "Clearly" what they are doing is maximizing their VPs. > Note also that the rules also state "Players must not play toward goals > that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES > rulebook". The rulebook says "Your goal is to destroy the influence > held by rival Methusalehs." Conniving to allow rival Methusalehs to > freely withdraw is making a mockery of this goal. Tsk. Intentionally misattributing the rules, Andrew? Tsk. "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." [VEKN 5.2] Note also that next year's V:EKN rules aren't quite as explicit, using the same text you misattributed to the current rules above, but that the rulebook's goal is also presented as "The winner is the player with the most victory points at the end of the game". The "your goal is to win" part is assumed (by the rules and by most reasonable players). Allowing rival Methuselahs to withdraw when doing so increases the number of VPs you will get is following that rule, not making a mockery of it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> One advantage to the 4-player table you may be ignoring: the game win counts > just > as much despite the fact that there are only four players competing for it. Not ignoring, just not stating it. I agree that it's not clear *which* kind of table is "better" than the other, it's just that I think it will turn out that one of them *is* better, and that could turn into a problem. The best way is to try it and see, of course. There are so many factors and possible outcomes of the order of ousting and table dynamics that it's nearly impossible to tell how it'll turn out. But that doesn't keep me from wanting to try. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Point 1: 3 VPs wins in both cases. Getting 2VP in the 2-2 4 player game > gets you just as many game wins as getting 2VP in the 3-2 5 player game. But getting 2 VPs (say, the first 2 VPs) at at 4 player table insures that no one besides you will get the Game Win. Not so at the 5 player table. > Point 2: 2-1-1 is no more likely, IMO, than 2-1-1-1. But you have to agree it's not so clear cut, resorting to "IMO." It's one of a number of factors all of which contribute to the question: "Is it easier to get a Game Win on one size table versus another?" > Point 3: 2-2-1 hoses the 5 player table in exactly the same way that 2-2 > hoses the 4 player table. "Hoses?" Interesting choice of words. More on that below. > Point 3[sic]: It is easier to win a 4-player table (25% chance assuming no tie > and equally matched opponents) than a 5-player table (20%). The increased > chance of ties in the 4-player case serves as a counterbalance to this > discrepancy. Or, before Game Wins, the argument was that there was a possible 5VPs at a 5 player table, and 4VPs at a 4 player table, but it was easier to get "all 4" than "all 5," to balance it out. (3 ousts nets 4 VPs, but it takes 4 ousts, before anyone else does, to net 5) But that's been a "sounds pretty good" assertion, not necessarily the truth. >> It's a discrepancy people have ignored in the past, but the "winner take >> all" Game Win scoring means it's going to have to be examined more closely. > > Heh. The discrepancy was not ignored in the past - the optimal seating > charts are an indication of this. My apologies. "Ignored" by the players moreso than the organizers; when newer players asked about any inequality, the experience players give the party line above about 4vs5 player tables. The optimal seating charts do their best to give every player an equal amount of 4 player and 5 player tables to play at, but obviously some players ended up with more "possible" VPs. It seems that the table point system is designed to balance this somewhat, but it's used as a tie-breaker behind VPs, not as the primary metric. > This "game win" criteria seems much more parallel between the 4 and 5 > player cases than the "total VPs" criteria, which is much more slanted > toward the 5 player case. I can't argue that it "seems" that way to you, but I will argue it's less clear cut. However, the winner-take-all nature of Game Wins magnifies any such discrepancies. If it's easier to get a Game Win on one type of table over another, that translates to a huge jump in the rankings by an entire Game Win. ("Huge jump" since no one can get more than 3 Game Wins in a 3-round tournament, say) I don't have an assertion of whether 4 player or 5 player tables are easier to get the Game Win from. There are lots of factors, and it's not clear cut to me which is "better." But, if one is better than the other, it's possible to translate to a true discrepancy of opportunity to get into the finals. Another issue is "hosing" a Game Win. If the goal is to get the most victory points, but that requires 2VPs (no 1 oust and going to the time limit), accepting a tie (2-2 at a 4 player table) is now "illegal?" How about making sure that no one else gets a Game Win? If my goal is to get the most VPs, what happens if one player gets 2 VPs early on, and I don't think I can get the other 3? Am I allowed to make deal (with the other guy with 0VP still in the game) that keeps the currently-winning player from getting 3VPs? I think that kind of "hosing" is more likely to happen on a 5 player table. If a player ousts 2 people, it's down to me and her, and there's no dealing there. I think it's hard to predict, but I hope it doesn't become a game of King of the Mountain, where the person in the lead is consistently targeted, since second place means MUCH less than it did before; it is of utmost importance that no one get 2+ untied VPs unless it's you. Sideline: People asked in a thread long ago what was the most important VP? I think the new system will make it the second one, without a doubt. That will totally set the stage for who can and can't get the Game Win, and will set in the alliances of who will try to help who. The third one will determine the outcome of the game, but the second one will essentially determine by itself who's going to get that third one. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Point 1: 3 VPs wins in both cases. Getting 2VP in the 2-2 4 player game > > gets you just as many game wins as getting 2VP in the 3-2 5 player game. > > But getting 2 VPs (say, the first 2 VPs) at at 4 player table insures > that no one besides you will get the Game Win. Not so at the 5 player > table. True, but not very relevant, IMO. I don't play to keep others from winning. I play to win. I suspect most other players are the same. > > Point 2: 2-1-1 is no more likely, IMO, than 2-1-1-1. > > But you have to agree it's not so clear cut, resorting to "IMO." It's > one of a number of factors all of which contribute to the question: "Is it > easier to get a Game Win on one size table versus another?" Right. You have an opinion "seems more likely"; I have an opinion "IMO". Our opinions differ, and we both marked them as opinions, since we both agree that we have no concrete basis for our statements. > > Point 3: 2-2-1 hoses the 5 player table in exactly the same way that 2-2 > > hoses the 4 player table. > > "Hoses?" Interesting choice of words. More on that below. It was your choice of words. I merely followed your example when making the parallel. [ quoted text not captured ] If the supposition is true, as you say, then that's right. > I don't have an assertion of whether 4 player or 5 player tables are > easier to get the Game Win from. There are lots of factors, and it's not > clear cut to me which is "better." But, if one is better than the other, > it's possible to translate to a true discrepancy of opportunity to get into > the finals. Right. > Another issue is "hosing" a Game Win. If the goal is to get the most > victory points, but that requires 2VPs (no 1 oust and going to the time > limit), accepting a tie (2-2 at a 4 player table) is now "illegal?" How Not if you can't do any better, as always. > about making sure that no one else gets a Game Win? If my goal is to get > the most VPs, what happens if one player gets 2 VPs early on, and I don't > think I can get the other 3? Am I allowed to make deal (with the other guy > with 0VP still in the game) that keeps the currently-winning player from > getting 3VPs? You can make any in-game-based deal that doesn't hurt your ability to gain wins/VPs. > I think that kind of "hosing" is more likely to happen on a 5 player > table. If a player ousts 2 people, it's down to me and her, and there's no > dealing there. I think it's hard to predict, but I hope it doesn't become a > game of King of the Mountain, where the person in the lead is consistently > targeted, since second place means MUCH less than it did before; it is of > utmost importance that no one get 2+ untied VPs unless it's you. That's how it should be - you can't win if someone else does. > Sideline: People asked in a thread long ago what was the most important > VP? I think the new system will make it the second one, without a doubt. > That will totally set the stage for who can and can't get the Game Win, and > will set in the alliances of who will try to help who. The third one will > determine the outcome of the game, but the second one will essentially > determine by itself who's going to get that third one. Umm. OK. I don't rank the VPs myself. They're all good. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > Sideline: People asked in a thread long ago what was the most important > VP? I think the new system will make it the second one, without a doubt. > That will totally set the stage for who can and can't get the Game Win, and > will set in the alliances of who will try to help who. The third one will > determine the outcome of the game, but the second one will essentially > determine by itself who's going to get that third one. If there is a "most important victory point", the second one - to me - is/has always been the most important one. This is where your performance steps up from the random oust of a possibly weak or unlucky player to the verge of establishing true dominance in the game. I feel strongly that it's insane to give players any significant bennie for going through a game and not getting at least two victory points. Therefore, I like the way the rules have been laid out. (While I totally agree that we have yet to see how they work in practice in both large and small tournaments. If some glitch comes up I may change my mind mighty fast.) On the other hand, the first victory point is also extremely important. It's that first point that comes of what is usually the longest phase of the game: everybody being on fairly equal terms jockeying around to manage the first oust while not getting ousted in the process. Like two high school or college wrestlers both in the 'up' position trying to take each other down and grab the first advantage position. It's just that the object of the game has to be more than simply winning this part. It's good - but you haven't won anything in terms of the entire game yet. Fred

>> about making sure that no one else gets a Game Win? If my goal is to get >> the most VPs, what happens if one player gets 2 VPs early on, and I don't >> think I can get the other 3? Am I allowed to make deal (with the other guy >> with 0VP still in the game) that keeps the currently-winning player from >> getting 3VPs? > > You can make any in-game-based deal that doesn't hurt your ability to gain > wins/VPs. Well, but which is it? Wins or VPs? What if it looks like I can get 1 VP, but in doing so, give the Game Win to someone else? I might well be maximizing my VPs, as my stated goal, but the scoring system is in a sense penalizing me by giving someone else a Game Win that I could (possibly) keep them from getting. I guess the issue is the non-parallel between the game-stated goal and and the Game Win system. In those instances (albeit possibly rare) where you must choose between maximizing your VPs (but not Game Wins) and making sure that no one else gets the Game Win, (if it looks like you certainly can't get it yourself) it seems the rules demand the former, but the scoring system is rewarding the latter. >> I think that kind of "hosing" is more likely to happen on a 5 player >> table. If a player ousts 2 people, it's down to me and her, and there's no >> dealing there. I think it's hard to predict, but I hope it doesn't become a >> game of King of the Mountain, where the person in the lead is consistently >> targeted, since second place means MUCH less than it did before; it is of >> utmost importance that no one get 2+ untied VPs unless it's you. > > That's how it should be - you can't win if someone else does. > >> Sideline: People asked in a thread long ago what was the most important >> VP? [snip] > Umm. OK. I don't rank the VPs myself. They're all good. That wasn't really directed at you, sorry. Just one of those interesting, but very abstract, generalized VP-strategy threads from a while ago. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > >> about making sure that no one else gets a Game Win? If my goal is to get > >> the most VPs, what happens if one player gets 2 VPs early on, and I don't > >> think I can get the other 3? Am I allowed to make deal (with the other guy > >> with 0VP still in the game) that keeps the currently-winning player from > >> getting 3VPs? > > > > You can make any in-game-based deal that doesn't hurt your ability to gain > > wins/VPs. > > Well, but which is it? Wins or VPs? What if it looks like I can get 1 Wins, and, if you can't win, VPs. > VP, but in doing so, give the Game Win to someone else? I might well be If you can win some other way, then you must be able to get your 1VP some other way *and* get the game win, so the goal is still "wins/VPs". If you can't win any way, then moot. This isn't that difficult. > maximizing my VPs, as my stated goal, but the scoring system is in a sense > penalizing me by giving someone else a Game Win that I could (possibly) keep > them from getting. The goal is to win. If you can't win, then goal is to acquire as many VPs as you can. This is a trivial concept, and is reinforced by the new VEKN rules. > I guess the issue is the non-parallel between the game-stated goal and > and the Game Win system. In those instances (albeit possibly rare) where It is parallel. The game-stated goal is to win. The Game Win system supports this (unlike the current system which looks at VPs instead of Game Wins). > you must choose between maximizing your VPs (but not Game Wins) and making > sure that no one else gets the Game Win, (if it looks like you certainly > can't get it yourself) it seems the rules demand the former, but the scoring > system is rewarding the latter. The rules state you play to win. The scoring system rewards winning. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BE6D23D...@white-wolf.com>... > Pat Ricochet wrote: [what if I can get 1] > > VP, but in doing so, give the Game Win to someone else? I might well be > > If you can win some other way, then you must be able to get your 1VP some > other way *and* get the game win, so the goal is still "wins/VPs". > If you can't win any way, then moot. > This isn't that difficult. I'm not sure if by "moot" you mean "if you can't win, you can do whatever you want" or not. What you wrote just below seems to indicate "if you can't win, then you must try to get as many VPs as you can" (ie play for second (or third or fourth) place). (The rulebook, of course, doesn't say that having the second-most VPs is in any way desirable; it is derived from out-of-game knowledge of how games work. :-) As Pat said, it could be desirable in a tournament to, from a position where you can't win the game you're in, try to keep anyone else from winning it either. It's at least hypothetically possible that this could interfere with you getting a VP that you might otherwise be able to. In a four-player game, for example, someone gets one VP and looks like they'll be able to get another. You can't get two VPs yourself, but you could help someone else get them, preventing the first two-VP player from getting the game win. Hmm... this turns out to be kind of a long shot I think. If your prey gets one VP and seems liable to get another, you could "give" your own VP to your predator, but that would result in a 3/1 split unless the game goes to time. If your grandprey/grandpredator gets one VP, the only way the game's getting tied is if she ousts you as well but your prey is the last one standing. If your predator gets one VP, your input is pretty irrelevant. :-) And before anyone's got a VP, it seems a bit early to be talking about lost causes. In a five-player game, the 2/2/1 no-game-win split may be more feasible, but I can't come up with any good way to create it that has both (a) you being one of the last three players in the game (ie two VPs are taken already) and (b) you not getting the most VPs you can. (Suppose you're player A and sitting ABCDE. If D gets one and then C gets one, you could give C a second one (yours) if you really believe that B will get the last two, but the payoff seems pretty remote.) > > maximizing my VPs, as my stated goal, but the scoring system is in a sense > > penalizing me by giving someone else a Game Win that I could (possibly) keep > > them from getting. > > The goal is to win. > If you can't win, then goal is to acquire as many VPs as you can. > This is a trivial concept, and is reinforced by the new VEKN rules. (this is the "below" I was referring to.) Josh

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BE6D23D...@white-wolf.com>... > > Pat Ricochet wrote: > [what if I can get 1] > > > VP, but in doing so, give the Game Win to someone else? I might well be > > > > If you can win some other way, then you must be able to get your 1VP some > > other way *and* get the game win, so the goal is still "wins/VPs". > > If you can't win any way, then moot. > > This isn't that difficult. > > I'm not sure if by "moot" you mean "if you can't win, you can do > whatever you want" or not. What you wrote just below seems to > indicate "if you can't win, then you must try to get as many VPs > as you can" (ie play for second (or third or fourth) place). Right. "moot" in the context as given by Pat. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > As Pat said, it could be desirable in a tournament to, from a > position where you can't win the game you're in, try to keep > anyone else from winning it either. It's at least hypothetically > possible that this could interfere with you getting a VP that you > might otherwise be able to. In what sense would this be desirable? Keep in mind that you're supposed to be acting from "in-game considerations". So the same rule that states you're not supposed to attack a rival for the last finals position from the word, "go", in the last prelim round also logically implies you're not supposed to play merely to prevent someone from gaining a game win when you it causes you to sacrifice a VP in the process. (Not that any of this is likely to be very enforceable in practice.) Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BE80608...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] It would be desirable in the sense of increasing your chances of qualifying for the finals. No, that's not an in-game consideration, but it is allowable as long as it doesn't "conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook". (The VEKN tournament rules prohibit attacking players based on their tournament standing, not based on keeping them from winning *this game*, which is, more or less, an in-game consideration.) However, unless I'm missing some good potential situations, it seems to me that it would never actually be very useful to do this; getting any good game-win-denying result seems to require that you yourself get some VPs. Josh

> However, unless I'm missing some good potential situations, it > seems to me that it would never actually be very useful to do this; > getting any good game-win-denying result seems to require that you > yourself get some VPs. I ran into the same problem; there are several paragraphs I started with "But what if...!" and then got halfway through the paragraph and realized there wasn't any situation I could come up with where I could actually screw someone from winning without a) giving someone ELSE the win or b) winning myself. There may be such a situation, but I didn't want to spend too much time on it, so I just left it theoretical. But, it may well be that the answer turns out to be the empty set, which would solve the problem on it's own. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote in message > However, unless I'm missing some good potential situations, it > seems to me that it would never actually be very useful to do this; > getting any good game-win-denying result seems to require that you > yourself get some VPs. > The one exception I can come up with involves another topic that was discussed recently, namely mutual withdrawals. If only one player at a table has gotten a VP during the course of the game, a mutual withdrawal agreement would give that player the Game Win. If you refuse the agreement, you sacrifice a half-VP of your own. Would this be legitimate? Marc G.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BE80608...@netcom.com>... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > As Pat said, it could be desirable in a tournament to, from a > > > position where you can't win the game you're in, try to keep > > > anyone else from winning it either. It's at least hypothetically > > > possible that this could interfere with you getting a VP that you > > > might otherwise be able to. > > > > In what sense would this be desirable? Keep in mind that you're > > supposed to be acting from "in-game considerations". So the same > > rule that states you're not supposed to attack a rival for the last > > finals position from the word, "go", in the last prelim round also > > logically implies you're not supposed to play merely to prevent > > someone from gaining a game win when you it causes you to sacrifice > > a VP in the process. (Not that any of this is likely to be very > > enforceable in practice.) > > It would be desirable in the sense of increasing your chances of > qualifying for the finals. No, that's not an in-game consideration, > but it is allowable as long as it doesn't "conflict with the goal > of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook". I cannot possibly see how this argument works, assuming I'm correct that it's not legal to attack a player's position (as I said, from the onset of the game) just because he's your rival for a spot in the finals. It's the exact same thing: sacrificing your game finish in order to play for the best tournament preliminaries finish. > (The VEKN tournament > rules prohibit attacking players based on their tournament standing, > not based on keeping them from winning *this game*, which is, more > or less, an in-game consideration.) I strongly disagree. The "Game Wins" stat is merely a method for determining tournament placement. The objective of the game itself is to get as many victory points as possible. Arguing that within the context of the game, "It's better not to allow one player to get three victory points than to get my first victory point" (or that it's better to arrange a tie), as an "in-game" consideration makes no sense. Getting a victory point is always better than getting none. > However, unless I'm missing some good potential situations, it > seems to me that it would never actually be very useful to do this; > getting any good game-win-denying result seems to require that you > yourself get some VPs. Possibly true. If nothing else, it may be relevant to resolve just so people don't get any bright ideas. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you're in the clear, there. To suggest that you *must* agree to a mutual withdrawal in order to play for your best finish would require a judge to rule for you that you have no legitimate hope of winning the game when you want to claim you do. I sure no judge will ever be willing to go *there*! Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BE87647...@netcom.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > It would be desirable in the sense of increasing your chances of > > qualifying for the finals. No, that's not an in-game consideration, > > but it is allowable as long as it doesn't "conflict with the goal > > of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook". > > I cannot possibly see how this argument works, assuming I'm correct that > it's not legal to attack a player's position (as I said, from the onset > of the game) just because he's your rival for a spot in the finals. It's > the exact same thing: sacrificing your game finish in order to play for > the best tournament preliminaries finish. As long as you're still playing to do the best you can in the current game, you can try to keep other people from winning this game. That's good for you in the game as well as in the tournament as a whole. Attacking somebody *just because* he's doing well so far is clearly prohibited, and probably won't really help you anyway. > > (The VEKN tournament > > rules prohibit attacking players based on their tournament standing, > > not based on keeping them from winning *this game*, which is, more > > or less, an in-game consideration.) > > I strongly disagree. The "Game Wins" stat is merely a method for > determining tournament placement. The objective of the game itself > is to get as many victory points as possible. Arguing that within the > context of the game, "It's better not to allow one player to get three > victory points than to get my first victory point" (or that it's better > to arrange a tie), as an "in-game" consideration makes no sense. > Getting a victory point is always better than getting none. You can't win the game if somebody else gets 3 VPs. If you're always shooting for getting all 5 VPs, you may feel the need to put more effort into keeping someone else from getting to 3 than getting your first 1. That's legitimate in my eyes. Frustrating to the person you're trying to stop, maybe, but like Derek Ray recently wrote, all the VPs at the table belong to me. :-) Keeping this person from getting to 3 may increase your chances of getting 0 and decrease your chances of getting 1. But it also increases your chances of getting 3 yourself. How is that not an acceptable attempt to win? It's a different risk/benefit analysis than another player might make, but still. > > However, unless I'm missing some good potential situations, it > > seems to me that it would never actually be very useful to do this; > > getting any good game-win-denying result seems to require that you > > yourself get some VPs. > > Possibly true. If nothing else, it may be relevant to resolve just so > people don't get any bright ideas. Sure. I don't think I could figure it out without a lot more effort than I want to put in, though, so I'll leave the proof for the student. :-) Josh out sick for a couple days and the newsgroup just kept going

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BE87647...@netcom.com>... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > It would be desirable in the sense of increasing your chances of > > > qualifying for the finals. No, that's not an in-game consideration, > > > but it is allowable as long as it doesn't "conflict with the goal > > > of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook". > > > > I cannot possibly see how this argument works, assuming I'm correct that > > it's not legal to attack a player's position (as I said, from the onset > > of the game) just because he's your rival for a spot in the finals. It's > > the exact same thing: sacrificing your game finish in order to play for > > the best tournament preliminaries finish. > > As long as you're still playing to do the best you can in the > current game, you can try to keep other people from winning > this game. But you're not. Not if you're sacrificing a victory point to do so - which was my understanding of the scenario we're talking about. > That's good for you in the game I think we have a dispute about that. It's good for you in the *tournament*, only because the tournament finals are being determined by the concept of game wins. 0 VP is always worse for you in the game than 1 VP. At least, that's my understanding of what the "in-game consideration" rules mean. They always take into account how many victory points you can get and there's no reason for them to take game wins into account. ... > Keeping this person from getting to 3 may increase your chances > of getting 0 and decrease your chances of getting 1. But it > also increases your chances of getting 3 yourself. How is that > not an acceptable attempt to win? It's a different risk/benefit > analysis than another player might make, but still. OK - here's the problem: we're not arguing about what we started out arguing. So you'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood your point. When I walked into this, you were saying: # As Pat said, it could be desirable in a tournament to, from a # position where you can't win the game you're in, try to keep # anyone else from winning it either. It's at least hypothetically # possible that this could interfere with you getting a VP that you # might otherwise be able to. That was the scenario I responded to and which I assumed you were still referring to. Obviously, if you can't win then you have zero chance of getting 3 VP yourself, in which case all you're doing is trashing your own chance to get the 1 VP. I agree that if it's just a question of risking 1 VP to possibly get 3 VP and win the game or even to get only 2 VP whether you've got a chance to win the game or not, that's always your call. And should be. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BEF0147...@netcom.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > As long as you're still playing to do the best you can in the > > current game, you can try to keep other people from winning > > this game. > > But you're not. Not if you're sacrificing a victory point to do so - which > was my understanding of the scenario we're talking about. It used to be, but then it turned out that there don't seem to be any "sacrifice a VP to keep someone from winning" scenarios that are actually good for your tournament standing. > OK - here's the problem: we're not arguing about what we started out > arguing. So you'll have to forgive me if I misunderstood your point. When I > walked into this, you were saying: > # As Pat said, it could be desirable in a tournament to, from a > # position where you can't win the game you're in, try to keep > # anyone else from winning it either. It's at least hypothetically > # possible that this could interfere with you getting a VP that you > # might otherwise be able to. > > That was the scenario I responded to and which I assumed you were still > referring to. Obviously, if you can't win then you have zero chance of > getting 3 VP yourself, in which case all you're doing is trashing your own > chance to get the 1 VP. Right, it was potentially possible (and perhaps it still is), but it doesn't seem to be possible in practice. If you can *definitely* get one VP, there is probably no situation where it'd be good to get 0 instead and keep someone else from getting three. If you merely have a shot at the one VP, it may seem tactically advisable to forego it for now and instead try to shut down the frontrunner. But as you say, we've left the land of disagreement. :-) Josh