Since the activity of a player in a lost position can have more effect
on the game than it "should" (from some perspectives), especially,
apparently, cross-table attacks (from some "out of game"
considerations"), I offer this solution:
Extend "ousted' to include "in a lost position". That is, if a
Methuselah has succeeded in getting xer prey into a lost position,
then xe is credited with the oust and that lost position Methuselah
immediately and spontaneously is ousted.
The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any
activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to
indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If xe indicates that xe is
not in violation of the Play to Win rules because xe is in a lost
position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then
xe is ousted (predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual).
(If not, of course, then the PTW-violating activity (or pass) is
voided and prohibited, and the Methuselah must make some PTW activity,
as usual.)
<begin smilie block>
This has the added benefit that a Methuselah won't have xer VP
"stolen" by getting ousted after xe has put xer prey in a lost
position but before xe can actually reduce xer prey's pool to zero.
<end smilie block>
LSJ wrote:
> Since the activity of a player in a lost position can have more effect
> on the game than it "should" (from some perspectives), especially,
> apparently, cross-table attacks (from some "out of game"
> considerations"), I offer this solution:
>
> Extend "ousted' to include "in a lost position". That is, if a
> Methuselah has succeeded in getting xer prey into a lost position,
> then xe is credited with the oust and that lost position Methuselah
> immediately and spontaneously is ousted.
This would be better than the current rules (at least, the crosstable
players would be safe), but this wouldn't solve the rest problems. The
level of interaction between players (their ability to prevent gaining
VP) is going to fall to zero, as even Life Boon wouldn't help. The
game shifts could potentially be even more sudden and surprising,
since transferring out can burn only 4 pool per turn, while immedtiate
ousting would burn it all. I don't think that's good.
If you're looking for the simple solution, what prevents you from
simply prohibiting the "lost position" rulings? I don't think that
many players would be harmed for having to wait a few minutes until
somebody ousts them.
> <begin smilie block>
> This has the added benefit that a Methuselah won't have xer VP
> "stolen" by getting ousted after xe has put xer prey in a lost
> position but before xe can actually reduce xer prey's pool to zero.
> <end smilie block>
As long as this joke seems to be related to my example, I should
confirm that I can see the difference between "completely disabling
your prey" and "completely disabling the whole table" :) Thus, if a
player disabled his prey but not his predator, the predator can (and
even should) oust both him and his prey. This isn't "stealing", it's
normal game.
BTW, I still remember the times of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred
Restructure. Then there were a lot of players who also didn't believe
that switching places was actually stealing other players' VPs :)
On May 14, 8:39 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Since the activity of a player in a lost position can have more effect
> > on the game than it "should" (from some perspectives), especially,
> > apparently, cross-table attacks (from some "out of game"
> > considerations"), I offer this solution:
>
> > Extend "ousted' to include "in a lost position". That is, if a
> > Methuselah has succeeded in getting xer prey into a lost position,
> > then xe is credited with the oust and that lost position Methuselah
> > immediately and spontaneously is ousted.
>
> This would be better than the current rules (at least, the crosstable
> players would be safe),
As would the predator. And the prey (except from xer new predator).
> but this wouldn't solve the rest problems. The
> level of interaction between players (their ability to prevent gaining
> VP) is going to fall to zero, as even Life Boon wouldn't help.
I thought you said Life Boon was already too rare or hard-to-depend-
on.
Besides, you can still use Life Boon to give someone enough pool to
put them in a non-lost position (assuming you have enough pool to do
so, of course).
At any event, there's a whole lot of game (interaction) that leads up
to ousting one's prey (or putting one's prey in a lost position). Even
without Life Boon.
> The
> game shifts could potentially be even more sudden and surprising,
> since transferring out can burn only 4 pool per turn, while immedtiate
> ousting would burn it all. I don't think that's good.
?
Just like one is immediately ousted after losing one's last pool. That
seems to work OK.
I think you're assigning "lost position" to too many non-lost cases,
and it's coloring your perception of this "problem".
If a player is in a truly lost position, that didn't happen magically
all at once. There was a lot of game that went on to lead to that
point (and you can see it coming, with varying levels of clarity
depending on the exact process at work).
> If you're looking for the simple solution, what prevents you from
> simply prohibiting the "lost position" rulings?
?
Really?
You haven't seen the many answers to this already?
On 14 mai, 14:54, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Besides, you can still use Life Boon to give someone enough pool to
> put them in a non-lost position (assuming you have enough pool to do
> so, of course).
How so? Since the player is ousted without having his pool drop to 0,
you cannot play Life Boon, can you?
LSJ wrote:
> > If you're looking for the simple solution, what prevents you from
> > simply prohibiting the "lost position" rulings?
>
> ?
> Really?
>
> You haven't seen the many answers to this already?
There always are people who prefer the status quo - as there were
people who liked PTO and Upheavals.
But I've got another simple solution: the virtual Life Boon! :)
As long as the judge confirms that the player is in the "lost
position", the judge decides how much pool would the player need to
continue playing. Then, the judge starts the auction, in which players
are bidding pool for the "Life Boon". The winning player gives that
much pool to the poor, and follows all the rules of Life Boon. Only if
nobody is willing to pay that much the player is really ousted.
What's not to like here?
On May 14, 7:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since the activity of a player in a lost position can have more effect
> on the game than it "should" (from some perspectives), especially,
> apparently, cross-table attacks (from some "out of game"
> considerations"), I offer this solution:
>
> Extend "ousted' to include "in a lost position". That is, if a
> Methuselah has succeeded in getting xer prey into a lost position,
> then xe is credited with the oust and that lost position Methuselah
> immediately and spontaneously is ousted.
>
> The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any
> activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to
> indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
> toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If xe indicates that xe is
> not in violation of the Play to Win rules because xe is in a lost
> position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then
> xe is ousted (predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual).
>
> (If not, of course, then the PTW-violating activity (or pass) is
> voided and prohibited, and the Methuselah must make some PTW activity,
> as usual.)
Would a player who had his ready region emptied by a combat deck, who
decided that they would just "pool sack" be a potential target of this
ruling?
On May 14, 9:21 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> Would a player who had his ready region emptied by a combat deck, who
> decided that they would just "pool sack" be a potential target of this
> ruling?
Depends on if he's in a truly lost position.
Any player in a truly lost position would be a target, since the rule
exactly targets players in truly lost positions.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Wow, did PC make that paragraph rather hard to follow.
Interesting idea, but can't said person still claim that cross table
rushing is in their PTW interests? If I am rushing cross table(likely
for a damn good reason), that person is probably supporting my
predator in ousting me. Either by passing votes or having some other
effect(ex. Owain) that is allowing them to continue at ousting
schler. While that crosstable rush may seem like not playing to win
to the two people impacted, schle could be doing it to fight for a
half vp by surviving to a timeout.
Like all things VTES and PTW, it's not an easy black and white
decision by a judge.
On May 14, 9:42 am, Obtenebration <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org>
wrote:
> On May 14, 5:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any
> > activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to
> > indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
> > toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If xe indicates that xe is
> > not in violation of the Play to Win rules because xe is in a lost
> > position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then
> > xe is ousted (predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual).> Interesting idea, but can't said person still claim that cross table> rushing is in their PTW interests?
Of course.
They could even claim that there's 3 hours left in the round.
See also: "call a judge" above.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok now I am confused.
Meth A has one minion (who can only bleed for 1 and can't bounce a
bleed or pass a vote) and 1 pool left.
Meth B has zero minions, 4 pool and no minions in his crypt with less
than 6 pool requirement.
Meth C has 2 minions and 6 pool.
Where A -> B -> C -> A
Meth B just wants to continue playing hoping that time runs out before
Meth C can oust Meth A and then finish him off.
You are proposing that Meth A can call over a judge and declare Meth B
in a lost position and get the VP and 6 pool? Where prior to this
proposed rule Meth A would have to play very smart to bleed Meth B
without putting himself into a position where Meth C can oust him?
On May 14, 9:50 am, James Cass <tjamesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where A -> B -> C -> A
> Meth B just wants to continue playing hoping that time runs out before
> Meth C can oust Meth A and then finish him off.
>
> You are proposing that Meth A can call over a judge and declare Meth B
> in a lost position and get the VP and 6 pool? Where prior to this
> proposed rule Meth A would have to play very smart to bleed Meth B
> without putting himself into a position where Meth C can oust him?
No.
If B has a hope of playing to time runs out, then he's not in a lost
position.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Mmm... What if i dont want to move any minion to my ready region until
my predator (with a VERY HEAVY COMBAT DECK) is ousted??? (Even from
the beginng of the game)
Am I in a "losing position"?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Life Boon
Master
Master: out-of-turn. Boon
Give pool to a Methuselah with no pool to keep him or her in the game;
put this card in play. During each of his or her untap phases, you can
collect 1 pool from that Methuselah. The first victory point that the
Methuselah wins is given to you (unless you are ousted by then). This
Life Boon is then burned."
If a methuselah is ousted via the mechanism you propose, the "with no
pool" condition is not met, so I suppose Life Boon cannot be played.
On May 14, 10:36 am, Smiling Jack XXX <Smiling-J...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Mmm... What if i dont want to move any minion to my ready region until
> my predator (with a VERY HEAVY COMBAT DECK) is ousted??? (Even from
> the beginng of the game)
>
> Am I in a "losing position"?
A lost position is one in which you have no reasonable chance to get
any more VPs.
If you have a reasonable chance to get more VPs (even 0.5), then you
are not in a lost position.
On May 14, 11:00 am, Bob <boris.mai...@free.fr> wrote:
> If a methuselah is ousted via the mechanism you propose, the "with no
> pool" condition is not met, so I suppose Life Boon cannot be played.
Mea culpa.
Well, then, either ignore this "problem", since it is so corner case,
or assume that suggested change includes an appropriate change to Life
Boon's text.
On May 14, 5:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think it's a lot better if people complaining about not getting
"their vp" suck it up and look into why they didn't actually collect
it. As they say, don't count your chickens before they're hatched. By
"better," I mean not inserting further convolutions into an already
convoluted game. It's easy to follow, if the most vps you can
reasonably get is zero, any sort of legal play is acceptable(don't
cheat).
Brandon
On May 14, 5:04 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
This rule made me smile. I say we try it to see how crazy dumb it
is. I think I would transfer 4 pool on turn 1, on my predators 2nd
turn get bled for 1, then declare myself in a loosing position since I
can't bring out all 3 of my 10 caps at the same time, which is clearly
the only way my deck design can win!. Sad face. =(
Lol.
Jeff Poole
Why not just change the Play to Win rules to say that if you can't get
any more VP's, you have to play to maximize your tournament points?
That is, if you can't get more VP's, try to get the highest possible
ranking at the table.
It's pretty simple, and it gives players who can get no more VP's a
justifiable reason to poolsack/self-oust/cross-table rush, etc.
WITHOUT taking into account out-of-game factors.
I think this rules change would go a long way in resolving the
ambiguity surrounding the issue of the best way to act in a "hopeless"
situation.
It would affect table interaction positively, since a "hopeless"
player can honestly appeal to the table: if you all don't help me, my
position becomes impossible, and I will assist the winning player to
try to tie for second/third/last place. No spite involved, just
calculation.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think anyone who plays VtES knows that you need to have an unhealthy
masochistic drive. 3/5 games make you want to give up and never play
again! It's that 1/5 great game that make you put up with all the
shit from the other games.
Jeff Poole
On May 14, 12:18 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not just change the Play to Win rules to say that if you can't get
> any more VP's, you have to play to maximize your tournament points?
> That is, if you can't get more VP's, try to get the highest possible
> ranking at the table.
>
> It's pretty simple, and it gives players who can get no more VP's a
> justifiable reason to poolsack/self-oust/cross-table rush, etc.
> WITHOUT taking into account out-of-game factors.
So, in a lost position, you're obliged to assist whoever is in a
position to sweep.
> I think this rules change would go a long way in resolving the
> ambiguity surrounding the issue of the best way to act in a "hopeless"
> situation.
I think it would make whoever gets the first VP a little judge-happy
(calling the judge over to make other players join "Team Sweep" at
early signs of distress): "My prey's about to oust C! C should
kamikaze on my prey rather than die in the manner of C's choosing". C:
"But, I don't think I'm dead yet, sire." "Quiet, you."
It's one thing when you have to wait for a player (who knows the deck,
hand, etc.) to become convinced of xer own impending final death. It's
quite another when you only have to wait for a player to wishfully
think another player dead.
>I think it would make whoever gets the first VP a little judge-happy
>(calling the judge over to make other players join "Team Sweep" at
>early signs of distress): "My prey's about to oust C! C should
>kamikaze on my prey rather than die in the manner of C's choosing". C:
>"But, I don't think I'm dead yet, sire." "Quiet, you."
Right now, the manner in which C chooses to die may legitimately be
that he goes out helping the other guy from his play group or by cross-
table rushing somebody who was rude to him while he was waiting at the
bar for drinks the night before - right before transferring out.
Or is that the idea? That the VTES rules are constructed to reward
good social behavior in the metagame? I know that Hugh Anseesing,
currently ranked number 1 in Constructed format, has said in posts
that if you treat another player decently, they won't do irrational
things in-game to hurt you. Out of the game, he seemed like a
genuinely nice and friendly person when I met him at the 2009 NAC.
I personally think about tournament points when I play now. It is
very rare that I will choose to play for tournament points rather than
play for a time-out if I am in a bad position. Once when I played to
help my stealth-bleed predator sweep, I had torped his big Settite
bleeder and asked the table to diablerize the vampire, in return for
which I would try to survive (I had no untapped vampires). No
takers. Then I bled forward, GtU at basic, not superior. My predator
swept. I tied for second. Nothing personal - I played for the best
result I could get. Why shouldn't Best Result = Play to Win?
On May 14, 2:59 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I think it would make whoever gets the first VP a little judge-happy
> >(calling the judge over to make other players join "Team Sweep" at
> >early signs of distress): "My prey's about to oust C! C should
> >kamikaze on my prey rather than die in the manner of C's choosing". C:
> >"But, I don't think I'm dead yet, sire." "Quiet, you."
>
> Right now, the manner in which C chooses to die may legitimately be
> that he goes out helping the other guy from his play group or by cross-
> table rushing somebody who was rude to him while he was waiting at the
> bar for drinks the night before - right before transferring out.
Um. OK.
I don't see what that has to do with the analysis of your proposal.
> Or is that the idea? That the VTES rules are constructed to reward
> good social behavior in the metagame? I know that Hugh Anseesing,
> currently ranked number 1 in Constructed format, has said in posts
> that if you treat another player decently, they won't do irrational
> things in-game to hurt you. Out of the game, he seemed like a
> genuinely nice and friendly person when I met him at the 2009 NAC.
No, that's not the idea. The idea (behind the current rules, not the
proposal of this thread or the alternate proposal you made) is as
described many times in the threads on that topic.
But if encouraging good social behavior is a by-product of the current
rules, well, OK.
> I personally think about tournament points when I play now. It is
> very rare that I will choose to play for tournament points rather than
> play for a time-out if I am in a bad position. Once when I played to
> help my stealth-bleed predator sweep, I had torped his big Settite
> bleeder and asked the table to diablerize the vampire, in return for
> which I would try to survive (I had no untapped vampires). No
> takers. Then I bled forward, GtU at basic, not superior. My predator
> swept. I tied for second. Nothing personal - I played for the best
> result I could get. Why shouldn't Best Result = Play to Win?
That's legal (again under the current rules), assuming (as you said)
that you couldn't get any VPs. You were free to get your 0VPs in the
manner of your choosing.
>I don't see what that has to do with the analysis of your proposal.
It's not an analysis of my proposal, it's an analysis of your
response. You wrote as an example: "C should
kamikaze on my prey rather than die in the manner of C's choosing."
My proposal would change it so that players would not be able to "die
in a manner of their choosing", which leads to arbitrary play.
Arbitrary play means that out-of-game concerns may be introduced into
the game. I think that rules-sanctioned arbitrary play is bad.
Whether or not the proposal would lead to scenarios you've suggested
remains to be seen. Under the current tournament rules, yes, it may
be in a player's best interest to aid an aggressive predator to
sweep. Would a judge rule that poolsacking in this instance would be
unsportmanslike? It seems unlikely.
>No, that's not the idea. The idea (behind the current rules, not the
>proposal of this thread or the alternate proposal you made) is as
>described many times in the threads on that topic.
Honestly, I still do not get the idea behind the current rule. What I
gather is that the rule enforces the value that players should have
the freedom to choose how they lose as well as how they win. As I
said I don't share this value as implemented, if that is indeed the
idea.
However, I have highjacked your thread.
> Honestly, I still do not get the idea behind the current rule. What I
> gather is that the rule enforces the value that players should have
> the freedom to choose how they lose as well as how they win. As I
> said I don't share this value as implemented, if that is indeed the
> idea.
The rule reinforces that players play by the rules and the spirit of
the game, namely oust your prey and gain a VP until you have the
majority of VPs.
As opposed to how previous to this ruling, when I player could justify
that he could no longer gain a VP prior to his death (no matter how
far that death is away), he was exempted from his social contract with
the other players at the game to "have fun" through "mutual
competition to attain a previously agreed upon goal, to get the GW,
which in turn allowed him to "have fun" by substituting a new goal of
his own choosing. Often this created arbitrary and capricious plays.
Now when it is determined that a player no longer is pursuing the
mutually agreed upon goal of trying to win the game then that player
is removed from competition.
LSJ wrote:
> Bob wrote:>> If a methuselah is ousted via the mechanism you propose,
>> the "with no pool" condition is not met, so I suppose Life Boon
>> cannot be played.>
> Mea culpa.
>
> Well, then, either ignore this "problem", since it is so corner case,
> or assume that suggested change includes an appropriate change
> to Life Boon's text.
Did Bob just manage to get Life Boon reprinted? Sigh.
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
I know there's a bunch of threads currently up on this subject, but I
am still having trouble understanding the vague guidelines behind the
PTW rules. Where is the threshold for "reasonable"? What is a "lost"
position? What are the requirements for going for VPs? It seems
anything that would reduce your pool to 0 would be illegal under PTW,
since there's always a chance (albeit slim) for at least the 0.5 VP
from withdrawing. Likewise, if the threshold for "reasonable" is
higher, if I sat at a table and knew the other decks and decided that
I didn't have a chance to win, wouldn't I be able to immediately
declare myself "lost" and then act in whatever fashion I wanted? Or if
someone plays a Kpist m/45 can I say he's not playing to win, since .
44 is better (and he shouldn't have had a worse card in his deck)?
What if someone votes for/against a referendum? Can I have a judge
question his decision based on how I think he should best be following
the PTW rule?
I know that's an extreme (and silly) example, but it seems to me like
the judge in events not only has to correctly make card rulings, but
can be forced into making rulings about play in the game. I recently
read a tournament report where in the final table, all players agreed
to gang up on one person (who was running an Una deck). Now, if all
players working in concert to take out one can be considered valid
under PTW, what's stopping one person working cross-table? If I'm
playing a rush deck, I could just simply say that in my estimation,
Player X (who's crosstable) is a threat to me, and I need to weaken
him. Does the judge get to overrule me? And if he can, why would going
crosstable be allowed in the tourney report I read? Do the players at
the table get to decide?
I know a lot of this probably rarely comes up in actual tournaments,
but if it's even an issue 10% of the time, that seems like it can
really be causing games to not reward "good" play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
This really has nothing to do with crosstable play. It has more to do
with people claiming that they "can't win" and therefore don't have to
PTW.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, I'm trying to find out where exactly is the line for PTW rules
to be evoked. If I sit down at a table, decide I can't win (for
whatever reason) can I then act in whatever manner I desire? I used
crosstable play as an example since it's one of the things that seems
to me to something that could nearly always be questioned under play
to win guidelines (obviously there are many common situations where it
is in your best interest, but since it doesn't directly cause your
prey to lose pool [mostly], seems there would be justification
involved). If I'm off topic however, please forgive/ignore what I
wrote.
On May 15, 8:34 pm, smithson <joe124...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm trying to find out where exactly is the line for PTW rules
> to be evoked. If I sit down at a table, decide I can't win (for
> whatever reason) can I then act in whatever manner I desire?
If the *judge* agrees that you are truly in a lost position, then yes,
you can lose as you like.
You aren't forced to stop playing.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8b21980e4be39ed6
[ quoted text not captured ]
I fully support this rule with one proviso, only the player in question
who is in the lost position declare that they have no reasonable chance,
then be confirmed by the judge if there is any dispute.
The game should not be bogged down with hopeful predators calling over
the judge whenever they can't be bothered reducing their preys pool.
Aa
On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:04:40 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
> Since the activity of a player in a lost position can have more effect
> on the game than it "should" (from some perspectives), especially,
> apparently, cross-table attacks (from some "out of game"
> considerations"), I offer this solution:
I'm reading the post again (all the xer/xe-s are hurting my eyes) but for
the life of me I can't determine whether you intended this to be a huge
tongue-in-cheek pun or whether you are actually serious.
> Extend "ousted' to include "in a lost position". That is, if a
> Methuselah has succeeded in getting xer prey into a lost position,
> then xe is credited with the oust and that lost position Methuselah
> immediately and spontaneously is ousted.
Tangential note: it might be worthwhile to consider changing the
concession rules to allow players to concede and be spontaneously
ousted.
> The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any
> activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to
> indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
> toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If xe indicates that xe is
> not in violation of the Play to Win rules because xe is in a lost
> position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then
> xe is ousted (predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual).
>
> (If not, of course, then the PTW-violating activity (or pass) is
> voided and prohibited, and the Methuselah must make some PTW activity,
> as usual.)
Assuming you're serious: there is a huge grey area on the border of
legality already. I've very seldom seen judges effectively dealing
with instances of slow play, of stalling, of deck stacking, of
collusion, etc. (things that happen probably every single tournament).
Judges usually take the safe option of considering an accusation false
until proven (and some misbehaviours are nigh unprovable without a lie
detector or sufficient skill at mind reading).
Having to explain your actions to the other players might take away
from the surprise element of certain decks or tactics. E.g. saying
that "I want to back-oust you guys and then win the 3-way" may not
be the best way to make (even temporary) friends at a table... :)
Example: You come to an Elbonian tournament. You sit at a table with
4 Elbonians (and the judge is also Elbonian). You are in a stuck
position but not lost (e.g. you have weenies but your prey has
Aranthebes etc.). So then having to explain over and over again why
you are not in a lost position, how you can still win, what card
you hope to draw... Not convinced.
> <begin smilie block>
> This has the added benefit that a Methuselah won't have xer VP
> "stolen" by getting ousted after xe has put xer prey in a lost
> position but before xe can actually reduce xer prey's pool to zero.
> <end smilie block>
So this is the smilie block. So the rest was serious, I guess.
--
Regards,
Daneel
On May 16, 1:54 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:04:40 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com>
> wrote:
> > The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any
> > activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to
> > indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
> > toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If xe indicates that xe is
> > not in violation of the Play to Win rules because xe is in a lost
> > position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then
> > xe is ousted (predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual).
>
> > (If not, of course, then the PTW-violating activity (or pass) is
> > voided and prohibited, and the Methuselah must make some PTW activity,
> > as usual.)
>
> Assuming you're serious: there is a huge grey area on the border of
> legality already. I've very seldom seen judges effectively dealing
> with instances of slow play, of stalling, of deck stacking, of
> collusion, etc. (things that happen probably every single tournament).
> Judges usually take the safe option of considering an accusation false
> until proven (and some misbehaviours are nigh unprovable without a lie
> detector or sufficient skill at mind reading).
>
> Having to explain your actions to the other players might take away
> from the surprise element of certain decks or tactics. E.g. saying
> that "I want to back-oust you guys and then win the 3-way" may not
> be the best way to make (even temporary) friends at a table... :)
You don't have to explain your actions to the other players (just like
now).
You might have to explain your actions to the judge, of course (just
like now).
> Example: You come to an Elbonian tournament. You sit at a table with
> 4 Elbonians (and the judge is also Elbonian). You are in a stuck
> position but not lost (e.g. you have weenies but your prey has
> Aranthebes etc.). So then having to explain over and over again why
> you are not in a lost position, how you can still win, what card
> you hope to draw... Not convinced.
Well, first, you don't have to explain anything at all until you
initiate some activity (or "pass") that indicates you are working
toward zero more VPs.
Then, when you actually play toward a 0VP finish, that's when a judge
is called and you explain to a judge.
LSJ wrote:
> That provisio is already built into the rule.
Righto, I guess I am focusing on the, "if a Methuselah initiates any
activity (or "pass") that seems *(to any player at the table)* to
indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation" portion of the suggested
rule amendment.
Having to divulge the reasons for your play making just because it is
not apparent to another players could be detrimental, especially if it
alters peoples threat perception. In your justification of play you
might need to reveal insights into stratagem that otherwise would have
gone unnoticed. At the very least it could become a device to bog the
game down whilst exposing a players thought process.
Personally this wouldn't bother me too much, as a veteran role-player I
am used to having to justify my actions within the frame work of the
rule set and current circumstances. A good justifier can make any
position seem plausible. However, those that are less adept would
suffer. Is this an unintended side effect?
If it were only the player in question that were able to throw their
hands up and declare themselves in a lost position, perhaps the onus
could then be up to other players to dispute this instead? The instances
of explanation would be greatly reduced and it opens up avenues of
play rather than stifle creativity.
Aaron
Archbishop of Adelaide
City of Churches
On May 16, 7:17 pm, Aaron Connor <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > That provisio is already built into the rule.
>
> Righto, I guess I am focusing on the, "if a Methuselah initiates any
> activity (or "pass") that seems *(to any player at the table)* to
> indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working
> toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation" portion of the suggested
> rule amendment.
A: "Explain"
B: I'm not playing for 0VP.
end of explanation.
On May 14, 10:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since the activity of a player in a lost position can have more effect
> on the game than it "should" (from some perspectives), especially,
> apparently, cross-table attacks (from some "out of game"
> considerations"), I offer this solution:
>> Extend "ousted' to include "in a lost position". That is, if a
> Methuselah has succeeded in getting xer prey into a lost position,
> then xe is credited with the oust and that lost position Methuselah
> immediately and spontaneously is ousted.
>> The actual mechanics go like this: if a Methuselah initiates any> activity (or "pass") that seems (to any player at the table) to> indicate that Methuselah is not Playing to Win (that is, xe is working> toward zero more VPs), ask for explanation. If xe indicates that xe is
> not in violation of the Play to Win rules because xe is in a lost
> position, then call a judge over to confirm. If the judge agrees, then
> xe is ousted (predator gets 1VP and six pool as usual).
>
> (If not, of course, then the PTW-violating activity (or pass) is
> voided and prohibited, and the Methuselah must make some PTW activity,
> as usual.)
>> <begin smilie block>
> This has the added benefit that a Methuselah won't have xer VP
> "stolen" by getting ousted after xe has put xer prey in a lost
> position but before xe can actually reduce xer prey's pool to zero.
> <end smilie block>
OK to make sure I understand this, here is an example.
I am player A, playing a rush deck; my prey is B playing a Kindred
Spirits bleed deck, xer prey is C playing something immaterial. C has
no ready minions but lots of pool.
On my turn, I rush B and bin all bar one of xer's minions. I put out a
Dragonbound. B now has four minions in torpor, one ready minion. I am
on 1 pool, as is B. Player B will certainly die at the end of B's turn
from Dragonbound.
In B's minion phase, xe bleeds me backwards with Kindred Spirits. I
have no defense. If the bleed resolves, I will die.
I ask the player for an explanation of this action, as it violates
play to win.
B can either:
- admit they are breaking play to win, in which case I call a judge to
rewind the action to stop player b from cheating
- admit they are doing this because they are in a completely lost
position and are no longer obligated to play to win.
If they admit this, then straightaway B is ousted (before the bleed
resolves) and I get a VP and 6 pool.
yeah?
I firmly believe that if you feel that PTW does not need to be
updated, then you do not play in tournaments of any consequence.
Got your attention? good
Like porn we all know bullshit when we see it, we see the "I can't win
so I can lose how I want" that is what we are talking about here. I
can't win, so I am ousted, period, no longer any "oh LSJ says I can
lose how I want" as soon as you feel you can't play to win, then you
should be ousted. We're talking sportsmanship here, it isn't an
unambiguous definition, and rarely is it black and white, but our goal
is a fair and fun environment, so given the multiplayer nature, we
need to ensure it.
If you feel you can't win, you can still "lie" and say you have a shot
and rush cross table, do all the stupid things you think of, the only
difference is you may be asked to explain privately to a judge why you
are doing what you are doing.
What this rule is offering is a sportsmanship route of self-ousting
when you know the game is lost and you want everyone else to keep
fighting it out.
Dasein <dasei...@hotmail.com> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think you chose a bad example.
In my opinion, B *is* playing to win. The Dragonbound is sure to oust him,
and the *only* way for him to survive is to back-oust you and get rid of the
Dragonbound. Then he gets a new predator (C?), giving him a chance to rescue
his minions from torpor and get back in game.
HG
[ quoted text not captured ]
Exactly. The new rule would at least force people to play by the
spirit of the rules. All too often I've seen people do crazy,
capricious things crosstable (often out of spite), just because they
currently can do that "when in a losing position". Also, in my opinion
many people tend to have a *very* weird view of what a "losing
position" is, and decide that they can't win at a very early stage.
This rule would force them to think hard about that position, and if
they really think they are in a losing position then they could not
disrupt the rest of the game by some capricious stunt (to help a
friend, or whatever).
I support the proposal, even though it might result in some extra
"judge!" calls before people adjust.
Ideally, I'd like to see something that would force people to try to
stay in the game as long as possible, but since enforcing something
like that is next to impossible I think LSJ's proposal is the next
best thing.
-Petri
On May 14, 7:06 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It's easy to follow, if the most vps you can
> reasonably get is zero, any sort of legal play is acceptable(don't
> cheat).
>
> Brandon
The problem, as many people have noted, that there are lots of
"dickhead" moves that are currently quite legal in that position,
which aren't cheating but can totally disrupt the game, often based on
OOC stuff.
I.e. player A thinks he is in a lost position. He rushes crosstable
(or calls a vote which only hurts crosstable guys, or or or...) just
because his (OOC) friends are playing next to him, or he dislikes the
guy across the table, or he's just feeling bored, or whatever. That's
bad. It means that someone just gets their game ruined out of the
blue, just because someone wants to be a dick (and is allowed that, by
the current rules). I think that's a bad thing.
Of course, the metarule "don't play with dicks" usually works, but
isn't enforceable in a normal tournament...
-Petri
Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>Exactly. The new rule would at least force people to play by the
>spirit of the rules. All too often I've seen people do crazy,
>capricious things crosstable (often out of spite), just because they
>currently can do that "when in a losing position". Also, in my opinion
>many people tend to have a *very* weird view of what a "losing
>position" is, and decide that they can't win at a very early stage.
"Can't win" and "losing" aren't the criteria used. It's "no more VPs"
and "lost".
A player who can't win but who can scrape 0.5VP via a timeout, or might
reasonably be able to oust his prey before someone else sweeps, should
play for that outcome.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On May 17, 11:41 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> >Exactly. The new rule would at least force people to play by the
> >spirit of the rules. All too often I've seen people do crazy,
> >capricious things crosstable (often out of spite), just because they
> >currently can do that "when in a losing position". Also, in my opinion
> >many people tend to have a *very* weird view of what a "losing
> >position" is, and decide that they can't win at a very early stage.
>
> "Can't win" and "losing" aren't the criteria used. It's "no more VPs"
> and "lost".
>
> A player who can't win but who can scrape 0.5VP via a timeout, or might
> reasonably be able to oust his prey before someone else sweeps, should
> play for that outcome.
True. I think the problem is that the current PTW rules are a bit
unclear, a bit misunderstood, and contain holes that at times lead to
people playing in unsportsmanlike (but currently legal) manner.
It's not a problem in casual games, but can be one in more serious
tournaments. Seen it, way too many times for my own comfort. I'd love
to see *some* kind of rules change which would enforce playing by the
spirit of the game, and in a sportsmanlike fashion, even if things are
going badly for you.
-Petri
On May 17, 4:56 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> True. I think the problem is that the current PTW rules are a bit
> unclear, a bit misunderstood, and contain holes that at times lead to
> people playing in unsportsmanlike (but currently legal) manner.
They are clear:
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play
toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the
V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their
V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments,
playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably
possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing
to get as many Victory Points as possible.
http://white-wolf.com/vtes/?line=veknRules.html#sec4.8
Misunderstood, perhaps, by players who haven't read the rule.
What holes?
On May 17, 4:24 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> Exactly. The new rule would at least force people to play by the
> spirit of the rules.
See, the *current* rule does that too.
> All too often I've seen people do crazy,
> capricious things crosstable (often out of spite), just because they
> currently can do that "when in a losing position".
And they are probably breaking the rules. Again, the issue here is not
"we need a new rule", it is "we need to enforce the perfectly good
rule we already have".
Being in a crappy seat with a seemingly insurmountable prey is not
being in a lost position. If you can conceivably survive till the end
of the game or withdraw, you aren't in a lost position, as you have
the possibility of getting .5VP, which is more than the 0VP you'd get
if ousted. So you are obligated to attempt to get that .5VP.
>Also, in my opinion
> many people tend to have a *very* weird view of what a "losing
> position" is,
Clearly, they do. So it is up to the judge to make sure that they
understand what is or is not a "lost" position. I'd like to think that
this here discussion is helping on a large scale. Or at least a small
one.
> Ideally, I'd like to see something that would force people to try to
> stay in the game as long as possible, but since enforcing something
> like that is next to impossible I think LSJ's proposal is the next
> best thing.
The current rule already does that. If you can reasonably try and win
the game, you must try. If you can't, and you can reasonably get more
VPs, you must try, even if that more VPs is the .5 you get for
survivng to the end of the game.
-Peter
On May 17, 1:31 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Misunderstood, perhaps, by players who haven't read the rule.
>
> What holes?
Well, most cases are probably, as you say, "players who haven't read
the rule".
But the hole, as I see it, is in the fact that a player who is in a
"lost" position (i.e. cannot get more VPs in any reasonable fashion)
can with the current rules do quite arbitrary actions (rush/vote
crosstable "just because", or other malicious stuff like that). Since
they cannot "play to win" anymore, they feel they can disrupt the game
or act on OOC reasons (which are pretty much impossible to judge,
unless the player specifically says out loud "I'm doing this to help
my predator who is my personal friend"). They'll claim to do that
crosstable action "just to cycle cards" or "just because", often
claiming their justification in "I can do whatever I want, since I can
no longer get VPs" (which *is* technically true, currently).
Or course, many/most players won't do this, and will play in a
sportsmanlike fashion to the end. But we're talking about the problem
cases, here.
-Petri
On May 17, 3:17 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > All too often I've seen people do crazy,
> > capricious things crosstable (often out of spite), just because they
> > currently can do that "when in a losing position".
>
> And they are probably breaking the rules. Again, the issue here is not
> "we need a new rule", it is "we need to enforce the perfectly good
> rule we already have".
That may very well be the case :)
> Being in a crappy seat with a seemingly insurmountable prey is not
> being in a lost position. If you can conceivably survive till the end
> of the game or withdraw, you aren't in a lost position, as you have
> the possibility of getting .5VP, which is more than the 0VP you'd get
> if ousted. So you are obligated to attempt to get that .5VP.
Well, wouldn't that basically stop anyone from self-ousting, ever?
Even if they have zero minions, and (say) 8 pool left, don't they
still have a non-zero possibility of getting a VP (or half)? Someone
might give them pool, their predator might lose his minions and/or
ability to bleed, the aliens might land, or whatever. :)
So when *would* it be ok to transfer out? Or to do "random" crosstable
stuff? (according to current rules, that is)
I'm very interested in the answers/outcome to this, since I judge now
and then and stuff like this is a *bitch* if/when it comes up in
tournaments. I'd love a clear consensus on what's ok and what's not,
and unfortunately at the moment there is a lot of uncertainty there
(as evidenced by this thread :).
> >Also, in my opinion
> > many people tend to have a *very* weird view of what a "losing
> > position" is,
>
> Clearly, they do. So it is up to the judge to make sure that they
> understand what is or is not a "lost" position. I'd like to think that
> this here discussion is helping on a large scale. Or at least a small
> one.
Yup.
> > Ideally, I'd like to see something that would force people to try to
> > stay in the game as long as possible, but since enforcing something
> > like that is next to impossible I think LSJ's proposal is the next
> > best thing.
>
> The current rule already does that. If you can reasonably try and win
> the game, you must try. If you can't, and you can reasonably get more
> VPs, you must try, even if that more VPs is the .5 you get for
> survivng to the end of the game.
I think the key question here is the interpretation of that
"reasonably get more VPs" thing. People have *very* varying views of
what that means, in practice :/
So... what is a genuine "losing position"? Examples? Guidelines?
-Petri
Following up on myself...
The real problem may be the question of what is a true "lost"
position, in the first place. I've seen a lot of wildly different
interpretations on that, and frankly, am not quite sure how to judge
it in a tournament myself.
Also, about the current rule: say a player is in a "lost" position
(however that is defined). Is he still bound to "sportsmanlike" play,
or can he do anything he wants (transfer out, attack random minions,
whatever)? Does he have to justify "random" actions to a judge, if
called out on it?
I.e. player A is in a "lost" position. He decides to do a hostile
crosstable action towards player X, an action which in no sane way
helps him, and an action he *could* have done towards either his prey
or predator. Can a judge say "you can't do that, it's not
sportsmanlike?".
Any and all help & guidelines appreciated ;)
-Petri
Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>But the hole, as I see it, is in the fact that a player who is in a
>"lost" position (i.e. cannot get more VPs in any reasonable fashion)
>can with the current rules do quite arbitrary actions (rush/vote
>crosstable "just because", or other malicious stuff like that). Since
>they cannot "play to win" anymore, they feel they can disrupt the game
>or act on OOC reasons (which are pretty much impossible to judge,
>unless the player specifically says out loud "I'm doing this to help
>my predator who is my personal friend"). They'll claim to do that
>crosstable action "just to cycle cards" or "just because", often
>claiming their justification in "I can do whatever I want, since I can
>no longer get VPs" (which *is* technically true, currently).
If a player is in a position where they can cause significant problems
for people in this fashion, it's entirely possible that they can strike
a deal on the table.
Assume a standard A, B, C, D, E table. I think I'm in a lost position,
and so decide to rush D because C is my friend (or for any other
reason). If I'm in a position to do that, it's quite likely I can turn
to C and say "Hi C, how about I send D's vampire(s) to torpor, and you
Kindred Spirits bleed B for me? That should make your life easier for
getting VPs, and I might be able to oust B."
That is, if your players are being capable of being significantly
disruptive to the game but think they're close to being in a lost
position / in a lost position then:
- that player should consider negotiating with other players as to which
actions he should take, potentially playing for a time-out or an
unlikely oust
- the other players should consider negotiating with the lost
Methuselah, in order to make sure that they have sensible avenues to
pursue.
If I, methuselah A, see C locking down D with a bunch of Sensory
Deprivations, and I think that's going to edge towards putting D in a
lost position, it's perfectly sensible for me to deal with D and banish
C's Gabrin. I get something out of it - D isn't lost, and doesn't self-
oust and help C, and I get pressure on my predator (E).
If your players are finding themselves with many Methuselahs in lost
positions who want to self-oust or otherwise act in fashions that cause
problems (for that Methuselah), perhaps your players would do well to
consider that they're in a multi-player game. Cross-table assistance,
alliances, dealing, meddling, double-crossing, screwing over,
blackmailing and so on are intentional parts of the game.
If you don't want a player to act arbitrarily and prevent you from
winning, throw that player a bone. Better for you to get 3VPs than
none.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On May 17, 5:25 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> If your players are finding themselves with many Methuselahs in lost
> positions who want to self-oust or otherwise act in fashions that cause
> problems (for that Methuselah), perhaps your players would do well to
> consider that they're in a multi-player game. Cross-table assistance,
> alliances, dealing, meddling, double-crossing, screwing over,
> blackmailing and so on are intentional parts of the game.
It's not a common occurrence, in fact over here it's quite rare, and
only seen in tournaments. And I think everyone is quite aware that
this is a multiplayer game, thankyouverymuch. :}
The problem is that when it comes up, it's ugly to deal with (as a
judge), especially in the current climate where nobody seems to be
quite sure what's acceptable and what's not. That's why I'd love to
see more clarification on the issue.
Sure, the smart thing for a player with crosstable actions would be to
try to get some deal out of it. But what if he doesn't want to do that
and just wants to dick around, saying "I can do whatever I want, since
I'm in a losing position". At what point can a judge step in and say
"you can't do that"?
Relatedly, what is a "losing position" anyway, officially? If you take
the hardline approach, there pretty much is no such animal, since it's
always possible the game state may change unexpectedly in a way which
would let you get the 0,5VP, at least. Which would mean that it's
never actually legal to transfer out.
Since people generally seem to think it's ok to transfer out in some
cases... what are those cases?
I'm not trying to be anal here, I'm just trying to get a grip on how
to judge the issue, if it comes up in tournaments.
-Petri
On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:19:31 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
> On May 16, 1:54ￜpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:>> Assuming you're serious: there is a huge grey area on the border of>> ￜ legality already. I've very seldom seen judges effectively dealing
>> ￜ with instances of slow play, of stalling, of deck stacking, of
>> ￜ collusion, etc. (things that happen probably every single tournament).
>> ￜ Judges usually take the safe option of considering an accusation false
>> ￜ until proven (and some misbehaviours are nigh unprovable without a lie
>> ￜ detector or sufficient skill at mind reading).
[snip]
> Well, first, you don't have to explain anything at all until you
> initiate some activity (or "pass") that indicates you are working
> toward zero more VPs.
>
> Then, when you actually play toward a 0VP finish, that's when a judge
> is called and you explain to a judge.
I see. But I think this would either 1) fall into the area judges are
reluctant to judge (see above), or 2) just offer a rules-supported
option for people with good diplomatic skills to dominate people with
bad diplomatic skills.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>Relatedly, what is a "losing position" anyway, officially?
A complete irrelevance. The threshold is "lost position".
Please stop using this phrase.
>If you take
>the hardline approach, there pretty much is no such animal, since it's
>always possible the game state may change unexpectedly in a way which
>would let you get the 0,5VP, at least. Which would mean that it's
>never actually legal to transfer out.
No, clearly this is completely untrue. Providing more guidelines on
this issue will clearly not help you, because you either haven't read
what's already been said or are ignoring it for some reason.
The judge exercises their judgment and determines what is reasonable.
This is emphatically not a prevention of self-ousting in all
circumstances, no matter what, because in some circumstances it's
reasonable for a player and judge to agree that they really are screwed.
Talking up 'hardline' positions just confuses the issue. Your hardline
approach is, per LSJ's repeated explicit rulings, not a correct or
acceptable one. Please stop suggesting that this is an acceptable
judging position, because it isn't.
If you're going to ignore repeated directions on lost positions and
reasonableness, in favour of losing positions and hardline approaches,
nothing anyone can say will help. You're playing by different rules to
the rest of us, and potentially cheating as a result.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On May 17, 9:51 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> On May 17, 1:31 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Misunderstood, perhaps, by players who haven't read the rule.
>
> > What holes?
>
> Well, most cases are probably, as you say, "players who haven't read
> the rule".
>
> But the hole, as I see it, is in the fact that a player who is in a
> "lost" position (i.e. cannot get more VPs in any reasonable fashion)
> can with the current rules do quite arbitrary actions (rush/vote
> crosstable "just because", or other malicious stuff like that).
Not only "can" but indeed cannot do otherwise.
In a lost position, by definition, every activity (or inactivity) you
do is "just because" or other malicious* stuff like that.
*malicious since every activity or inactivity has some result
favorable to someone (in contrast to some other choice) and therefore
unfavorable to someone else.
And, since in is inescapable, it is allowed (the alternative being to
halt the game or magically dispel the "lost"player.
On May 17, 10:09 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> Following up on myself...
>
> The real problem may be the question of what is a true "lost"
> position, in the first place. I've seen a lot of wildly different
> interpretations on that, and frankly, am not quite sure how to judge
> it in a tournament myself.
Check the interpretations under "author:LSJ".
> Also, about the current rule: say a player is in a "lost" position
> (however that is defined). Is he still bound to "sportsmanlike" play,
> or can he do anything he wants (transfer out, attack random minions,
> whatever)? Does he have to justify "random" actions to a judge, if
> called out on it?
All actions in a lost position "random" in the sense you're using the
word.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f853e0fcb0bd176d> I.e. player A is in a "lost" position. He decides to do a hostile
> crosstable action towards player X, an action which in no sane way
> helps him,
Every activity or inactivity he could do is one that "in no sane way
helps him", by definition.
They all lead to a 0VP finish.
On May 17, 10:42 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
> Relatedly, what is a "losing position" anyway, officially?
"losing position" is one in which you are losing.
"lost position" is the term used when talking about PTW, and it
involved being unable to gain any more VPs, unless unreasonable cases
are invoked.
> If you take
> the hardline approach, there pretty much is no such animal, since it's
> always possible the game state may change unexpectedly in a way which
> would let you get the 0,5VP, at least. Which would mean that it's
> never actually legal to transfer out.
Except that you could "attempt" to transfer out because Life Boon
exists and therefore attempting could also get you some VPs.
That's why "reasonable" is used instead of "hardline".
See the links in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8b21980e4be39ed6
On May 18, 3:17 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 10:09 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>
> > Following up on myself...
>
> > The real problem may be the question of what is a true "lost"
> > position, in the first place. I've seen a lot of wildly different
> > interpretations on that, and frankly, am not quite sure how to judge
> > it in a tournament myself.
>
> Check the interpretations under "author:LSJ".
If you by that you mean "things you have written in this thread", that
still doesn't totally enlighten me. By what I gather, the only
official definition of "lost position" is "one in which the player has
no reasonable chance of getting a GW or more VPs".
...and the definition of "reasonable" is equally vague (as per the
dictionary definition).
What I'm saying is that (to me at least) that's a very subjective
thing, and will result is quite different rulings based on the judge
and his/her views on what reasonable means (it does *not* mean the
same thing to all players). But ok, if that's the only guideline we
have or will get we'll go with that. I'm not entirely happy with the
situation, but I understand that providing concrete examples is
difficult. And yeah, the job of a judge is to make subjective judgment
calls, at times.
The good this is that, as a judge, this sort of thing is not something
that crops up in tournaments too often.
As an aside: in earlier posts I was using the words "losing position"
and "lost position" interchangeably, and that of course led to some
confusion. I *meant* "lost position" by all cases and was not trying
to intentionally cloud the issue. Sorry, my bad there.
Anyway, I've gotten at least some clarity on the issue from this, so
it's not all bad ;)
- Petri
Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>If you by that you mean "things you have written in this thread", that
>still doesn't totally enlighten me. By what I gather, the only
>official definition of "lost position" is "one in which the player has
>no reasonable chance of getting a GW or more VPs".
>
>...and the definition of "reasonable" is equally vague (as per the
>dictionary definition).
Consider a situation where two players on a table strike a VP splitting
deal. And for the sake of argument, it includes one of those players
getting 3VP first and then - because they have the game win and don't
have to maximize VPs beyond the GW - they say they'll roll over and give
the other player 2VP. (This basically involves two players who are sat
next to each other, although I think Life Boon could probably come into
play too.)
A third player calls the judge over and says that he thinks the 2VP
player is striking a losing deal, in violation of PTW, because he thinks
that that player is giving up a good chance at a game win for himself.
The judge looks at the table and makes a judgment on whether it's a
legal deal or not.
How does the judge do this? Using his or her understanding of V:TES,
the judge decides if the chances suggested are reasonable and if the
players are making reasonable choices. A player is not obligated to
play for a tiny, tiny, tiny 0.00001% chance of a GW in the qualifying
rounds[0], because it can - quite reasonably - backfire and cause him to
lose the reasonable option of gaining VPs because he turned down a deal,
or something. What's the threshold for when such behaviour becomes
illegal? The judge's opinion on what is reasonable.
If your judges can judge what is reasonable in a deal-making
environment, why is it so hard for them to judge what is reasonable in a
lost position? They're capable of deciding that something is too remote
a possibility to force a player to fight for it in a deal making
scenario. Why can't they do the same when judging a lost position?
Your judges *are* enforcing the play to win rules on deals, yes?
[0] In the final, a player can't make their position worse in the same
way - either they get a GW, or they come joint second. In joint second,
the number of VPs they have from earlier or their previous standing
isn't relevant. So in the final, the players should always try to get a
GW because it can't backfire. (Obviously, they can bide their time for
a better chance at a GW rather than leaping for it frivolously now.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, when you put it that way... yeah. You're right. Maybe I was
hoping for something that does not exist: a clarification on an issue
that is by definition always somewhat unclear and requires an on-site
judgment call.
Thanks for the writeup ;)
I guess the bottom line is that judges and players should all be aware
of what the current tournament rules say about the matter, and judges
should enforce the issue (requires that "be aware" thing, first :).
This also means that players should call over a judge if someone at
the table is trying to, say, self-oust from a situation which does not
look like a true "lost" position.
-Petri
Just to confirm: the "play to win" ruling as stated in the tournament
rules still applies in the final round, doesn't it? (the tournament
rules do not seem to specify any exceptions there)
I'm asking for confirmation just to prepare for people arguing that
the 0.5VP for timeout in finals does not matter in their final scoring
(which will be "2nd place" anyway), so they would not need to try and
stay alive if not in a "lost" position, or crap like that. :}
-Petri
Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote:
>I guess the bottom line is that judges and players should all be aware
>of what the current tournament rules say about the matter, and judges
>should enforce the issue (requires that "be aware" thing, first :).
>This also means that players should call over a judge if someone at
>the table is trying to, say, self-oust from a situation which does not
>look like a true "lost" position.
In this sort of situation, it's quite useful for the tournament
organizer/head judge to spend a minute just before the first round
briefly outlining any troublesome potential issues, and asking players
to come and talk to them if they have any issues, or call them over
during a game etc.
When grouping was new to the game, I remember reminding players about it
at the next few tournaments. At many tournaments, I've asked players to
try to make sure they differentiate between referendum negotiations
before a block and referendum negotiations once the referendum is
called. (Having run into a few too many problems where player A says
they're in the referendum, and player B says they're not so wants to
block.) A short description of play to win is perfectly sensible, if
it's a common cause of concerns.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On May 18, 11:26 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In this sort of situation, it's quite useful for the tournament
> organizer/head judge to spend a minute just before the first round
> briefly outlining any troublesome potential issues, and asking players
> to come and talk to them if they have any issues, or call them over
> during a game etc.
>
> When grouping was new to the game, I remember reminding players about it
> at the next few tournaments. At many tournaments, I've asked players to
> try to make sure they differentiate between referendum negotiations
> before a block and referendum negotiations once the referendum is
> called. (Having run into a few too many problems where player A says
> they're in the referendum, and player B says they're not so wants to
> block.) A short description of play to win is perfectly sensible, if
> it's a common cause of concerns.
Sounds like a good idea. I've emailed a local player mailing list with
a summary of this stuff, so hopefully at least the locals will be (or
at least slowly become) aware of the current rules on the matter.
Going through them before a tournament (for the next few times
anyway) may also be a smart move.
-Petri
In my humble opinion a player that is in a "lost position" should be
only aloud to pass, no influence, no actions whatsoever; that way any
moron that avocs the table because xe's in a "lost position" would be
obliged to stop doing it by the rules and the judge. And by being
unable to influence out, they have more chances of a time out or
another mirale...
[ quoted text not captured ]
passing also affects the table.
Being unable to influence out, they have fewer chances of a Life Boon
miracle.
That is, restricting the lost player to "pass" (i.e., "futile pool
sacking") is as arbitrary and unnecessary as restricting xer to futile
lunging (plus it would invite judge badgering by any player whose
weakened-but-not-yet-lost prey back-rushes).