Having tested the titanium rules out with much success. I would like
to present it to everyone
If and when a player would like to leave the game prior to being
ousted and all players can agree to it the following happens.
Where the leaving player's pool total is x, the predator of the player
leaving gain 6- ((x/30) * 6 rounded up) pool
and 1 victory point if x <= 10
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
XZealot wrote:
> Having tested the titanium rules out with much success. I would like
> to present it to everyone
>
> If and when a player would like to leave the game prior to being
> ousted and all players can agree to it the following happens.
Where "the following" is anything at all.
That is, any remedy "all players can agree to" is sufficient, by definition.
It is indeed the default "titanium" rule currently in use (if a player has to
scoop, then fix the situation as best you (the remaining players) can).
I think what you're looking for is some sort of a priori agreement that all
players have by default at the beginning of every game.
The unfortunate side effect of such an agreement is a large disconnect with the
actual game state at scoop time (projecting the many-dimensional game state to a
one-dimensional space ("scooper's pool total") loses a great deal of information).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sep 25, 11:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > Having tested the titanium rules out with much success. I would like
> > to present it to everyone
>
> > If and when a player would like to leave the game prior to being
> > ousted and all players can agree to it the following happens.
>
> Where "the following" is anything at all.
>
> That is, any remedy "all players can agree to" is sufficient, by definition.
>
> It is indeed the default "titanium" rule currently in use (if a player has to
> scoop, then fix the situation as best you (the remaining players) can).
>
> I think what you're looking for is some sort of a priori agreement that all
> players have by default at the beginning of every game.
>
> The unfortunate side effect of such an agreement is a large disconnect with the
> actual game state at scoop time (projecting the many-dimensional game state to a
> one-dimensional space ("scooper's pool total") loses a great deal of information).
Yes, you're exactly right.
I am looking to postulate a rule that would quickly, cleanly and
easily help judges rule and games digest the unfortunate occurrence
when a player leaves the game without being ousted.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
COLLUSION!
The 1 VP section is what bothers me the most. If you're preying on
your buddy and need the VPs and he's got to leave anyway, there's
nothing to stop him from transferring below 10 pool and just taking
off, giving you a quick VP and some pool, even if you did absolutely
nothing to him as a predator.
Perhaps if the player who "left" also was disallowed any further
participation in the event. Perhaps if it was only 0.5 VPs <10 pool,
and only 1.0 VPs < 5 pool. Still, it's very difficult to assess what
motivation might be going on behind the scenes.
I'm still a fan of the good old "pool sack" because it gives the table
time to adjust to the new situation with one less methuselah and more
or less gives the predator of the pool sack free reign to do whatever
they want to oust their prey. It make it harder on combat decks which
may rely on Fame or other cards to do pool damage. But maybe there is
a way to deal with that too (first rush action in a turn done against
a phantom minion does 1 pool damage, second in a turn does 2 and so on
or something).
Keep trying. There's got to be a decent solution out there.
Jeff
Jeff Kuta wrote:
> Perhaps if the player who "left" also was disallowed any further
> participation in the event.
There is no "the event". Norm's making a suggestion for friendly games.
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's what I thought, but Norm mentions "judges" above. For friendly
games, this rule makes some sense. For an event with judges, having a
rule that covers the situation where a player leaves in the middle of
a game is a bad precedent, IMHO - makes it seem like that's an
acceptable thing to do.
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote:
> Having tested the titanium rules out with much success. I would like
> to present it to everyone> If and when a player would like to leave the game prior to being
> ousted and all players can agree to it the following happens.> Where the leaving player's pool total is x, the predator of the player
> leaving gain 6- ((x/30) * 6 rounded up) pool> and 1 victory point if x <= 10
And what if the leaving player happens to have more than 30 pool?
Does the former predator lose pool?
(He probably deserves it!)
On Sep 25, 9:03 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> Having tested the titanium rules out with much success. I would like
> to present it to everyone
>
> If and when a player would like to leave the game prior to being
> ousted and all players can agree to it the following happens.
>
> Where the leaving player's pool total is x, the predator of the player
> leaving gain 6- ((x/30) * 6 rounded up) pool
>
> and 1 victory point if x <= 10
>
> Comments Welcome,
I know we've discussed a lot of these issues already, and for a
friendly game, I think it doesn't really matter - because it's a
friendly game, so do whatever you want.
I think the more interesting situation is at a tournament, where a
judge needs to use his or her judgement and make a ruling. As LSJ and
others noted, simply looking at pool total loses too much information
to be reliably fair.
For what it's worth to other judges out there, my general approach is:
Given A->B->C->D->E, and C needs to leave, then:
1) Look at how close C was to being ousted. If very close (like 1-2
turns away), then likely poolsack (or some other similar solution of B
was a dragonbound combat deck, or a brinksmanship mill deck.)
2) If C was more than 2 turns away from being ousted, then compare the
relative strength of C and D. If D is weaker, then B gets no bonus.
If D is stronger than C, then give some bonus to B in terms of pool
(but not VPs, since C was more than 2 turns away from being ousted
anyway.)
3) If B is stronger than C and there won't be a poolsack, consider
giving D some benefit (like pool or blood on vamps) due to having a
suddenly stronger predator.
Obviously there are a lot of conditions, and that's what makes this so
tricky to judge. I think the best learning will come from case
studies and discussion. Maybe we will never reach a consensus, but at
least you'll know what tools are at your disposal (poolsack and
awarding VPs or partial VPS are just two of many things you could do
as a judge.)
Overall, the goal is to maintain the same balance as before the player
had to leave (which is probably impossible, but you might be able to
come close.)
That's what I would do, and how I would approach the issue.
Ira
On 25 Sep., 19:14, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm still a fan of the good old "pool sack" because it gives the table
> time to adjust to the new situation with one less methuselah and more
> or less gives the predator of the pool sack free reign to do whatever
> they want to oust their prey. It make it harder on combat decks which
> may rely on Fame or other cards to do pool damage. But maybe there is
> a way to deal with that too (first rush action in a turn done against
> a phantom minion does 1 pool damage, second in a turn does 2 and so on
> or something).
>
> Keep trying. There's got to be a decent solution out there.
>
> Jeff
I don't like poolsacking. Yesterday we had a game where one player
left at 21 pool! his predator would've needed at least 6 turns to do
that during which the predator of the gone player (me :) would have no
pressure from behind whatsoever. IMO poolsacking at >10 pool hurts the
predator of the player that leaves and benefits his prey so much that
it definitely is not an option.
On Sep 25, 12:14 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:03 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Having tested the titanium rules out with much success. I would like
> > to present it to everyone
>
> > If and when a player would like to leave the game prior to being
> > ousted and all players can agree to it the following happens.
>
> > Where the leaving player's pool total is x, the predator of the player
> > leaving gain 6- ((x/30) * 6 rounded up) pool
>
> > and 1 victory point if x <= 10
>
> > Comments Welcome,
> > Norman S. Brown, Jr
> > XZealot
> > Archon of the Swamp
>
> COLLUSION!
>
> The 1 VP section is what bothers me the most. If you're preying on
> your buddy and need the VPs and he's got to leave anyway, there's
> nothing to stop him from transferring below 10 pool and just taking
> off, giving you a quick VP and some pool, even if you did absolutely
> nothing to him as a predator.
What's to stop him from transferring down to zero pool?
> Perhaps if the player who "left" also was disallowed any further
> participation in the event. Perhaps if it was only 0.5 VPs <10 pool,
> and only 1.0 VPs < 5 pool. Still, it's very difficult to assess what
> motivation might be going on behind the scenes.
Well, if he is leaving then you would think that wouldn't be an issue
....since he is "leaving".
> I'm still a fan of the good old "pool sack" because it gives the table
> time to adjust to the new situation with one less methuselah and more
> or less gives the predator of the pool sack free reign to do whatever
> they want to oust their prey. It make it harder on combat decks which
> may rely on Fame or other cards to do pool damage. But maybe there is
> a way to deal with that too (first rush action in a turn done against
> a phantom minion does 1 pool damage, second in a turn does 2 and so on
> or something).
Pool sack just fucks the grandprey of the poolsack, as the grandprey's
predator only has to worry about one player.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, pool sacking happened to me in a tournament because the guy
wanted to go smoke some weed.... I was in a strong position, he
basically cost me the game.
It can be very annoying in a tournament when people don't play to win.
simcof
[ quoted text not captured ]
Apparently, to some folks, that's broken...
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com