From the rulebook,
"9.2. Withdrawing from the Game
If you have exhausted your library and begin your turn with less than a
full hand, you have the option of withdrawing from the game. To exercise
this option, you must announce your intent to withdraw during your untap
phase. For the withdrawal to succeed, you must meet the following
conditions:
None of your minions enter combat until your next untap phase.
None of your minions lose (or spend) any blood until your next untap phase.
You do not lose (or spend) any pool until your next untap phase.
If you have met these conditions when you would start your untap phase,
you successfully withdraw. The withdrawal fails if you lose a single
pool or blood, even if you gain enough to make up for the loss.
If you successfully withdraw, you receive one victory point to add to
any victory points you have already gained. Your predator does not get a
victory point or any pool for your withdrawal."
My proposal is this. Simply, amend 9.2 by removing "If you have
exhausted your library and begin your turn with less than a full
hand..." and add in its place "Any turn after your fourth (or X)...".
This gives you a chance to earn 1VP and prohibits self-ousting via
Tournament Rules 4.8 'Playing to Win'. It also creates a method by which
people can, with some table co-operation, leave the game with the least
disruption. Should anyone wish to prevent the withdraw it is extremely
easy too do so, but by the same token a conciliatory prey and
indifferent grand-predator and grand-prey would leave only your predator
to be dealt with or neutered by the table.
I never understood the need to have empty library or less than full hand
as a prerequisite to withdrawing. It seemed counter-intuitive. I had
always assumed it was able to be done during any of your own untap
phases until I went to attempt it once. I can see why it might be in
place to stop declarations of withdrawing on turn one, but surely there
is a point (X) at which all Methuselah are considered to have put some
resources in place, at least enough to foil any withdraw should anyone
at the table wish it. Even if you did make some crazy Ankara
Citadel/Secure Haven wearing mono vampire playing Delaying
Tactics/Deflection deck that existed for the sole purpose of withdrawing
at any time, you wont be winning any tournaments with 1VP per game. I
guess it might conceivably be able to poach an extra VP here or there
but any DI or burn location foils it.
The above solution actually opens up even more varied deck designs with
the potential of using this mechanic in mind should the need arise.
Can someone please point out what I am missing here or does this idea
have potential?
Aaron
Archbishop of Adelaide
City of Churches
[ quoted text not captured ]
yeah, the issue is that you only get 0.5 VP in a tournament as per 3.7
of the VEKN rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
I could not find a link from the main VTES site to these btw web
peoples.
simcof
On May 13, 9:22 am, Aaron Connor <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the rulebook,> My proposal is this. Simply, amend 9.2 by removing "If you have
> exhausted your library and begin your turn with less than a full
> hand..." and add in its place "Any turn after your fourth (or X)...".
>
> This gives you a chance to earn 1VP
Yes.
9.1 (ousting your prey) also gives you a chance to earn 1VP.
> and prohibits self-ousting via
> Tournament Rules 4.8 'Playing to Win'.
No.
This is the same false assertion Ector made with his suggested rule
change.
You must maximize your GWs, or, if you cannot get the GW, you must
maximize your VPs.
If you can reasonable expect to get a VP from withdrawing, then you
cannot self-oust (unless that also gets you a VP, of course).
That's just as true under the current rules as it is under the
proposed change.
If you cannot reasonable expect to get any more VPs, you are free to
get those 0 VPs in any manner you like (whether it be a futile
withdrawal attempt under the current or proposed rule, or a futile
lunge, or a futile influence attempt).
> It also creates a method by which
> people can, with some table co-operation, leave the game with the least
> disruption.
Yes, it makes withdrawal easier.
If that is the goal, then you can cement that (and actually eliminate
self-ousting) by making withdrawal automatic and instantaneous,
allowed at any time (modified further with a split of the VP between
the withdrawer and xer predator, a la Ector's plan).
Anything less leaves open the prospect of self-ousting (thanks to,
among other things, DI).
But of course, such a rule would also eliminate 9.1's applicability.
> I never understood the need to have empty library or less than full hand
> as a prerequisite to withdrawing. It seemed counter-intuitive. I had
> always assumed it was able to be done during any of your own untap
> phases until I went to attempt it once. I can see why it might be in
> place to stop declarations of withdrawing on turn one, but surely there
> is a point (X) at which all Methuselah are considered to have put some
> resources in place, at least enough to foil any withdraw should anyone
> at the table wish it.
To understand it, you first have to understand why the withdrawal rule
was added in the first place.
Garfield didn't just add withdrawal because he wanted its effect in
general. As I see it, he added it primarily to handle stalemate(*).
For that, it is necessary to allow the game to end when no one can
achieve an oust (either that or some other rule that explicitly allows
a stalemate -- but that would probably be more complex than the
current 9.2).
Naturally, the stalemate handling gets delayed to end game (as defined
by deck depletion) to prevent it from unnecessarily influencing the
"game proper" (the mid game and the opening).
It would be very easy to withdraw on your first turn, for instance,
and quite unsatisfying. So rather than stick in an arbitrary magic
number of turns or somesuch, he used a more game-anchored metric: deck
exhaustion.
(*) To a lesser extent, it also helps address the problem primarily
addressed by the predator-prey mechanic and the Edge: how to make
offense more necessary (so as to prevent a common problem in multi-
player games: the multi-solitare feel that arises when everyone just
entrenches). But that problem is already adequately addressed by those
two rules, so that would not be a sufficient reason to add 9.2. That
9.2 also sometimes helps this is just gravy.
[ quoted text not captured ]
?
I'm not sure how that is the issue.
While true, that particular VEKN adjustment to 9.2 doesn't seem to
matter to his suggestion above.
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> I could not find a link from the main VTES site to these btw web
> peoples.
VTES -> Rules -> Tournament rules
VTES -> Event information -> Tournament rules
simcof wrote:
>
> yeah, the issue is that you only get 0.5 VP in a tournament as per 3.7
> of the VEKN rules
>
Right you are, realised that right after posting. Too much staring at
the rulebook for reference made me forget it. Still 0.5 > none at all.
Aaron
Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply it has enlightened somewhat.
LSJ wrote:
>
> Garfield didn't just add withdrawal because he wanted its effect in
> general. As I see it, he added it primarily to handle stalemate(*).
Is there not already time limits and intentional draw existing to deal
with this?
If withdrawing is pushed into the late game then the game timing out
should handle it sufficiently and if not that, then an agreed upon draw.
You would think that a stalemated game would have players happily
agreeing to conclude rather than twiddle thumbs.
As it is, the withdrawal rule is more used as a deal making tool than
for stalemate avoidance.
Aaron
On May 13, 10:19 am, Aaron Connor <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply it has enlightened somewhat.
>
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Garfield didn't just add withdrawal because he wanted its effect in
> > general. As I see it, he added it primarily to handle stalemate(*).
>
> Is there not already time limits and intentional draw existing to deal
> with this?
No.
The basic game has no time limit and no intentional draw rule.
> If withdrawing is pushed into the late game then the game timing out
> should handle it sufficiently and if not that, then an agreed upon draw.
> You would think that a stalemated game would have players happily
> agreeing to conclude rather than twiddle thumbs.
>
> As it is, the withdrawal rule is more used as a deal making tool than
> for stalemate avoidance.
OK. Then I guess you could make a case for the VEKN rules, since
they've already got intentional draw, to eliminate 9.2.
LSJ wrote:
> OK. Then I guess you could make a case for the VEKN rules, since
> they've already got intentional draw, to eliminate 9.2.
Interesting.
This would, IMHO, impact in a positive way existing table dynamics.
Aa
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure.
Except that withdrawing (or even attempting to withdraw) is already
vanishingly rare, so I don't see how eliminating it would impact the
game all that much (and probably not to a point to warrant the
additional, albeit small, change to the base rules).
[ quoted text not captured ]
If withdrawing were a bit easier and still worth 1 VP it might have
been. But with the difficulty of it not to mention the reduction to
only a half a VP. It will likely vanish in time as it's not worth it
in the long run anyway.
[ quoted text not captured ]
It would reduce the worth of deals that require to split the duel VP.
With the present the duel can lead to :
- an oust, 2 VP for the survivor
- a withdrawal, 0.5 VP for the withdrawing player and 1 VP for his
opponent
- a draw, 0.5 VP for each
The oust can come from the natural play or be part of a 3-2 deal with
the winning player conceding. As a withdrawal is at least as good as a
draw for everyone, it is the general solution used for a VP split
deal. The draw only happens because of time limit.
With no withdrawal, there would be fewer deals. Some players might
accept a losing deal for 1 VP but not for 0.5 VP, and a player
entering the duel with 1 VP could not get the GW without ousting his
opponent.