[OLD] GW's vs. VP's

I have been posting to the WW forum recently, and had theLasombra point out to me that once a player has obtained a GW, they are basically free to do whatever they want regarding the remaining VP's (a fact of which I was not aware). Does anyone else think this is a strange way for the rest of a game to be handled? I did a little bit of a search and found a thread discussing it (how long 'till you can no longer post a follow up to a another post? I had to cut and paste). >Subject: Re: Judging question (LSJ) [LONG] >View: Complete Thread (15 articles) >Original Format >Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad >Date: 2003-02-18 12:06:17 PST >>Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" wrote: <snip> >> I will submit to you (all), for the third time in this thread, that if >> you think -- really THINK -- about *how often* someone plays in a >> "completely random way" and/or a "collusionary way" after gaining the >> Game Win, your >> collusion-can-happen-therefore-we-need-to-change-the-Game-Win-rule-and-a >> ssociated-rulings theory falls to pieces. If you *really* want to >> convince people that the current Game Win rule and/or associated rulings >> need to be changed, start keeping track of how often you believe players >> "play randomly" and/or "collude" after gaining the Game Win, and then >> come back and show us your data which demonstrates your supposition(s). How meaningful "*how often*" is has not been determined. To me, once is enough for a possible fix to be investigated. Reading the complete thread for this discussion, it seemed to be that the majority of posters (of which there was about six individuals, not a large number by any means) felt because _they_ don't do this, and haven't *really* seen it happen, that it is not a problem. Further reasoning cited the fact that giving away VP's (after obtaining the GW) is too risky <anyway>. Tapping has an element of risk too, I still do it, regularly. Gambit accepted is pretty risky, I'm gonna use it though. >Granted, I don't have data to prove this is major problem. >But if a loophole exists, it should be plugged (prevention is better than >correction), especially if there is a correction that can have minimal >impact in the game. I agree. What is the matter with : Players must play to win. If a player cannot win, <or has already won>, then they must play to maximise their VP's. Comments? <snip> >Flux -scrote

mud...@hotmail.com (scrote) wrote in message news:<b618d4f6.03052...@posting.google.com>... > Players must play to win. If a player cannot win, <or > has already won>, then they must play to maximise their > VP's. I disagree here, because pre-win and post-win games are far different. While the win is still in question, a VP by itself is implicitly a loss, when compared to a win. Until a table's game win is resolved, preventing a loss, where someone else scores a win, takes precedence over maximizing VP (and the associated predator-prey relationship). I'm not going to guess as to what the remaining players should do after a game win is scored, but a single VP does take a more prominent role at that point.

Currently the tournament rules say that a player must play in a sportsmanlike manner. For reasons unclear to me, "playing in a sportsmanlike manner" is defined for V:TES tournaments as "playing to get a GW; if that's impossible, playing to maximize VPs; if you're going to get 0 VPs, play however you want." Everyone who runs tournaments should know that, even though it's not written in the rules. I propose that it should be stated explicitly in the tournament rules, but that's besides your point. I agree that players should be forced to play to maximize VPs. I see no convincing argument why players should be allowed to give away VPs after they have the GW. Can anyone state such an argument? Ira

Ira wrote: > Currently the tournament rules say that a player must play in a > sportsmanlike manner. For reasons unclear to me, "playing in a > sportsmanlike manner" is defined for V:TES tournaments as "playing to > get a GW; if that's impossible, playing to maximize VPs; if you're > going to get 0 VPs, play however you want." The reason: The players must play toward the goal stated in the rules. That is, they can't ignore the goal stated in the rules and act "randomly" or out of non-game-related spite or what have you. They must play to win. > I agree that players should be forced to play to maximize VPs. I see > no convincing argument why players should be allowed to give away VPs > after they have the GW. Can anyone state such an argument? After you have won, "play to win" covers pretty much any activity, since each of your choices leads to a win. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Fri, 30 May 2003 21:07:35 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Ira wrote: >> Currently the tournament rules say that a player must play in a >> sportsmanlike manner. For reasons unclear to me, "playing in a >> sportsmanlike manner" is defined for V:TES tournaments as "playing to >> get a GW; if that's impossible, playing to maximize VPs; if you're >> going to get 0 VPs, play however you want." > >The reason: The players must play toward the goal stated in the rules. > >That is, they can't ignore the goal stated in the rules and act "randomly" >or out of non-game-related spite or what have you. They must play to win. > >> I agree that players should be forced to play to maximize VPs. I see >> no convincing argument why players should be allowed to give away VPs >> after they have the GW. Can anyone state such an argument? > >After you have won, "play to win" covers pretty much any activity, since >each of your choices leads to a win. once you've accumulated 3 vps, and thus the GW, are you allowed to play Gambit Accepted? (let's assume no other vps have been gained on that table) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

[ quoted text not captured ] Since GA causes you to become notequalto the Game Winner, I'd say that the play-to-win rule *could* be used as a good argument in not allowing you to play the card, BUT ONLY IF your position were weak enough that, after losing that victory point (and thus the 5-player-table GW), you were reasonably certain in not being able to gain 1 other VP. Come to think of it, this card goes against the very SPIRIT of the play-to-win rule, doesn't it? Gambit Accepted Master Only usable if you have at least 1 victory point. Lose 1 victory point and put this card in play. During your untap phase, move 1 pool from your prey's pool to your pool. If you are ousted, your predator gains an additional victory point. At the end of the game, if you have not been ousted, you gain an additional victory point. It may just be me, but I can see A LOT of circumstances where another player at the table would be able to convince me that the act of playing this card would violate the play-to-win rule. It's Monocle of Clarity all over again. <sigh> > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

evilp...@yahoo.com (evil_poot_cat) wrote in message news:<cf597231.03052...@posting.google.com>... > mud...@hotmail.com (scrote) wrote in message news:<b618d4f6.03052...@posting.google.com>... > > > Players must play to win. If a player cannot win, <or > > has already won>, then they must play to maximise their > > VP's. > > I disagree here, because pre-win and post-win games are far different. > While the win is still in question, a VP by itself is implicitly a > loss, when compared to a win. So what? Everbody should <must> be *playing to win* while the win is still in question. >Until a table's game win is resolved, > preventing a loss, where someone else scores a win, takes precedence > over maximizing VP (and the associated predator-prey relationship). What's your point? You're just restating what the rules already say, "players must play to win...". The thread is about what happens _after_ a player has won (but VP's still remain on the table). > I'm not going to guess as to what the remaining players should do > after a game win is scored, but a single VP does take a more prominent > role at that point. That's the point. Allowing a winning player to act as they choose (after obtaining the win) in regards to remaing VP's, allows the possibility of dishonest/collusive/unsportsmanlike conduct with no chance of judge moderation. If a GW already exists on a five player table there remains two players. _Nothing_ stops the winning player from conceding to the remaining player (assume it's a friend) to aid their friends chances of getting into the final. How can a judge rule against it? I know it's very remote chance that such a thing will occur, but it *could*, and *could* so easily fixed so that it *can't*. I doubt that anything much will come of this discussion (maybe I'll be made to realise how meaningless this issue is?), I just like talking about stuff :). -scrote

Kevin M. wrote: > salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>once you've accumulated 3 vps, and thus the GW, are you allowed to >>play Gambit Accepted? (let's assume no other vps have been gained on >>that table) Yes, if doing so doesn't reasonably lead to you not winning. > Since GA causes you to become notequalto the Game Winner, I'd say that the > play-to-win rule *could* be used as a good argument in not allowing you to play the > card, BUT ONLY IF your position were weak enough that, after losing that victory > point (and thus the 5-player-table GW), you were reasonably certain in not being able > to gain 1 other VP. Correct. > Come to think of it, this card goes against the very SPIRIT of the play-to-win rule, > doesn't it? No. Players frequently have to take risks at certain points in the game. This card simply formalizes a risky activity. [ quoted text not captured ]

scrote wrote: > That's the point. Allowing a winning player to act as they choose > (after obtaining the win) in regards to remaing VP's, allows the > possibility of dishonest/collusive/unsportsmanlike conduct with no > chance of judge moderation. If the judge finds collusive/unsportsmanlike conduct, he or she is always free to moderate it. The only thing that changes after the GW is acheived is that the winning player's actions that lead to a win are clearly not in violation of the play to win aspect of the sportsmanlike rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Since GA causes you to become notequalto the Game Winner, I'd say that the >play-to-win rule *could* be used as a good argument in not allowing you to >play the >card, BUT ONLY IF your position were weak enough that, after losing that >victory >point (and thus the 5-player-table GW), you were reasonably certain in not >being able >to gain 1 other VP. Well, I'd argue that you could justify playing it if you had a decent chance at getting a lot more VP's. Kind of like an all-or-nothing scenario. (Similar to if you reject a 3-2 split where you're still getting the table win but because you think you can sweep the table). >Come to think of it, this card goes against the very SPIRIT of the >play-to-win rule, >doesn't it? I personally think that Gambit Accepted will create quite a handful of really bad headaches during tournaments. The first time I looked at the card when I opened a booster pack at a Pre-Release I groaned, knowing that it helped open the door to all sorts of "accident" which now allow the transfer of VP's once they have already been gained (ignoring Life Boon right now which has a much narrower timing window). >It's Monocle of Clarity all over again. <sigh> Sigh is right! =( Halcyan 2

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3ED88E30...@white-wolf.com>... > scrote wrote: > > That's the point. Allowing a winning player to act as they choose > > (after obtaining the win) in regards to remaing VP's, allows the > > possibility of dishonest/collusive/unsportsmanlike conduct with no > > chance of judge moderation. > > If the judge finds collusive/unsportsmanlike conduct, he or she is > always free to moderate it. C'mon LSJ. Once a player has obtained the GW you can't even really make an allegation of collusive/unsportsmanlike conduct (within reason, obviously they can't tell someone to go *#@& themselves and get away with it), as the player is free to do what he/she wants. That's the point. It *seems* very unsportsmanlike to allow a player to give away VP's, but that's exactly what is allowed. > > The only thing that changes after the GW is acheived is that the > winning player's actions that lead to a win are clearly not in > violation of the play to win aspect of the sportsmanlike rule. Right. That's my point. Why, _aren't_ players (with a GW) forced to play to maximise VP's? ie Why are the rules the way they are? -scrote

>> The only thing that changes after the GW is acheived is that the >> winning player's actions that lead to a win are clearly not in >> violation of the play to win aspect of the sportsmanlike rule. > >Right. That's my point. Why, _aren't_ players (with a GW) forced to >play to maximise VP's? ie Why are the rules the way they are? Well, when you come down to it, then why aren't players forced to play to maximize TP's as a tertiary requirement (after GW's and VP's)? Thus if you're in a 5-player game, and one player has already received 1 or 2 VP's and you're in a no-win situation, then you should be *required* to do your best to help that player win (whether that means going full-blast forward, walling up completely, or giving that player all of your resources via the Succubus Club). Since you can't get any GW's or VP's, you should be forced to maximize your TP's by trying to ensure that that one player sweeps. IMO all of that (including dictating further terms to someone who's already won) seems a little too heavy-handed and really takes away from the concept of having choices and options. The situation regarding TP's really seems to be a logical next step from the situation that you (and others) espouse. Halcyan 2

In message <20030601221216...@mb-m16.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes: >Thus if you're in a 5-player game, and one player has already received 1 or 2 >VP's and you're in a no-win situation, then you should be *required* to do your >best to help that player win (whether that means going full-blast forward, >walling up completely, or giving that player all of your resources via the >Succubus Club). Since you can't get any GW's or VP's, you should be forced to >maximize your TP's by trying to ensure that that one player sweeps. > >IMO all of that (including dictating further terms to someone who's already >won) seems a little too heavy-handed and really takes away from the concept of >having choices and options. It does. However: [...] unless you cannot win anyhow (which is rare). [LSJ 20010808] "I have often said, and restate now, that it is virtually impossible to be in a truly lost position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting, usually)." [LSJ 20020919] Indeed, if you have a "full-blast" to do which maximises your Tournament Points, it seems very unlikely that you can say with confidence that your full blast stands no chance of getting you a VP. (Insert 'reasonable', in terms of, 'reasonable chance', 'reasonable likelihood' etc. as necessary.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030601221216...@mb-m16.aol.com>... > >> The only thing that changes after the GW is acheived is that the > >> winning player's actions that lead to a win are clearly not in > >> violation of the play to win aspect of the sportsmanlike rule. > > > >Right. That's my point. Why, _aren't_ players (with a GW) forced to > >play to maximise VP's? ie Why are the rules the way they are? > > > Well, when you come down to it, then why aren't players forced to play to > maximize TP's as a tertiary requirement (after GW's and VP's)? The difference, as I see it, is that VP's are a regular game consideration. TP's are an extra function added to decide tie breaks etc, in tournament situations. VP's are an integral part of the game. TP's are a fix added to help resolve potential disputes. That being said, you make a fair point. <snip> > IMO all of that (including dictating further terms to someone who's already > won) seems a little too heavy-handed and really takes away from the concept of > having choices and options. The situation regarding TP's really seems to be a > logical next step from the situation that you (and others) espouse. > Perhaps it is heavy-handed, but it seems that the current system simple allows players to cheat too easily (if they so choose). Again, I admit that the scenario is unlikely, but it is still possible. As far as choices, well, forcing players that have already won to continue ot attempt to maximize their VP's does not really limit their choices, in so much as it forces their choices to be aimed in a particular (correct, IMHO) direction. If a player is truly playing by the rules, then the will _never_ give away VP's to a *friend* ie. it isn't a viable *choice* (as you put it) to begin with. A rule forcing them to maxmize simply gives a judge the ability to police it. -scrote slightly drunk, getting drunker :) > > Halcyan 2

<snip> > If a player is truly playing by the rules, then the will _never_ give > away VP's to a *friend* ie. it isn't a viable *choice* (as you put it) > to begin with. A rule forcing them to maxmize simply gives a judge the > ability to police it. Isn't there a rule about 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour somewhere? That coudl certainly be applied (to almost anything) if the judge thinks it necessary. How about if the other player (to whom the winner is contemplating conceding) has played a really interesting game or been thoroughly shafted for being honourable -arguably it would be sportsmanlike to resign and give him the other 2 points. Is he the last player by luck or skill? If I won and wanted to resign the last 2 points to someone I had never met before because I thought they deserved them - what then? (it's arguably not very 'Jyhaddy' but then again he may be useful later if he does get through to the next round and Methuselah's should certainly plan for the long term!).

halc...@aol.com writes: >IMO all of that (including dictating further >terms to someone who's already >won) seems a little too heavy-handed >and really takes away from the concept of >having choices and options. If it's so onerous to have to play to maximize VPs, why require it the rest of the time? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

timl...@yahoo.co.uk (Timlagor) wrote in message news:<35cc71c7.03060...@posting.google.com>... > <snip> > > If a player is truly playing by the rules, then the will _never_ give > > away VP's to a *friend* ie. it isn't a viable *choice* (as you put it) > > to begin with. A rule forcing them to maxmize simply gives a judge the > > ability to police it. > > Isn't there a rule about 'unsportsmanlike' behaviour somewhere? That > coudl certainly be applied (to almost anything) if the judge thinks it > necessary. > How? Currently, if I am in a "win" position I can do whatever I want with the remaining VP's, as I am not bound by the "play to maximize" ruling. What's the basis of a judge ruling against a player giving away the VP's in a situation such as this? Barring a player admission of an unsportsmanlike/collusive motivation, there is no such basis. > How about if the other player (to whom the winner is contemplating > conceding) has played a really interesting game or been thoroughly > shafted for being honourable -arguably it would be sportsmanlike to > resign and give him the other 2 points. I just can't see that as being justifiable. Every other "non-winning" player has had to strive to garner as many VP's as they can. Why should a winner be able to just dish them out as they see fit? To flog a dead horse: I know that it's *unlikely* to happen, but it could (does?). I just don't see why a "winning" player isn't still forced to maximze VP's. To me, it makes no sense at all. >Is he the last player by luck > or skill? If I won and wanted to resign the last 2 points to someone I > had never met before because I thought they deserved them - what then? > (it's arguably not very 'Jyhaddy' but then again he may be useful > later if he does get through to the next round and Methuselah's should > certainly plan for the long term!). No, actually you should not be planning for the <out-of-current-game> long-term. Players aren't supposed to take out of game considerations into...consideration :). Playing to fudge the final table isn't supposed to happen. This is somewhat of the point of the thread, current rules make it possible for a "winning" player to try and fudge, without any real chance of judge intervention. -scrote

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 09:53:51 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > In message <20030601221216...@mb-m16.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 > <halc...@aol.com> writes: >>Thus if you're in a 5-player game, and one player has already received 1 or 2 >>VP's and you're in a no-win situation, then you should be *required* to do your >>best to help that player win (whether that means going full-blast forward, >>walling up completely, or giving that player all of your resources via the >>Succubus Club). Since you can't get any GW's or VP's, you should be forced to >>maximize your TP's by trying to ensure that that one player sweeps. >> >>IMO all of that (including dictating further terms to someone who's already >>won) seems a little too heavy-handed and really takes away from the concept of >>having choices and options. > > It does. However: > [...] unless you cannot win anyhow (which is rare). [LSJ 20010808] > > "I have often said, and restate now, that it is virtually > impossible to be in a truly lost position (except for the moments > leading up to your ousting, usually)." [LSJ 20020919] > > Indeed, if you have a "full-blast" to do which maximises your Tournament > Points, it seems very unlikely that you can say with confidence that > your full blast stands no chance of getting you a VP. > (Insert 'reasonable', in terms of, 'reasonable chance', 'reasonable > likelihood' etc. as necessary.) Suppose you are down to 3 players and your prey is essentially unassailable. You may well be able to decide whether you go out before your predator or not by walling up (slowing your predator and giving your prey a free run) or hitting your prey with everything (slowing them down and opening yourself up). You may well be able to attack 'upstream' as well. I'm envisioning a situation where you are not about to go out so much as unable to hurt your prey significantly. For instance you and your predator may have about 5 pool each while your predator is on 40.

In message <1wap8rfbw761r.lh4g8dvcof1c$.d...@40tude.net>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >Suppose you are down to 3 players and your prey is essentially >unassailable. You may well be able to decide whether you go out before your >predator or not by walling up (slowing your predator and giving your prey a >free run) or hitting your prey with everything (slowing them down and >opening yourself up). You may well be able to attack 'upstream' as well. >I'm envisioning a situation where you are not about to go out so much as >unable to hurt your prey significantly. >For instance you and your predator may have about 5 pool each while your >predator I assume this is prey. >is on 40. If you cannot improve your standing (TW, followed by VP), you are free to maintain your current standing in any manner you choose. Assuming that that manner isn't collusive, or similar. Additionally, there is a problem with the basic situation you describe, in that simply having lots of pool is not necessarily indicative of having an unassailable lead. For instance, your prey may have run out of cards getting that much pool - or perhaps a badly timed/chosen Golconda: Inner Peace. You may be playing a strong combat deck. If you could destroy all his vampires, you could try to oust him. Or, for instance, you're playing a combat deck with Dramatic Upheavals and so on. That might put you into a situation where you could oust your predator, for one VP, instead of obliterating yourself. Nor does the strategic decision have to, necessarily, be between walling and hitting. If you have three or four vampires, taking actions with two and leaving two blockers/bouncers is a possibility. (This can also feed into the above - a deck with significant bounce potential will be in a stronger position against a bleed predator than simple pool standings may look.) All of these factors can feed in. There are many people who will post situations which say "Okay, so I can't win..." without actually explaining *why* it's so difficult for them to not win. Or at least do better. Simple pool totals don't usually cut it. It's perfectly possible, in the above example, that you're close to time. Perhaps it was a four player table - you, LSJ, me, Dave Hammond. LSJ ousted me. And LSJ is on 1 VP, and 40 pool. You and Dave are on 5 pool and 0 VP. It's towards the end of a long-ish game, possibly. 40 pool... that's a lot of gain, a lot of cards played, probably? Maybe LSJ doesn't have that great a defence left. You might be able to kill his minions and get through? Perhaps LSJ and Dave both have no vampires left... But let's assume LSJ *does* have some defence. He might not be able to get through Dave Hammond in time, though. Dave, like you, is thinking about walling up - and he's probably more precarious. If he holds on, he might get 0.5 VP for timing out. So he *does* wall up. LSJ might then make you an offer. You help him get the table win, and he'll agree to draw with you. You go into Dave and smack him hard, you'll get a guaranteed 0.5 VP. That's better than your current state of affairs. You could easily take him up on it. Or, if you're low on cards, he might let you withdraw after killing Dave. You get 1 VP, he gets 3 and a TW. Sounds good? Well, it sounds better than how you're doing if you just rush forward, or even if you just go backwards randomly. Or what if LSJ is playing with a Super Arika deck! Or any single vampire strategy. A laptop, a Pulse of the Canaille, +2 bleed on a random Inner Circle member, stomping bleeds through. Oh whoops, Archon Investigation. Sorry, my hand slipped. 3 turns to get a new one out with 4 transfers a turn, you might have 3 or 4 vampires... he's down another 11 pool for Arika, you can try and sneak in 10 points of bleed by then, maybe more... that's a bit different, isn't it? So these things aren't cut and dried. It might *look* like you have no hope of a VP from pool totals - but they don't tell you very much. However, let us assume that LSJ has completely controlled the table. You have *absolutely no chance* of getting a VP. (The chances of this are slim, but possible, of course - until you get to the dying seconds.) You are not colluding with LSJ or Dave Hammond. You have no way of improving your standing. You may get 0 VP in any manner you choose. That may include rushing backwards - though some might view that as not "sporting", even if it might not qualify as unsportsman-like under the rules, which may be a consideration for you. [ quoted text not captured ]