chatter during tournaments

I have two questions that came up during my last tournament. 1) Is it legal to offer a table split during the seating for the final round? What about informing a player considering where he is going to sit about a third player's deck (that intercept deck will eat your 1 stealth voter alive!) 2) Is it legal to inform a player considering a deal that the player he is making the deal with broke a deal during a prior round?

Andrew Joubert wrote: > I have two questions that came up during my last tournament. > > 1) Is it legal to offer a table split during the seating for the final > round? Sure. > What about informing a player considering where he is going to sit > about a third player's deck (that intercept deck will eat your 1 stealth > voter alive!) Sure. Also legal to lie about the contents of that deck (or any other). > 2) Is it legal to inform a player considering a deal that the player he is > making the deal with broke a deal during a prior round? Sure. Also legal to lie about deal-breaking history. -- 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/

LSJ wrote: > Andrew Joubert wrote: > >> I have two questions that came up during my last tournament. >> >> 1) Is it legal to offer a table split during the seating for the >> final round? > > > Sure. More importantly, is it legal to accept such a deal if you're on the non-game-winning end? Ie, if I say to my predator before anyone's taken their turns, "Lay off me all game, and after I've gotten 3 VPs, I'll roll over and you can have 2", is it legal for him to accept? Does it matter if my deck obviously trumps his? If his obviously trumps mine? --Colin McGuigan

Just for the record, I was the one offering the split and ratting on the deal-breaker. I'll just consider the guy that called me on them (and getting me to shut up) as using table talk more masterfully than I did :)

[ quoted text not captured ] It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be assumed to be playing to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Does it matter if my deck obviously trumps his? If his obviously trumps > > mine? > > > > --Colin McGuigan > > It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be > assumed to be playing to win. And more importantly : in the end you don´t have to honor your deal. Maybe you just pretend to give him a GW in the final. Not that I would *ever* do such a thing, but somehow it wound up in my mind. -- johannes walch

LSJ wrote: > It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be > assumed to be playing to win. Two questions, then: 1) Is an illegal deal impossible in the finals, since all players can be assumed to be playing to win? 2) What about if it isn't the finals? Is a table-split-before-the-first-turn then illegal or no or for the losing party? --Colin McGuigan

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4083A791...@white-wolf.com>... > Colin McGuigan wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > >> Andrew Joubert wrote: > >> > >>> I have two questions that came up during my last tournament. > >>> > >>> 1) Is it legal to offer a table split during the seating for the > >>> final round? > >> > >> > >> > >> Sure. > > > > > > More importantly, is it legal to accept such a deal if you're on the > > non-game-winning end? > > > > Ie, if I say to my predator before anyone's taken their turns, "Lay off > > me all game, and after I've gotten 3 VPs, I'll roll over and you can > > have 2", is it legal for him to accept? > > > > Does it matter if my deck obviously trumps his? If his obviously trumps > > mine? > > > > --Colin McGuigan > > It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be > assumed to be playing to win. I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. Isn't it so that if you have a good chance to win the table you cannot make a loosing deal? W

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<eJmcnfXGVJJ...@speakeasy.net>... > LSJ wrote: > > It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be > > assumed to be playing to win. > > Two questions, then: > > 1) Is an illegal deal impossible in the finals, since all players can be > assumed to be playing to win? A player who is playing to win is, by definition, not in violation of the "play to win" rule. If the deal is illegal for some reason, though, like threats or something, then it is still illegal. > 2) What about if it isn't the finals? Is a > table-split-before-the-first-turn then illegal or no or for the losing > party? If a player is in violation of any rule, including the "play to win" aspect of the sportsmanship rule, then that violation is an example of illegal play, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

> And more importantly : in the end you don´t have to honor your deal. Maybe > you just pretend to give him a GW in the final. Not that I would *ever* do > such a thing, but somehow it wound up in my mind. I watched a final the other day where someone offered to roll after he got 2 vps, his predator voted out the two people (with his help) and then when the predator ended his turn, instead of rolling he pushed through and took him out, so beware, David

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not > know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. Exactly. So he won't take the deal. Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot get 3 VPs. > Isn't it so that if you have a good chance to win the table you cannot > make a loosing deal? In the finals, it is so that if you have a good chance at winning the table, you'll take it (since there are no "after-game" considerations). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, > players can be assumed to be playing to win. Are you implying that, if it is not the finals, players cannot be assumed to be playing to 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/ 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

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:18:44 GMT, LSJ wrote: >It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be >assumed to be playing to win. I read this thread and I'm reminded of the aphorism: "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." -- Simon Cameron Someone who makes a table-split deal before he has even sat down at the table is, ipso facto, not playing to win. And is clearly no sportsman either. If you guys can't see this then there's no helping you. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40843FFC...@white-wolf.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not > > know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. > > Exactly. So he won't take the deal. > Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot > get 3 VPs. Does this statement essentially equal to the following, simpler statement: Accepting a losing deal in the finals before anything has happened always results in an illegal deal. (Maybe even "before a few rounds of play" would be better than "anything has happened"). > > Isn't it so that if you have a good chance to win the table you cannot > > make a loosing deal? > > In the finals, it is so that if you have a good chance at winning the > table, you'll take it (since there are no "after-game" considerations). What sort of "after-game" considerations? I'm really curious what makes the finals different from any prior round as far as "after-game" considerations come up. In fact, as far as after-game considerations go, the finals may be even more significant (e.g. getting that ride home, etc.). ;) But really, if it wanted to mean that nobody would cheat the table over to a buddy simply because it is the last game played, well, I'm not sure that I agree. Been there, never done that but seen a fair share. Bye, Daneel

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, >>players can be assumed to be playing to win. > > Are you implying that, if it is not the finals, players cannot be assumed to > be playing to win? If it's not the finals, then the possibility of a player using out-of-game considerations, like standings in the tournament, must be considered, naturally. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40843FFC...@white-wolf.com>... >>Wouter Kuyper wrote: >>>I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not >>>know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. >>Exactly. So he won't take the deal. >>Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot >>get 3 VPs. > > Does this statement essentially equal to the following, simpler > statement: > > Accepting a losing deal in the finals before anything has happened > always results in an illegal deal. (Maybe even "before a few rounds of > play" would be better than "anything has happened"). Why would the player accept a losing deal? >>>Isn't it so that if you have a good chance to win the table you cannot >>>make a loosing deal? >> >>In the finals, it is so that if you have a good chance at winning the >>table, you'll take it (since there are no "after-game" considerations). > > What sort of "after-game" considerations? I'm really curious what > makes the finals different from any prior round as far as "after-game" > considerations come up. Standings in the tournament. > But really, if it wanted to mean that nobody would cheat the table > over to a buddy simply because it is the last game played, well, I'm > not sure that I agree. Been there, never done that but seen a fair > share. Collusion is still illegal, of course. It is illegal whether a deal is made or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Why would a player take a losing deal when he can win? If the answer involves something illegal (threats, collusion, etc.) then that illegal aspect is still illegal. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40843FFC...@white-wolf.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not > > know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. > > Exactly. So he won't take the deal. > Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot > get 3 VPs. > > > Isn't it so that if you have a good chance to win the table you cannot > > make a loosing deal? > > In the finals, it is so that if you have a good chance at winning the > table, you'll take it (since there are no "after-game" considerations). That is assuming everybody is smart and no collusion and all that stuff ofcourse... But do i understand you correctly, that you are saying that even before a game has started you can take a losing deal because you think 2 VP's is the most you can realistically get? You never know how things will end before they start...at least that is what i think...perhaps all 5 of his Lazverinus (whose combat would beat you) are on the bottom of his crypt, or something like that....I would say that no matter what decks are on the table each deck and player have at least 4% chance (take any random low number above the thresshold of "no realistic chance") of winning the table. W

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4084F2CF...@white-wolf.com>... > Daneel wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40843FFC...@white-wolf.com>... > >>Wouter Kuyper wrote: > >>>I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not > >>>know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. > >>Exactly. So he won't take the deal. > >>Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot > >>get 3 VPs. > > > > Does this statement essentially equal to the following, simpler > > statement: > > > > Accepting a losing deal in the finals before anything has happened > > always results in an illegal deal. (Maybe even "before a few rounds of > > play" would be better than "anything has happened"). > > Why would the player accept a losing deal? because he THINKS that is the best he can do...and perhaps it IS higher then his estimated value for VP's. but not for a Tablewin. And you should play for a TW first before playing for VP's right? I mean a judge can only allow a loosing deal, when the losing site of it has close to zero chance of winning right? I think without cards being played it is never close to zero. Is this where we disagree or am i missing something? W

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:53:36 GMT, LSJ wrote: >Why would a player take a losing deal when he can win? Maybe he's risk-averse, gullible or weak-willed? We appear to be talking about a real incident here and this sort of thing seems quite normal in VEKN events. People seem to have the idea that unsporting actions can be explained away with the magic word "deal" - a word that doesn't appear in the rules of VTES or VEKN. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > People seem to have the idea that unsporting > actions can be explained away with the magic word "deal" - a word that > doesn't appear in the rules of VTES or VEKN. Do the words "Ruy Lopez" appear in the rules for Chess? How about the word "Troll"? Cheers, WES

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4084F2CF...@white-wolf.com>... > > Accepting a losing deal in the finals before anything has happened > > always results in an illegal deal. (Maybe even "before a few rounds of > > play" would be better than "anything has happened"). > > Why would the player accept a losing deal? There may be multiple explanations and reasons. I'm primarily interested in a confirmation (for what I think is obvious). Assuming there is a solid argument (based on encounter in the previous rounds, etc.), can such a deal ever be legal? Off the top of my hat: "In round #2 I had the same predator and prey as now. My defence does not work against the offence my predator uses, and my offence is completely countered by the defence my prey uses (they know this, and chose their relative positions to me based on this knowledge). However, I can play my deck in a way that ensures that my predator cannot oust me (but neither can I apply any sort of forward pressure). I am willing to trade in my otherwise obviously zero VPs for two, but I need to know from the beginning." Now, this is basically bullshit, but it is logical and it can be valid. My gut reaction as a judge to this speech would be something along the lines of "play the game and let others play it too", and I would not allow any sort of deal. Not that I could actually dictate how anyone plays their decks (and in this case the player can legally go all-out defence because of the threat, and the "prey" can legally concede after gaining 3 VPs, as the first place is his anyway). > >>In the finals, it is so that if you have a good chance at winning the > >>table, you'll take it (since there are no "after-game" considerations). > > > > What sort of "after-game" considerations? I'm really curious what > > makes the finals different from any prior round as far as "after-game" > > considerations come up. > > Standings in the tournament. I still fail to see the relevance. In the preliminary rounds you strive to score high because you want to get into the finals / want to gain a better seating. In the final round you want to claim championship. Either way you play to win. > > But really, if it wanted to mean that nobody would cheat the table > > over to a buddy simply because it is the last game played, well, I'm > > not sure that I agree. Been there, never done that but seen a fair > > share. > > Collusion is still illegal, of course. It is illegal whether a deal > is made or not. Bye, Daneel

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, >>>players can be assumed to be playing to win. >> >> Are you implying that, if it is not the finals, players cannot be >> assumed to be playing to win? > > If it's not the finals, then the possibility of a player using > out-of-game considerations, like standings in the tournament, > must be considered, naturally. But those out-of-game considerations would be illegal in either the prelim rounds or the final round, correct? So what's the difference between the two? > 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/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in news:idba805mq1tc4ho79...@4ax.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, I posted the original question, and when I said 'table split' what I actually meant was making a deal with another player along the lines of "We oust my prey and your prey and grandprey, then have a heads up fight for the table win". Additionally, wording of the deal is very very important (to me). Especially since my deck was packed with Life Boons and Kindred Restructurings. Which can explain how an apparently losing deal might not be so. --Andrew

dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in news:a23a105e.04042...@posting.google.com: > Does this statement essentially equal to the following, simpler > statement: > > Accepting a losing deal in the finals before anything has happened > always results in an illegal deal. (Maybe even "before a few rounds of > play" would be better than "anything has happened"). > It seems to me that no deal (based solely on in-game considerations) would be illegal, simply under the logic that there is no way of proving the parties intended on going through with it. --Andrew

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>Kevin M. wrote: >>>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, >>>>players can be assumed to be playing to win. >>> >>>Are you implying that, if it is not the finals, players cannot be >>>assumed to be playing to win? >> >>If it's not the finals, then the possibility of a player using >>out-of-game considerations, like standings in the tournament, >>must be considered, naturally. > > But those out-of-game considerations would be illegal in either the prelim > rounds or the final round, correct? So what's the difference between the > two? It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be assumed to be playing to win (unless something otherwise illegal, like threats or collusion, is going on). -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew Joubert wrote: > It seems to me that no deal (based solely on in-game considerations) would > be illegal, simply under the logic that there is no way of proving the > parties intended on going through with it. Different subject, but yes. The key there is that the "play to win" rule will oblige a player who made an illegal-to-keep deal to break the deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:22:05 -0400, Wes wrote: >Do the words "Ruy Lopez" appear in the rules for Chess? Yes. See here for example: http://www.easychess.com/The%20Rules%20of%20Chess.pdf Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > > >Do the words "Ruy Lopez" appear in the rules for Chess? > > Yes. See here for example: > http://www.easychess.com/The%20Rules%20of%20Chess.pdf Well done... except that it is used there as an *example* and not as part of the standard rules of the game. My point remains. Ruy Lopez is an opening... ie a strategy. You would be more likely to find it mentioned in a book of chess openings. Making deals is a strategy of V:tES. You would be more likely to find it mentioned in a newsletter, or in this forum. There is no need for it to be in the rules, but I think you know that already. Are *all* the different strategies of Shadowfist contained in the rulebook for that game? It must be enormous... Cheers, WES

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, at 7:39am, Wes wrote: > My point remains. Ruy Lopez is an opening... ie a strategy. You would be > more likely to find it mentioned in a book of chess openings. > > Making deals is a strategy of V:tES. You would be more likely to find > it mentioned in a newsletter, or in this forum. There is no need for it > to be in the rules, but I think you know that already. Except that unlike chess, tournament V:TES has a very unusual rule: "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the rulebook." Clearly, this rule may invalidate some strategies, but it's often not very clear which ones. There are some examples in the V:EKN rules: "attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc." Nevertheless, people have been asking for clarification on this rule since its inception; I certainly think there's room for more explicit clarification and more examples, and I don't think requesting such elaboration is necessarily trolling. -davey!

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Andrew Joubert wrote: >> It seems to me that no deal (based solely on in-game considerations) >> would be illegal, simply under the logic that there is no way of >> proving the parties intended on going through with it. > > Different subject, but yes. > The key there is that the "play to win" rule will oblige a player who > made an illegal-to-keep deal to break the deal. And if he doesn't, and the game ends? Then what? > 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/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > And if he doesn't, and the game ends? Then what? At some point, when he violates the play to win rule (by keeping his end of the non-playing-to-win deal), the judge should correct the illegal play, same as any infraction of the rules. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40879F1B...@white-wolf.com>... > Kevin M. wrote: > > And if he doesn't, and the game ends? Then what? > > At some point, when he violates the play to win rule (by keeping his > end of the non-playing-to-win deal), the judge should correct the > illegal play, same as any infraction of the rules. So, do i understand it right that in a tourney final 1) you can take a loosing deal 2) but you have to break it if you can win by that (instead of the honouring your deal that is allowed in previous rounds) ? W

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message > So, do i understand it right that in a tourney final > > 1) you can take a loosing deal The only time the rules even notice a deal is when it comes time for a player to keep a deal in the face of the play to win rule. If making and honoring that deal (together as a unit) conform to the play to win rule, then the rules allow it, even if the pieces individually don't meet the requirements. As far as what you promise, the rules have no say. You can say what you like. > 2) but you have to break it if you can win by that > (instead of the honouring your deal that is allowed in previous rounds) If it is not an example of playing to win, then it is illegal under the play to win rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4083A791...@white-wolf.com>... > Colin McGuigan wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > >> Andrew Joubert wrote: > >> > >>> I have two questions that came up during my last tournament. > >>> > >>> 1) Is it legal to offer a table split during the seating for the > >>> final round? > >> > >> > >> > >> Sure. > > > > > > More importantly, is it legal to accept such a deal if you're on the > > non-game-winning end? > > > > Ie, if I say to my predator before anyone's taken their turns, "Lay off > > me all game, and after I've gotten 3 VPs, I'll roll over and you can > > have 2", is it legal for him to accept? > > > > Does it matter if my deck obviously trumps his? If his obviously trumps > > mine? > > > > --Colin McGuigan > > It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be > assumed to be playing to win. Are you saying LSJ, that a judge assumes the player taking 2VP's does not intend to honour the deal? Do I have it right? Of course a judge then is required to make sure that the player does not honour the deal. vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.0404...@posting.google.com>... > Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<eJmcnfXGVJJ...@speakeasy.net>... > > LSJ wrote: <snip> > > 2) What about if it isn't the finals? Is a > > table-split-before-the-first-turn then illegal or no or for the losing > > party? > > If a player is in violation of any rule, including the "play to win" > aspect of the sportsmanship rule, then that violation is an example of > illegal play, yes. Same thing again? The player must be intending to break such a deal? Surely this must be the case so early in a game? I guess my problem is (and this is assuming I have interpreted your comments correctly, LSJ), if at a later point in time it actualy works out that the 2/3 split is the most the "2" player can hope for, then the deal could be legally honoured. However,if the potential exists for a GW, they cannot legally honour the deal. Of course, the likelihood of the game win becoming available *may* be diminshed by the deal-biased playing style of the two players involved up until this point. So much so, that the possibility of the GW is removed (for the 2VP guy). Do you see my point? Am I heading in a remotley reasonable direction here? LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40843FFC...@white-wolf.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not > > know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. > > Exactly. So he won't take the deal. > Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot > get 3 VPs. So, the deal is illegal...and, for all practical purposes, always will be _this early_ in a game...,right? As the potential for a GW still exists. Cheers, -Scrote

scrote wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<4083A791...@white-wolf.com>... >>It's the finals. Since there are no further considerations, players can be >>assumed to be playing to win. > > Are you saying LSJ, that a judge assumes the player taking 2VP's does > not intend to honour the deal? I assume you mean in something other than the finals. (Since, as you quote, players are assumed to be playing to win in the abence of other, independently-illegal, activity.) No. The judge needn't do anything at that point. When it comes time for a player to sacrifice a "playing to win" play in favor or honoring the deal, then tit must be determined if doing so doesn't violate the PTW rule (that is, the the deal at the time it was made was PTW under the assumption that it would be honored). > Do I have it right? Of course a judge then is required to make sure > that the player does not honour the deal. No. The judge is merely required to make sure that the player plays to win. It could happen that circumstances change such that honoring the suspect (non-PTW) deal is an example of playing to win at the time it comes time to honor it. > vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.0404...@posting.google.com>... > >>Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<eJmcnfXGVJJ...@speakeasy.net>... >> >>>LSJ wrote: > > <snip> > > >>>2) What about if it isn't the finals? Is a >>>table-split-before-the-first-turn then illegal or no or for the losing >>>party? >> >>If a player is in violation of any rule, including the "play to win" >>aspect of the sportsmanship rule, then that violation is an example of >>illegal play, yes. > > Same thing again? The player must be intending to break such a deal? > Surely this must be the case so early in a game? Players must play to win. > I guess my problem is (and this is assuming I have interpreted your > comments correctly, LSJ), if at a later point in time it actualy works > out that the 2/3 split is the most the "2" player can hope for, then > the deal could be legally honoured. Of course. Players are always free to play to win. > > However,if the potential exists for a GW, they cannot legally honour > the deal. > > Of course, the likelihood of the game win becoming available *may* be > diminshed by the deal-biased playing style of the two players involved > up until this point. So much so, that the possibility of the GW is > removed (for the 2VP guy). > > Do you see my point? > > Am I heading in a remotley reasonable direction here? Looks like you're heading toward the current rulings, yeah. > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40843FFC...@white-wolf.com>... > >>Wouter Kuyper wrote: >> >>>I don't understand this. The loosing party in this deal, could not >>>know how the table will go, and should be aiming for 3 VP's. >> >>Exactly. So he won't take the deal. >>Conversely, if he does take the deal, then it follows that he cannot >>get 3 VPs. > > So, the deal is illegal...and, for all practical purposes, always will > be _this early_ in a game...,right? As the potential for a GW still > exists. Players must play to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > Why would a player take a losing deal when he can win? > > If the answer involves something illegal (threats, collusion, etc.) > then that illegal aspect is still illegal. Guaranteed second place is (in many ways) better than 20% chance of winning + 20% chance of second etc. (average prize is certainly higher for instance and if you went into the table 5th, it looks better still) In the qualifying rounds you are not allowed to give this consideration any weight at all -you have to try to win the table. It is incomprehensible to us that you are apparently saying the opposite for the final table.

Andrew Joubert expounded: > Well, I posted the original question, and when I said 'table split' what > I actually meant was making a deal with another player along the lines of > "We oust my prey and your prey and grandprey, then have a heads up fight > for the table win". > > Additionally, wording of the deal is very very important (to me). > Especially since my deck was packed with Life Boons and Kindred > Restructurings. > > Which can explain how an apparently losing deal might not be so. If you are getting 1VP and fighting for the last two then you are not on the losing end of a deal.

Timlagor wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] This has been covered already, and not to the same conclusion you seem to think it has: 1) exact numbers for percentages cannot be figured. 2) You are free to play the numbers game. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > > Guaranteed second place is (in many ways) better than 20% chance of > > winning + 20% chance of second etc. > > (average prize is certainly higher for instance and if you went into the > > table 5th, it looks better still) > > > > In the qualifying rounds you are not allowed to give this consideration > > any weight at all -you have to try to win the table. It is > > incomprehensible to us that you are apparently saying the opposite for > > the final table. > > This has been covered already, and not to the same conclusion you > seem to think it has: > > 1) exact numbers for percentages cannot be figured. The 20% above was obviously assuming complete ignorance of the other players and their decks. > 2) You are free to play the numbers game. So if i sit down at any table with Rob Treasure I'm free to make any deal that will get me a VP (before any turns are taken)?