In order to become a better player and judge I am trying to learn the "Play to win"-rule. I haven´t been paying total attention to the discussion leading up to the current "Play to win"-rule, so excuse me if my questions seem stupid.
Two questions:
1. What exact part of the V:TES rulebook is this referring to?
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 (from Tournament rules §4.8)
2. Why aren´t "place" (as in Tournament Rules 3.7.3. "Tournament Point Scoring") a third criteria for "Play to win" in non-final tables? (as in 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.)
Reference:
3.7.3. Tournament Point Scoring
Five-player table: First place receives 60 Tournament Points, second place receives 48 Tournament Points, third place receives 36 Tournament Points, fourth place receives 24 Tournament Points, and fifth place receives 12 Tournament Points.
Note: I understand the problem with final tables, but my question regards non-final tables.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
> In order to become a better player and judge I am trying to learn the "Play to win"-rule. I haven´t been paying total attention to the discussion leading up to the current "Play to win"-rule, so excuse me if my questions seem stupid.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. What exact part of the V:TES rulebook is this referring to?
> 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 (from Tournament rules §4.8)
>
> Rulebook wrote:
> Object of the Game
>
> Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.
>
> Ashur wrote:
> 2. Why aren´t "place" (as in Tournament Rules 3.7.3. "Tournament Point Scoring") a third criteria for "Play to win" in non-final tables? (as in 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.)
>
> Reference:
> 3.7.3. Tournament Point Scoring
> Five-player table: First place receives 60 Tournament Points, second place receives 48 Tournament Points, third place receives 36 Tournament Points, fourth place receives 24 Tournament Points, and fifth place receives 12 Tournament Points.
>
> Note: I understand the problem with final tables, but my question regards non-final tables.
>
TPs introduce a complex mechanism (sharing points for ties) which is quite unnecessary.
Also, maximizing TPs would mean starting to shoot at other players, not in order to oust them, but to have them ousted by someone else, with no deal pending between you and that winning person. Not very much in the sportmanship standards, I guess.
Then we have a huge contradiction, because Scott has ruled that once you have Table Win, you can do whatever you want (even give the remaining VPs away).
And the Object of the Game goes against this.
> Object of the Game
>
> Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.
>
I had this discussion yesterday with a player that insisted that by the Rulebook, a player must win as many VPs as possible at all times.
The discussion came about the fact that Table Wins are more important than amount of VPs in order to qualify to a Final (1 TW with 3 VP > 0 TW with 5VP).
I claimed the object of a VtES game is winning and that means TW, so winning is rewarded (as it should be).
I propose we change the Object of the Game to clearly say "Your goal is to win the Table by accumulating more victory points then rival Methuselahs."
Then we explain how to do that.
> Brum wrote:
> Then we have a huge contradiction, because Scott has ruled that once you have Table Win, you can do whatever you want (even give the remaining VPs away).
> And the Object of the Game goes against this.
>
> > Object of the Game
> >
> > Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.
> >
> I had this discussion yesterday with a player that insisted that by the Rulebook, a player must win as many VPs as possible at all times.
> The discussion came about the fact that Table Wins are more important than amount of VPs in order to qualify to a Final (1 TW with 3 VP > 0 TW with 5VP).
> I claimed the object of a VtES game is winning and that means TW, so winning is rewarded (as it should be).
>
> I propose we change the Object of the Game to clearly say "Your goal is to win the Table by accumulating more victory points then rival Methuselahs."
> Then we explain how to do that.
>
During the good/bad (take your pick) old days, the answer to 'the most victory points' would be: "English language."
This was, and still is, an asinine response as the English language is notorious for its ambiguity.
You're reading 'the most victory points' as 'the maximum victory points possible', which is a perfectly valid interpretation of the phrase. However, an equally valid interpretation is: 'more victory points than anyone else'. It's the latter that is used for the ruling.
Anyway, if you want to change PTW for tournaments, then perhaps we should take a long look at this game and consider that it has one of the strangest rules in the world of competition. The tournament rules explicitly say that the stated goal is to win the current game. Strangely enough winning the tournament is counted as an out of game consideration, and is thus illegal, which, quite frankly, is stupid.
No matter what, when judging you enforce the rules as is, even if you rightfully believe a rule to be stupendously horrible. Changing idiotic rules is something we try to do outside of tournaments, as we have done, succesfully.
I don't think there is nothing wrong with PTW.
I just think the paragraph of the Object of the Game is in contradiction with the spirit of PTW and with the way we qualify Finalists.
It gives way to multiple interpretations, like you said, and it should be more clear. If for nothing else, to help us judges and organizers.
> Brum wrote:
> I don't think there is nothing wrong with PTW.
> I just think the paragraph of the Object of the Game is in contradiction with the spirit of PTW and with the way we qualify Finalists.
> It gives way to multiple interpretations, like you said, and it should be more clear. If for nothing else, to help us judges and organizers.
>
Pascal? Can you tell us if you agree / disagree?
I agree that, on the goal of the game, PTW described in Tournament Rules is in contradiction with the Objective of the game described in the Rulebook if you read the latter "Maximum VP possible" rather than "Not less than anyone else" (in which case PTW is in almost in full agreement with this rule).
However, this isn't the only difference between the Rulebook and the Tournament Rules. Another one would be the size of the library (40 + 10/player in the rulebook // 60-90 in the Tournament Rules).
When playing a game where the Tournament Rules apply, the Tournament Rules trump the regular rules. Maybe this should be made explicit in the Tournament Rules..
> Pascal wrote:
> I agree that, on the goal of the game, PTW described in Tournament Rules is in contradiction with the Objective of the game described in the Rulebook if you read the latter "Maximum VP possible" rather than "Not less than anyone else" (in which case PTW is in almost in full agreement with this rule).
>
> However, this isn't the only difference between the Rulebook and the Tournament Rules. Another one would be the size of the library (40 + 10/player in the rulebook // 60-90 in the Tournament Rules).
>
> When playing a game where the Tournament Rules apply, the Tournament Rules trump the regular rules. Maybe this should be made explicit in the Tournament Rules..
>
Why don't we do away with the 40+10 per player rule for library size in the rulebook? Does it serve anything other than make it more complicated?
pckvtes.wordpress.com
> Brum wrote:
> It gives way to multiple interpretations, like you said, and it should be more clear. If for nothing else, to help us judges and organizers.
>
It's been pretty clear for a long time.
1) A player who can reasonably get the Game Win must play for the game win. The number of VPs they get does not matter. They can choose to go for a 2-1-1-1-0 GW, a 5-0 GW, or anything else.
2) A player who cannot reasonably get the Game Win should play to maximize VPs. This includes playing for the time-out such as by bloating (but not through slow play or stalling - those are cheating). It also includes withdrawing.
3) A player is allowed to use risk assessment in the above. For example, a player who has a slim chance at 2 VPs might instead prefer to play for 1 VP that they can definitely get.
4) A player who cannot reasonably get any VPs is free to get their zero VPs in any manner they choose. This includes self-ousting, however distasteful some players may find it. Note that a player who can reasonably hold on for the timeout is not in this position - they should still be maximizing their VPs.
5) Players are not required to accept deals from other players.
6) A player who makes a deal legally (that is, it is in their interests at the time) is allowed to stick to the deal - even if they can backstab later and improve their position. For example, things might have changed such that I think I can get the sweep on my own and oust you - but I promised to help you get a VP earlier when I reasonably needed your help. I can backstab you, but I don't have to...
7) ... except that all deals are off at two players. If we were on a five player table and make a deal to help each other, we might get to us being the final two players with 2VP and 1VP. We then have to fight it out for the GW - I can't roll over, and neither can you.
7a) If we get down to just two of us and I have the GW already, I can roll over - because I can win in any way I choose. In practice, this means that deals that say something like "Let's oust everyone else, then I'll roll over for you" are only likely to be possible when two players sit next to each other to start (and hence the prey collects the VP of all the other players). There are a few corner cases involving things like Life Boon, but generally this is the case.
The most frequent objections are often: players should be forced to be backstab - but that basically just rules out all deal-making altogether, which isn't intended. (The situation would involve both of us saying "No, you help me first" and then being forced to backstab as soon as we got our minor benefit.) player should be forced to maximize VPs even when they have the GW - but that causes similar problems. If I can't reasonably get the GW without your help, letting you get one or more VPs is in my interests players shouldn't be allowed to self-oust - except that that just pushes the problem further up the chain, since you get to a player transfering down to 1 pool, and then the next argument will be "Players shouldn't be allowed to transfer down to 1 pool"
> Pascal wrote:
> Also, maximizing TPs would mean starting to shoot at other players, not in order to oust them, but to have them ousted by someone else, with no deal pending between you and that winning person. Not very much in the sportmanship standards, I guess.
>
Not only that. Requiring maximization of TPs would mean that I could call a judge over and demand that another player keeps me in the game.
"But judge! Pascal has to keep me in the game or else BillyBob (my predator) will get a VP, and Pascal will get fewer TPs. He's not playing to win! Disqualify him!"
V:TES is supposed to include conflicting alliances, backstabbing, and different incentives for each player. It's not supposed to require a judge to enforce pseudo-deals, based on the order in which players are ousted.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Brum wrote:
> > It gives way to multiple interpretations, like you said, and it should be more clear. If for nothing else, to help us judges and organizers.
> >
> It's been pretty clear for a long time.
>
I was referring to this:
> Rulebook wrote:
> Object of the Game
>
> Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.
>
This should be changed to better wording, one that clarifies that Table Win is the main objective of the game.
PTW says so.
The way we qualify Finalists says so.
That is all.
PTW doesn't say anything about TPs, so we should keep that the way it is and dismiss it, imo.
Tiago