How do you deal with people leaving the table before ousted

I´d like to know how you deal with this issue in your domains mostly (casual play) but also in tournaments. I´m not talking about withdrawing, the rules are very clear on that regard, but people leaving in the middle of the game. Thank you.

> manituan wrote: > I´d like to know how you deal with this issue in your domains mostly (casual play) but also in tournaments. > > I´m not talking about withdrawing, the rules are very clear on that regard, but people leaving in the middle of the game. > > Thank you. > Thankfully I have seen that very, very rarely, and people who rage quit out of the tables are rarely seen again anyways. VtES isn't exactly something that those people find alluring for long. Mostly we reinforce a non-defeatist attitude as a group from the start: from the very first games people try VtES, we say that they're going to lose a lot, and that's okay. Be supportive and stuff. That goes a long, long way I've heard. There's always only one winner, and often not even that. Lose together. Also explaining that sometimes it's okay to sit there for 30min without vampires and just passing your turn. Smile, and be there. We've all been there, and when you try until the very, very end even if it's mathematically impossible, makes the game so much better for everyone else. You make the game as a group after all. If someone really has to go because of an accident, force majeur or work, it's more than understandable and we just end the game there, mostly. Or improvise something similar. When real life calls, what happens to a game of cards is trivial. Are you more thinking about the 'rage quitter', or real life occurances? "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking about real life occurances only, but in the end the result is the same. Some ways we´ve handled this issue include: We´ve left the remaining blood pool for the prey to bleed it, we´ve given the prey a victory point and 6 pool or, as you say, we could just end the game there. None of them are really good solutions, they game becomes flawded at that point. That´s why I wanted to know if there was a better solution out there. Cheers.

There's no good solution unfortunately. I would leave the pool and proxy the cards that can be stolen or that move (eg. the Coven, Powerbase: Montreal). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I would let someone who wants to rage quit know that there is a mechanism that allows that as part of the game, via transferring out. To me these things are one and the same. I've transferred out before and it was because I was salty as hell about something in the game. Never my proudest moment but it felt right in the game. I think it's preferable to leaving a pile of pool as it's preventing a potential prey from interacting with the player's predator, which could allow them to build steam before deciding to bleed out the rage quitter.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > I think it's preferable to leaving a pile of pool as it's preventing a potential prey from interacting with the player's predator, which could allow them to build steam before deciding to bleed out the rage quitter. > If you give the VP right away, then you change too much the course and pace of the game. A player that had make plans according to the current flow will be penalized (for instance, your prey gains instantaneously 6 pool, when you were planning to oust her during your next turn). By leaving the pool, the table dynamics is less altered. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > If you give the VP right away, then you change too much the course and pace of the game. A player that had make plans according to the current flow will be penalized (for instance, your prey gains instantaneously 6 pool, when you were planning to oust her during your next turn). By leaving the pool, the table dynamics is less altered. > With the important exception that the person's new prey might block actions that will contribute to the future state of the game. Your prey is more than just a pool total. Even a single damage from a hand strike can change the course of the game.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > If you give the VP right away, then you change too much the course and pace of the game. A player that had make plans according to the current flow will be penalized (for instance, your prey gains instantaneously 6 pool, when you were planning to oust her during your next turn). By leaving the pool, the table dynamics is less altered. > > > With the important exception that the person's new prey might block actions that will contribute to the future state of the game. > > Your prey is more than just a pool total. Even a single damage from a hand strike can change the course of the game. > As you say, he *might*. This is hypothetical. Whereas the gain of 6 pool is not. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

If they dont transfer out there's always the "your prey is this inert pile of 12 pool" angle. Of course, some players feel like an inert pile of 12 pool all game when their prey has no pressure, but you get the point.

> Ankha wrote: > As you say, he *might*. This is hypothetical. > Whereas the gain of 6 pool is not. > They're going to gain 6 pool either way. Maybe take a few turns, but if they want to oust they will. And now they have a choice not to, which means they can insulate themselves against a prey they think will block tool up actions or who may enter combat in some way.

VEKN organization should adopt a rule for such cases. I do not know whether such things happen in the tournaments, but they are certainly happening in friendly games as well as in online games via Lackey. When I talk about rules in online league with Martin W.,we make decision after player quit his predator gain 1vp and 3 pool. We certainly agreed that this is not the perfect solution, but we could not think of anything better. For years I've been thinking about a wider solution to this problem, I even wanted to share my opinion and ask for comments from other players, but I never took and wrote down everything I imagined. We should certainly think about how to manage the pool, the locations and minions for player who escaped. if you are interested in my opinion, in the coming days I could write suggestions about the player leaving the table

Happened in the last tournament I ran in December. One player in the finals had to leave 5-10 minutes before the end of the game to get the train back to a city 200km away... Finnish Politics!

Since the "best" solution to this is highly situational, you will need a judge to handle this, or talk with your group of friends how to move on with this game. options could range from: proxy cards, poolsack, gaining 1vp 0 pool to 1vp 6 pool. if you dont have a judge available or you cant find an agreement with your fellow players: the predator of the leaving player gains 1VP 3pools in his/her next untap phase. poolsack and proxy all table relevant cards until then.

> angrynewb wrote: > Since the "best" solution to this is highly situational, you will need a judge to handle this, or talk with your group of friends how to move on with this game. > > options could range from: proxy cards, poolsack, gaining 1vp 0 pool to 1vp 6 pool. > > if you dont have a judge available or you cant find an agreement with your fellow players: > > the predator of the leaving player gains 1VP 3pools in his/her next untap phase. poolsack and proxy all table relevant cards until then. > I agree - the 'less bad' solution depends very much on table status. In my experience the 'poolsack' solution is best when the player is close to be ousted, in the other extreme (lots of pool, few rounds played) it is best to pretend the player was never there in the first place (remove all cards and do not giving out a VP or pool).

> skimflux wrote: > > > angrynewb wrote: > > Since the "best" solution to this is highly situational, you will need a judge to handle this, or talk with your group of friends how to move on with this game. > > > > options could range from: proxy cards, poolsack, gaining 1vp 0 pool to 1vp 6 pool. > > > > if you dont have a judge available or you cant find an agreement with your fellow players: > > > > the predator of the leaving player gains 1VP 3pools in his/her next untap phase. poolsack and proxy all table relevant cards until then. > > > I agree - the 'less bad' solution depends very much on table status. > > In my experience the 'poolsack' solution is best when the player is close to be ousted, in the other extreme (lots of pool, few rounds played) it is best to pretend the player was never there in the first place (remove all cards and do not giving out a VP or pool). > The problem with variable answers is that someone will inevitably push for the option that benefits them the most. The game is far too situational to let anyone make a judgement call on this. A uniform answer may screw people who don't deserve it, but it is also expected and hard to argue against employing.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > The problem with variable answers is that someone will inevitably push for the option that benefits them the most. The game is far too situational to let anyone make a judgement call on this. > > A uniform answer may screw people who don't deserve it, but it is also expected and hard to argue against employing. > If you want a 'one size fits all' solution, I'd propose a midway situation - halve the remaining pool, proxy any relevant cards, give out 0,5 VP + 3 pool on oust.

The predator gains pool and/or VP's along the following scale based upon the quitting player's pool. 26 to 30: predator gains Zero Pool and Zero VPs 21 to 25: predator gains 1 Pool and Zero VPs 16 to 20: predator gains 2 Pool and Zero VPs 11 to 15: predator gains 3 Pool and Zero VPs 6 to 10: Predator gains 4 Pool and 1/2 VP 1 to 5: Predator gains 5 Pool and 1 VP

Some kind of official ideas what kind of options the Judge might consider would indeed be useful Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Some kind of official ideas what kind of options the Judge might consider would indeed be useful > i dont disagree, but it seems like something thats more likely to happen outside of the tournament environment? Has any TO actually seen this happen?

The pool is "left into the table" ( proxys of the real ones ) with all permanents and the predator still has to oust it. Archbishop of Itaocara Prince ID #510

> self wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Some kind of official ideas what kind of options the Judge might consider would indeed be useful > > > i dont disagree, but it seems like something thats more likely to happen outside of the tournament environment? > > Has any TO actually seen this happen? > Lönkka himself did: > Lönkka wrote: > Happened in the last tournament I ran in December. > > One player in the finals had to leave 5-10 minutes before the end of the game to get the train back to a city 200km away... >

> Sambomb wrote: > The pool is "left into the table" ( proxys of the real ones ) with all permanents and the predator still has to oust it. > pool sacks is usually the most common solution when a player leaves the game. It's OK with 1 add-on. the player who leaves the game is disappointed and if he can he kill himself in 1 move and leave the game. I'm for the player who leaves the game to be removed as soon as possible. therefore his predator should bleed him to until oust with the addition that the player who left the game is disappointed to want to kill himself and since he is no longer in the game in every move they suffer damage from the loss of 4 pools during the influence phase- It's losing 4 pools of calculate as an attempt to self oust(as i know self oust legal even in tournament games)

> beslin wrote: > [ > pool sacks is usually the most common solution when a player leaves the game. It's OK with 1 add-on. the player who leaves the game is disappointed and if he can he kill himself in 1 move and leave the game. > Oh, but that is against the rules. The "play to win" rule. There is no room for a reasonable solution here, so player will go against the rules one way or another. Another reason why I don't like the play-to-win rule. It is stupid that you can't concede the game. On topic question, I haven't seen any better solutions as the "pile of pool" approach. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > beslin wrote: > > [ > > pool sacks is usually the most common solution when a player leaves the game. It's OK with 1 add-on. the player who leaves the game is disappointed and if he can he kill himself in 1 move and leave the game. > > > Oh, but that is against the rules. The "play to win" rule. There is no room for a reasonable solution here, so player will go against the rules one way or another. Another reason why I don't like the play-to-win rule. It is stupid that you can't concede the game. > > On topic question, I haven't seen any better solutions as the "pile of pool" approach. > as i know self oust is legal in tournaments. as you said player cant concede game,him need to play. but player whu leave table popular said: rage quit player is disanpointed of situation on table. so if him stay him probably try to die as before posible because no sense to continue. i think is aceptable when player leave during influence phase take 4 pool damage,that can count as part to him bring new vampire in play,because him maybe leave because someone burn his star vampire and him no have sense to continue game. if player who leave have 4 or 5 pool,some decks can easy oust him,but what if leave with 20 pool,and his predator is combat deck whu bleed for 1 with each vampire? his pool need to be reduced every turn. VEKN need to decide about rules for that. we can offer more things about that and in ending last word how resolve that have VEKN. maybe is good to VEKN open topic for that where players need to write some ideas and advices and after some time VEKN write in rulebook rules for that: How do you deal with people leaving the table before ousted

> beslin wrote: > as i know self oust is legal in tournaments. > I've been told it isn't (anywhere for that matter). I'd like to hear some official response. In general the rule where I am forced to sit at the table and be tormented when I no longer have any kind of way to influence the game, is the most despicable thing in VTES in my opinion. This happened couple years back at a casual game, where even after I was ousted, I was forced to sit and wait for the return of my powerbase montreal for another hour. I stormed out, stopped playing VTES for 6 months and darn near stopped playing VTES altogether. ps. THIS is why I hate play-to-win rule. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > beslin wrote: > > as i know self oust is legal in tournaments. > > > I've been told it isn't (anywhere for that matter). I'd like to hear some official response. > Currently, you can self-oust if you cannot make reasonably more VPs. > Bloodartist wrote: > In general the rule where I am forced to sit at the table and be tormented when I no longer have any kind of way to influence the game, is the most despicable thing in VTES in my opinion. > No rule forces you to sit at a table. You can leave any time (which usually means that you are disqualified from the tournament). It is not restricted to VTES, but basically any game with more than 2 players. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Bloodartist wrote: > This happened couple years back at a casual game, where even after I was ousted, I was forced to sit and wait for the return of my powerbase montreal for another hour. I stormed out, stopped playing VTES for 6 months and darn near stopped playing VTES altogether.. > You got really, really upset because you didn't ask the judge to provide a proxy card so you could go home? That's really odd. Were you temporarily robbed of all powers of communication?

> Bloodartist wrote: > This happened couple years back at a casual game, where even after I was ousted, I was forced to sit and wait for the return of my powerbase montreal for another hour. > There is no reason for that: just proxy the card if the player wants to leave.

Playing to win coincides with self ousting on some rare occasions: The fact that you must maximize your VPs means when Lucian the perfect bleeds you for 4 and you're at 3 pool with no ready minions AI is legal, as your are collecting your 0 VPs as you deem fit. Frustratingly, in final tables seed order for first seed player (especially if you oust the person right under you in points) makes it more likely you can win by self ousting in some situations, especially if you got an oust.of seed 2, and your predator was lowest going in. Maybe your grand predator takes the game with 2 vps, but giving an oust to your predator removes that potential outcome. Sometimes the oile of pool method is less disruptive to the table; let's say Nos breed n boom is getting back rushed by his prey fir no apparent reason and has only 2 princes left above ground. In disgust, at the very likely outcome of being ousted with 2 turns, they can throw 2 con boons each turn toward grand prey or their own predator to ensure their prey cant win.

> The pool is "left into the table" ( proxys of the real ones ) with all permanents and the predator still has to oust it. > I assume that no minions stay? How would this work with a predator who removes pool by primarily torporing famed minions/tension/dragonbound etc. Would the predator have to potentially bleed for 1 with all minions at a slow pace, in order to get the vp and move on to grandprey?

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that.. Even without leaving the table, this can actually be a decent strategy against a dumb rusher, so this is the one case where the game is pretty much undisturbed by the player leaving. Bottom line: do not rush your prey into oblivion with no idea of how to get rid of their pool. That is also why arbitrarily removing 4 pool per turn is bad idea: it creates an incentive for toxic players to aim for ragequit as an ousting mechanism.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > You got really, really upset because you didn't ask the judge to provide a proxy card so you could go home? That's really odd. Were you temporarily robbed of all powers of communication? > It wasn't a tournament. It was a casual game. Part of why I got so angry. In a tournament anything goes and I don't hold it against you, in a casual game I'd expect people to play slightly more relaxed. There are certain people who endeavour to destroy others enjoyment of the game as much as possible. (Not in this case though. It was a series of unfortunate events.) Which is why I campaign against game rules that allow that. You shouldn't write rules on the premise that people will be "nice". VTES already has a ton of cards that make players life really miserable. (Gehenna events are almost all like this.) ps. The doubleposting issue seems to have returned.. > Ankha wrote: > No rule forces you to sit at a table. You can leave any time (which usually means that you are disqualified from the tournament). It is not restricted to VTES, but basically any game with more than 2 players. > This is incorrect. The play-to-win rule basically does so. You are not playing to win when you are self-ousting, yes/no? Exactly what constitutes as "Play to win" is somewhat recurring discussion over here. I have self-ousted a number of times in our casual games, which usually sparks complaints about "not playing to win". My personal opinion in those cases has been "yea I go against the rules but fuck you". Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> This is incorrect. The play-to-win rule basically does so. > Play-to-win doesn't physically force you to sit there. Thus, you go against the rules and get disqualified. But you're free to go home and do something else. You're not forced to have a hobby. But if you decide to have it, it would be preferable if you played by the rules, both printed and socially accepted. > > My personal opinion in those cases has been "yea I go against the rules but fuck you". > This doesn't seem to me like a good way to have fun with people on your free time. I mean, you're there to have fun and share some of that fun, aren't you? Aren't you? "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > You got really, really upset because you didn't ask the judge to provide a proxy card so you could go home? That's really odd. Were you temporarily robbed of all powers of communication? > > > It wasn't a tournament. It was a casual game. Part of why I got so angry. > Then your issues are nothing to do with V:TES, nor the play-to-win rules, neither of which result in you having to sit there once you're ousted and you want to get the train home (or whatever). Nothing can stop people being idiots, in any game.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that.. Even without leaving the table, this can actually be a decent strategy against a dumb rusher, so this is the one case where the game is pretty much undisturbed by the player leaving. > > Bottom line: do not rush your prey into oblivion with no idea of how to get rid of their pool. > > That is also why arbitrarily removing 4 pool per turn is bad idea: it creates an incentive for toxic players to aim for ragequit as an ousting mechanism. > I said if player quit from table,him is dissapointed,so him dont want to act,dont want to block and other stuff,and if him be in game and continue to play him only think how die as before posible,and when player quit from game this is bad for all players who continue to play,rage quit player just bothered on the table,for that i said,he try kill him self and during influence make 4 transfers and try self oust,well we can said this rule can be stoped when him be down in 2 pool,and these last 2 pool prey must kill. is not big problem if player quit with example,4 or maybe 5 pool,but hapen to people leave with 15 pool,what then? his prey and predator can do many things that he might be blocking if him be in the game. example: me prey quit(him have some chance to gain intercept),me predator dont have intercept,so i can make army of horde,war ghoul,nephandus....,but if me prey remove as before posible,next prey have chance to block,and stop me to make army,more time people complain about this example. so if you dont want to play,kill you self and let other people to play game!

> Kraus wrote: > Play-to-win doesn't physically force you to sit there. Thus, you go against the rules and get disqualified. But you're free to go home and do something else. > This is by the way first time someone interprets this rule like this, during the time I have played, here in Helsinki. I wonder why people still keep complaining about self-ousting regularly then? Apparently it is not clear enough what this rule means. I don't remember it being mentioned in the rules that you are allowed to self-oust. Btw at the time of the incident I was basically a new player, thus following what I was told by the more experienced players. Nobody suggested proxying the montreal. Really good recruitment tactic btw, stealing all my vampires so I have no input on the game, forcing me to sit there for an hour doing nothing, then after being finally ousted sitting there another hour waiting for the return of my montreal. If you want to drive away new players some people really have this technique down pat. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Why someone who doesn't want to play anymore for ANY reason and wants to concede is obliged to play? NO ONE should be punished for not wanting to play anymore. Disqualifying someone and not allowing him to keep playing in the tourneament is ridiculous. We need a concede rule. Not jury-rigging adhoc solutions. A solution that could make a player leave in a harmless and fair manner, not forcing to keep him playing with reckless and disruptive actions. Even sitting in the table to wait for your turn to self oust is usually annoying. I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

> Bloodartist wrote: > I don't remember it being mentioned in the rules that you are allowed to self-oust. > It's mechanically possible in the rules to oust yourself - transferring out, paying all your pool for a card etc. In terms of its interaction with play-to-win, many rulings on play-to-win have been issued over time. Pascal briefly reversed the ability to self-oust, which Ankha restored (and is still pending a firm ruling, I believe): www.vekn.net/forum/event-reports-and-twd/75796-ec-2017-questions-to-judges?start=18#86405 As things stand, in tournament play: - In the preliminary rounds, if you can reasonably get a Table Win, you must play for the Table Win. It does not matter how you get the Table Win, so you can play for an easier 3-2 split, rather than a difficult 5-0 sweep, if you prefer. - In the preliminary rounds, if you cannot get a Table Win, you must play for as many VP as you can reasonably get. This includes playing for 0.5 VP for a timeout. You cannot play slowly in the sense of illegal play, but you can make choices that are purely defensive and lead to you getting that VP from a timeout, rather than futile aggression that will oust you. - In the preliminary rounds, if you cannot reasonably get any more VPs (a 'lost' position), you can get zero VPs in any way you want, including self-ousting. A common question at this point is "Does that mean I can screw up someone else?" If you have the capacity to screw someone else's game up, that generally means that you are not in a lost position. For example, you may well be able to extort deals from them to not do that. ("Hey, you know how you're leaving me here on 1 pool so that my prey can't announce blocks of your political actions? But what if I self oust? Oh, you wouldn't like that? Well then. How about you....") It also generally means that it's not in another player's interests to leave you in a 'lost' position, right up until they oust you. A rush deck killing all your minions and not allowing you to do anything at all is potentially playing sub-optimally. - In the preliminary rounds, you can maximise your tournament points on a given table, but you are not required to do so. - In the preliminary rounds, you are allowed to use risk assessment when choosing your way forward. Consider: you have a way forward that will, as definitely as you can imagine, get you 2 VPs. You have an alternative way forward that has a very tentative way to get a Table Win, but it's extremely risky, and your judgement is that if it goes badly wrong, you'll get zero VPs. You are allowed to make a risk assessment and choose the reasonable way forward, not the one-in-a-million, the Archangel Gabriel descends from heaven and hands you a table win way forward. - Why do all the above say "In the preliminary rounds"? Because things change in the final. In the final, you come first or you come joint second. If you come second with 1 VP or second with 0 VP or second with 0.5VP, it doesn't matter - you come second. You can't make your situation worse and, unlike in the preliminary rounds, there isn't an incentive to play for a solid 1 VP rather than a one-in-a-million 3VP. Self-ousting in the final is therefore less likely to make sense, because if you are in the game, you can improve your position. Of course, you're not required to lunge for the final win now, and can bide your time - but you should be playing for the final win at all times. - You can declare plays that will self-oust you, on the reasonable assumption that the cost will never be paid. For example, it may be a terrible idea for your predator to let you oust yourself, so you might see that they can declare a block and have some standing intercept, or whatever. Of course, that might not work out the way you think it might, because cross-table shenanigans might ensue (e.g. a DI of a card play, some unexpected cross-table meddling with stealth/intercept etc.). - You might also self-oust yourself accidentally, by declaring something that is legal but that you don't realise is dumb. You shouldn't fake dumbness to self-oust at a point when it violates play-to-win, and the judge might intervene. In the absence of psychic probes, they might make mistakes, but they might genuinely think that you're doing something that is so obviously stupid that you're violating play-to-win rather than being stupid (or vice versa).

There are always oddities in preliminary play to win rules; First section, striving for the table, I've taken all VPs on the table with Cock Robin combat before, but the planets aligned to make it happen. Ot is far more likely in combat and wall decks that you get stuck aiming at the maximization of your own vps depending on seating. Now, most decks like that exist are built (deliberately or not) in a way that will aim at letting 2 vps fall and taking the tables remainder In the endgame. BUT. Situations arise where table poison imbued or turbo nergal beast or turbo Arika will collapse the table in a manner where you will be knowingly doing things simply to remove one threat, even at the cost of actions to take the table. These sorts of things make your primary objectives switch abruptly. All PTW rulings will be primary guidelines that judges will have to utilize when player intent is challenged.

> Charles_Bronson wrote: > We need a concede rule. Not jury-rigging adhoc solutions. A solution that could make a player leave in a harmless and fair manner, not forcing to keep him playing with reckless and disruptive actions. Even sitting in the table to wait for your turn to self oust is usually annoying. > Please provide, in detail, the rule that you are proposing. If we need this, you need to provide it. As another player on the table (particularly your predator or prey), if it renders any of my decisions invalid about what actions to take, what preparations to make, what cards to discard, what equipment to bring into play, which minions to banish etc., then it will be harming me. However, you are clearly certain that a method of correcting for this that is harmless exists, and that it can be with absolutely no ad hoc solutions. I therefore look forward to studying your rules change proposal that requires no ad hoc actions, no discretion, and no judgment, but completely corrects for all the decisions I've taken in a fashion that is entirely harmless and fair to me and everyone else on the table. But just to go back to this... > Charles_Bronson wrote: > not forcing to keep him playing with reckless and disruptive actions. > If you can disrupt the table, you are very often in a position to negotiate. This may well give you a reasonable way to get VPs, and thus self-ousting is a bad thing to be doing.

People should be empowered to xfer out and you should account for that in your plans. You can use it to force people to get you back in the game also. It's not my job to lose gracefully to help anyone else.