Play to win

I will start my question with an explanation, I heard similar thing happened on Paris EC.I was not there so it's hard for me to say what the situation real was. Because of this I will create a hypothetical situation for this question. There are 4 player at the table A,B,C,D (in seating order). Player B is about to eliminate player A but Player D decided to oust himself by transferring all of his pull on uncontrol vampire. This ultimetly denied player B from geting a VP. I would like to know in with circumstances behavior of player D is legal conserving Tournament Rules 4.8. Play to Win.

Well, you can't really expect different behaviour from french players, as in this case. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

To be honest I don't care about the player. I care about a judge that allowed such behavior. Thats why im asking. Because if there are no such circumstances in which this action could be legal then he is at fault, by not blocking it.

The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence: groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ > LSJ wrote: > > Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably > > get any more victory points or a GW? > No. > > 4.8. Play to Win > 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 (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). 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. > Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Lech wrote: > Well, you can't really expect different behaviour from french players, as in this case. > This is perfectly legal if player D’s maximum possible score during the game would have been 0 (eg: no ready vampires). And if he has no ready vampires due to player B’s rushes it’s pretty understandable (since he was denied the play to win). I am of course talking hypothetically also.

> Ankha wrote: > The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence: > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ > > > LSJ wrote: > > > Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably > > > get any more victory points or a GW? > > No. > > > > 4.8. Play to Win > > 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 (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). 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. > > > Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting. > I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing. So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting

> Tadori wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence: > > > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ > > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably > > > > get any more victory points or a GW? > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4.8. Play to Win > > > 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 (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). 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. > > > > > > > > Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting. > > > I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing. > > So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting > Well so let’s put it in a different way : There are 5 players on the table A > B > C > D > E Let’s say that A plays Tupdog and C Arika. So A is really afraid of C and rushes crosstable since the beginning. E helps C by rescuing and so on. B and C are low on pool and A is going to snipe 2 VPs with a chance to win. Is it sportsmanlike to transfer out as C, to try and limit A’s game win and thus helping E to be able to stand a chance against A? Well, IMHO it’s not less sportsmanlike than doing nothing and letting A snipe 2 VPs, since doing nothing is the same as doing something (you are influencing on the results by either choice). I guess that it’s legit to discuss if a player should be allowed to transfer his last pool or not, but this is a different question (I have seen judges forbidding that by stating that the player still had chances of making better than 0, which is logic).

> cordovader wrote: > > > Tadori wrote: > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence: > > > > > > groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably > > > > > get any more victory points or a GW? > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4.8. Play to Win > > > > 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 (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). 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. > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting. > > > > > > > > I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing. > > > > So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting > > > Well so let’s put it in a different way : > > There are 5 players on the table > A > B > C > D > E > > Let’s say that A plays Tupdog and C Arika. > So A is really afraid of C and rushes crosstable since the beginning. E helps C by rescuing and so on. B and C are low on pool and A is going to snipe 2 VPs with a chance to win. > > Is it sportsmanlike to transfer out as C, to try and limit A’s game win and thus helping E to be able to stand a chance against A? > > Well, IMHO it’s not less sportsmanlike than doing nothing and letting A snipe 2 VPs, since doing nothing is the same as doing something (you are influencing on the results by either choice). > > I guess that it’s legit to discuss if a player should be allowed to transfer his last pool or not, but this is a different question (I have seen judges forbidding that by stating that the player still had chances of making better than 0, which is logic). > Off course is better to act as a suicide bomber and blow up yourself for benefit of others, make a statement and decide who lives or dies, win and lose. with absolutely no benefits for you. And saying it's playing to win is a joke but an official joke as we can see If the situation on the table developed like this it means negotiations failed and you die like a man. Self-ousting is toxic unnecessary mechanic that create favoritism(I don't like my pray so i will kill myself to help my predator, or may my predator is my friend or kinsman I prefer he will win ). One player by killing himself without any gain decide who will get point and live, show me any other competitive game in which you can do that. To make thing worse this rule is open to interpretation so every judge can decide differently. I hope BC and VEKN will analyze this option and remove it from this game asap.

Tadori, as it was shown to you - this topic was discussed thousand times. There is no difference between self ousting to help your predator and not self ousting when you got no chance to do anything meaningful and help your prey. There is nothing fair in forbidding one while we have the other. Actually self ousting looks more beneficial for the game here because it moves the game forward. But anyway - by reanimating this long buried topic without adding anything new to it you are expressing serious disrespect for fellow players. This one is much worse than self ousting. NC Russia

Agree to disagree but as you said it was discussed so I have no more to say.

This would prevent the single best line of play in VTES which is life-booning a transfering out player, so I'm in favor of keeping the rules as they are.

Well, I think you are quite disappointed about someone doing this to you, but if you want to play rush combat deck you have 2 choices : - you want the player in the game - you want the player out of the game If you want the player out, why should you care about a self-oust If you want the player in the game, you should dose the pressure you put on him to let him stay (for example letting him know that you would rush him only if he does this and that for your own survival but letting him a chance to play). Just saying.

I am a self ousting player. I did it. ONCE. in 16 years I play this game. I was so pissed off by my prey just beating my vampires all the game with no Real purpose and no gain that i did it. I would be ousted in my predator turn anyway, so I bled my prey for 8, and ousted myself. Then, after the game, I had the chance to explain my prey my reasons, and he agreed with me. The day after, he brought me a present (a beer, for what is worth) and we exchanged friendly opinions about each other decks and strategy. And I think I have made a new friend (in the WORST GAME I've had in 10 that was my EC). Maybe it's only my opinion, maybe it was only luck... but just consider that behind French, italian, Spanish, or venusian players, we are all players. Every player plays at his best. If you are smarter, or they are dumber, or just brought a knife a gunfight... it's just a game. The people I did the worst things in game, are really true friend. If they weren't before the game, they are after. That's what make the game worth to play. For me. Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy

> Tadori wrote: > So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting > Roughly speaking, if the player's best outcome is not getting any more VP, it doesn't matter why they choose to do it. They've maximized their VPs. It may also be better for them in terms of maximizing their TPs for the round. If everyone gets zero VPs, I get more TPs out of the round. (Edit to add: mild brain fart here as self-ousting obviously means someone gets 1 VP, but the general point is sound. Self-ousting may mean that table dissolves in a way that maximizes your TPs, such as letting your predator roll the table, rather than two people getting 1 VP each - and two people tying reduces my TP. End edit.) See 3.7.3 of the tournament rules. You are allowed to maximize your TPs as part of play-to-win, but are not required to(*) - with Game Wins and VPs counting higher as normal. (Except in the final, where TPs don't matter.) There are some important caveats to the above: 1) Hanging on for a timeout 0.5 VP is play-to-win. If you can reasonably try to hold on for it, this is play to win. This includes playing in ways that slow the game down. You still have to play in a timely fashion, but you can take steps that lead to the game carrying on, acting purely defensively, generating pool etc. If there's no reasonable chance of you getting an oust (or VP via some other route), self-preservation to get the timeout 0.5 VP is absolutely fine. 2) If this is part of some other cheating scheme, it is part of some other cheating scheme. You can't collude. You can't artificially work yourself into a "Oh no, I can't get any more VPs" position so that if you self-oust it means that that other deck can't get into the final, or your buddy will get into the final. Cheating is still cheating. But self-ousting is not in itself cheating. Additionally: 3) If you do not want someone to be in a position where self-ousting may be reasonable, make sure they don't get into such a crappy position that it's reasonable for them to . Toss them some in a Con Boon. Rescue that vampire. Bounce a bleed at someone beneficial to that player. Do something that upsets their predator just a little. Don't kill them so hard that they can't do anything, but their predator (your grand-predator) wants them to stay on the table. If them self-ousting will upset your game plan, helping them stay on the table can perfectly legitimately be play-to-win. This isn't "I can do anything I want to help my mate stay on the table", it still has to be in your self-interest - getting the Game Win, maximizing your VPs, optionally maximizing your TPs. But maybe having that extra player on the table with a Sens Depped bishop and a vote from Vox Senis is just helping you scrape some votes through. (*) If you were required to maximize TPs, this leads to some unwanted behaviour such as - on a table near timeout - a player with 1 VP (and no other VPs on the table) being forced to intervene and stop the player opposite them getting an oust, because it reduces their TPs by tying for first place.

> cordovader wrote: > Well, I think you are quite disappointed about someone doing this to you > No one ever did it to me. I was not aware that this rule existed until last week. > thelonius wrote: > I am a self ousting player. > I did it. ONCE. in 16 years I play this game. > I was so pissed off by my prey just beating my vampires all the game with no Real purpose and no gain that i did it. I would be ousted in my predator turn anyway, so I bled my prey for 8, and ousted myself. Then, after the game, I had the chance to explain my prey my reasons, and he agreed with me. > > The day after, he brought me a present (a beer, for what is worth) and we exchanged friendly opinions about each other decks and strategy. And I think I have made a new friend (in the WORST GAME I've had in 10 that was my EC). > > Maybe it's only my opinion, maybe it was only luck... but just consider that behind French, italian, Spanish, or venusian players, we are all players. Every player plays at his best. If you are smarter, or they are dumber, or just brought a knife a gunfight... it's just a game. > > The people I did the worst things in game, are really true friend. If they weren't before the game, they are after. That's what make the game worth to play. > > For me. > I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's not about player behavior it's about existing an unnecessary rule that creates a lot of shady actions. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > ) If this is part of some other cheating scheme, it is part of some other cheating scheme. You can't collude. You can't artificially work yourself into a "Oh no, I can't get any more VPs" position so that if you self-oust it means that that other deck can't get into the final, or your buddy will get into the final. Cheating is still cheating. > > But self-ousting is not in itself cheating. > Do you know a saying "opportunity creates a thief". There may be no scheme at a beginning of the game but there may be a situation on the table where you can freely decide who will win,have a GW or create a tie just because of your personal agenda. It's completely unnecessary in competitive game.

> Tadori wrote: > There may be no scheme at a beginning of the game but there may be a situation on the table where you can freely decide who will win,have a GW or create a tie just because of your personal agenda. It's completely unnecessary in competitive game. > This is nothing to do with self-ousting. V:TES is a multiplayer game. Your successes are not solely down to your own actions. There will always, always, always be situations where a third player on the game can king-make. Situation: the outcome of this political action will decide who wins the game. If Val passes this Parity Shift aimed at me, Val will get a Game Win. If this PS fails, the game will continue through me. I can't do much but am banned from self-ousting, because that's the way the game works. Sam has several Army of Rats in play, which will oust Val. Therefore, Sam will win. I have a political action card in my hand, or I have a card like Ventrue HQ in play. The vote is tight, but I can decide whether it passes or fails, and therefore who wins. It makes absolutely no difference to my chance of a GW or VP either way. Even though you have banned self-ousting, the same "problem" exists. This happens everywhere: - two players on the table offer me a deal. Both deals are good for me (and them), but I can't take both deals. Which deal do I take? - looking at the table, I can see two paths to victory. One involves me sweeping 5-0, which is possible but a bit annoying and risky. The other involves getting that other deck off the table while it's still cross-table and can't block me, which turns this into a 4-1 or maybe 3-2 situation, such as helping my grand-prey oust my (annoying) grand-predator. My actions strongly influence whether my grand-prey finishes with 0VP or 1-2VP. - any player offers me a deal. There is no competing offer, it's just that player wants me to help them. With my help, that player will probably get at least a VP, maybe more. They're offering something good in return, but this player has a reputation for reneging on deals. Or perhaps they backstabbed me earlier this round. So I choose not to help them. Or maybe I choose to take the risk. It is nigh-on impossible to eliminate king-making from a multi-player game. If you want your chances of success to be only dependent on your actions (plus luck of the draw): a) that's what two player card games are for, and b) consider stopping the player getting into a reasonable self-oust position as being something you can do. If they're alive, with healthy minions, it is much harder to convince a judge that there's no reasonable prospect of VPs. They can strike deals with people, they can assist people. They can burn the Pentex off your minion as a trade for you smacking their prey with ConAg. Whatever.

Maybe in fact political action example is the closest to self-ousting.. But in this case all player make a decision by voting and can affect the referendum by using cards. In self-ousting no one else can influence your decision with cards In other examples player takes an action/deal to get VP or get ahead in self-ousting you have no gain. As I said before Ankha presented and official ruling I accept it (i still dont agree it should be like this) and hope it will be revised in the future.

> Tadori wrote: > Maybe in fact political action example is the closest to self-ousting.. But in this case all player make a decision by voting and can affect the referendum by using cards. In self-ousting no one else can influence your decision with cards > Well, someone could play a Life Boon... > Tadori wrote: > As I said before Ankha presented and official ruling I accept it (i still dont agree it should be like this) and hope it will be revised in the future. > I've thought about it, but it's hard to find a right answer. In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not: "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, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted." Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Tadori wrote: > > Maybe in fact political action example is the closest to self-ousting.. But in this case all player make a decision by voting and can affect the referendum by using cards. In self-ousting no one else can influence your decision with cards > > > Well, someone could play a Life Boon... > > > Tadori wrote: > > As I said before Ankha presented and official ruling I accept it (i still dont agree it should be like this) and hope it will be revised in the future. > > > I've thought about it, but it's hard to find a right answer. > > In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not: > > "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, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted." > It's a great proposal, I hope it will go through. Ok you can play 1 card

> Ankha wrote: > > > Tadori wrote: > > Maybe in fact political action example is the closest to self-ousting.. But in this case all player make a decision by voting and can affect the referendum by using cards. In self-ousting no one else can influence your decision with cards > > > Well, someone could play a Life Boon... > > > Tadori wrote: > > As I said before Ankha presented and official ruling I accept it (i still dont agree it should be like this) and hope it will be revised in the future. > > > I've thought about it, but it's hard to find a right answer. > > In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not: > > "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, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted." > I guess this should be translated to : you cannot transfer your last pool. Because in any case, under how much pool are you going to forbid people from transferring? Is it possible to bleed with govern + conditioning + daring while having a fame and 3 pool? Are you allowed to vote for a vote that would oust you (and expect a cross-table life boon)? Honestly for once it would be nice to have a modification that wouldn’t be subject to interpretation.

> Ankha wrote: > In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not: > > "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, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted." > That would be a fantastic change. It would also remove a ton of judge headaches around this, since it removes a lot of the gray areas and is clear to enforce. No more self-ousting just to spite someone (or to get your friend into the finals, or crap like that). 1. Go for the GW 2. If that is not possible, go for max VPs 3. If no more VPs seem possible, go for the 0.5VP you get for surviving until the end. Clear and simple. I like it. Sure, it's still possible to play in a stupid manner and intentionally get ousted, but that's better than a direct self oust -- at least there your predator has to do some work for that VP.

Crap, this zombie was reanimated after all NC Russia

> PetriWessman wrote: > 1. Go for the GW > 2. If that is not possible, go for max VPs > 3. If no more VPs seem possible, go for the 0.5VP you get for surviving until the end. > But this is already what the current rules require, since 0.5 VP for reaching the time limit is more than 0 VPs for being ousted. Self-ousting when there's a reasonable chance of holding on to the timeout is a violation of PTW. Also, does anyone actually expect this sort of change to somehow stop these arguments? The point of every argument against player Z self-ousting is that, for some reason, someone other than the predator of the Z should be able to benefit from Z getting ousted, usually by having Z be ousted by a different player later. The arguments will just shift to other decisions which have the same effect: "My grand-prey Z transferred down to 4 pool to bring out an extra minion, but then couldn't block that bounced bleed - clearly they were violating the PTW rules because they weren't playing conservatively to stay alive" -- National Coordinator South Africa

Yes ... Also players getting killed by their predator after tapping out all their minions for no reason is also a violation of the PTW in that case, and that's fairly usual. If we go down this rabbit hole we can go really far ... A player, let's say at one pool with no ready minions have no reasonable way to do anything else in a game. If he doesn't self oust, it benefits to someone. If he self-ousts, it benefits someone else. Whatever you do, it will benefit to someone. You should have the liberty to do so.

Self ousting is the highest expression of free will. Taking away the option is pointlessly cruel.

Ankha's proposal is great. Hoping to see it someday as an official (tournament) rule. Self ousting should be prevented as it enables kingmaking by giving VP or even GW away. Transferring to one pool is fine. You are easy to oust, but predator needs to have at least one ready minion or master to do it.

> Ankha wrote: > "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, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted." > I don't see how this does anything. If by the current play-to-win rules, I can earn 0.5 by staying in the game, then I have to stay in the game. If I cannot, then what changes with this addition is that I have to stay in a game in which my outcome is already known. Thanks, but no-thanks. I'd prefer to have the option to leave the game.

> kschaefer wrote: > I don't see how this does anything. If by the current play-to-win rules, I can earn 0.5 by staying in the game, then I have to stay in the game. > It changes the fact that you'll have to see if you can actually stay in the game, instead of doing things based on whether you think you can stay in the game. Those are two quite different things. Sometimes people self-oust for petulant or illegal reasons (help friend, etc), and this takes that option away. Game state can and does change, sometimes in very surprising ways. I've been in lots of games where I was absolutely sure I was going to get ousted... and then I wasn't and got 0.5 VP. Most importantly, this takes away the massive judge headache of having to rule if someone's statement of "I have no chance of staying in the game" is actually true. Play the game, see what happens.

> PetriWessman wrote: > > > kschaefer wrote: > > I don't see how this does anything. If by the current play-to-win rules, I can earn 0.5 by staying in the game, then I have to stay in the game. > > > It changes the fact that you'll have to see if you can actually stay in the game, instead of doing things based on whether you think you can stay in the game. Those are two quite different things. Sometimes people self-oust for petulant or illegal reasons (help friend, etc), and this takes that option away. Game state can and does change, sometimes in very surprising ways. I've been in lots of games where I was absolutely sure I was going to get ousted... and then I wasn't and got 0.5 VP. > Table splits have been a strategy for a long time now, where if a player sees that they reasonably cannot make a GW but will help someone else get it and then settle it so that the winner will self oust - or of similar sorts - so that the other one can have 2 points. Allowing withdrawals as a part of a deal and a table split can be used to same effect. Would this addition affect those table splits and self ousting in those situations? In all honesty I would've always liked to have a clause and instructions about how to legally split tables in the tournament rules, so that all participants would know how they work, would be informed that it's a possibility, and to outline rules how it's done cleanly. "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

> PetriWessman wrote: > Most importantly, this takes away the massive judge headache of having to rule if someone's statement of "I have no chance of staying in the game" is actually true. Play the game, see what happens. > A significant issue these discussions is that people aren't clarifying what the problem they want to solve is. "Self-ousting is a problem, we should ban it" isn't a basis for discussion, because self-ousting is never the actual problem people are arguing about. If the problem is that PTW is hard to judge (and it can be), that needs to be addressed. Reworking the rule may help, but I doubt there's a simple fix that will actually help - adding more guidance in the judge's guide seems a better fix, but there may well be other ways of dealing with it. But that's entirely unrelated to self-ousting. Removing that option doesn't make PTW violations any easier to judge. If the problem we're trying to solve is people self-ousting becuase of colliusion or out of game considerations, the rules cannot fix that. There are far too many options available to a player to ensure they are ousted, and distinguhsing poor play from intentional bad play requires a judgement call, and always will. (this is a specific subset of "PTW is hard to judge"). If the problem is people sefl;-ousting because they're bored, or otherwise not having fun, trying to change the rules to force them to stay and play is an utterly terrible idea, and the proposal still leaves a lot of room for people to check out of the game anyway, If this is the problem, it may indicate mechinical problems in the game that needs to be addressed. However, statements like "predator needs to have at least one ready minion or master to do it." aren't about any of the above. That's an argument about "why don't the rules force the table to fold in a way that's more favourable to certain statergies", and that discussion needs a lot more justification about why favouring those approaches would be good for the game, rather than just saying "ban self-ousting". -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > > > PetriWessman wrote: > > Most importantly, this takes away the massive judge headache of having to rule if someone's statement of "I have no chance of staying in the game" is actually true. Play the game, see what happens. > > > If the problem we're trying to solve is people self-ousting becuase of colliusion or out of game considerations, the rules cannot fix that. There are far too many options available to a player to ensure they are ousted, and distinguhsing poor play from intentional bad play requires a judgement call, and always will. (this is a specific subset of "PTW is hard to judge"). > > If the problem is people sefl;-ousting because they're bored, or otherwise not having fun, trying to change the rules to force them to stay and play is an utterly terrible idea, and the proposal still leaves a lot of room for people to check out of the game anyway, If this is the problem, it may indicate mechinical problems in the game that needs to be addressed. > This is a very good statemnt. One of the problem with self-ousting someone get the VP and pool not in correct timing. Because he gets it out of turn and that disbalances the table. As you said maybe there is a need for a withdraw mechanic, that will allow a player to live a table but will not affect the timing. Perhaps predator will score VP immediately but will get 6 pool at the beginning of his turn, it will create better table balans and allow someone to leave if his tilted. Or the VP will be given to the last palyer left on the table. That way you can use Ankhas definition of PtW and have an option to leave the table if you dont have fun.

> drnlmza wrote: > > A significant issue these discussions is that people aren't clarifying what the problem they want to solve is. > They are playing tupdogs or something degenerated like it, nuke their predators vampires and then want him to stay in the game giving free pool and other protection against grand predator. This is the real problem they are trying to solve with all this "fairness arguments". NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > drnlmza wrote: > > > > A significant issue these discussions is that people aren't clarifying what the problem they want to solve is. > > > They are playing tupdogs or something degenerated like it, nuke their predators vampires and then want him to stay in the game giving free pool and other protection against grand predator. > > This is the real problem they are trying to solve with all this "fairness arguments". > Actually, there was Combat preying on Legionnaires preying on something preying on bh bleed, and it's bh bleed who transfered out to help his french friend. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > Actually, there was Combat preying on Legionnaires preying on something preying on bh bleed, and it's bh bleed who transfered out to help his french friend. > If you're claiming this behaviour was in violation of the play to win rule, a) you need to provide a lot more information about the game state to justify that claim and b) this is a matter that should be taken up with the relevant tournament organisers and judges, since it's a violation of the existing rules. If it wasn't in violation of the PTW rule (i.e. the bh bleed player wasn't going to get a VP whether he transferred out or not), what is the problem with what happened? -- National Coordinator South Africa

It was kingmaking that was made by bleeder who seemingly run out of options in that very moment, and was under impression he would be dead next turn (which might to be false, given game state). It's hard to judge if he would get any vp or not, it was not far from time out so perhaps he might, but he didn't even tried, so he played out of spite to deny his grandprey VP (and most likely GW). Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Which game exactly are you talking about?

> drnlmza wrote: > If the problem is that PTW is hard to judge (and it can be), that needs to be addressed. > Yes, that's my main concern with the current PTW rules, and Ankha's mod imho would improve the situation. As a tournament judge, trying to decide if someone's position is actually hopeless or if they are just giving up (or wanting to spite someone, or act as kingmaker, or whatever) is really difficult. And annoying. This tweak would force people to stay in the game. If their position is actually hopeless, they'll be ousted very very soon. If not, then they should keep playing and see what happens. > drnlmza wrote: > Removing that option doesn't make PTW violations any easier to judge. > Disagree, based on personal experience but as tournament judge and as player. See above. > drnlmza wrote: > If the problem we're trying to solve is people self-ousting becuase of colliusion or out of game considerations, the rules cannot fix that. > Yes and no. I mean sure, the player in question can easily figure out way to get him/herself ousted in short fashion -- but at least then some other player needs to do something to help that along. It may mean only one extra turn, but lots of times that extra turn is critically important. Take a situation where all of your minions are in torpor (rush predator or prey). In this situation, a player might currently just self-oust. But with this tweak, they'd need to at least try and bring out another minion. If they don't have the pool to do that, hey, "pay one to see one" -- if they are very low on pool, they'll get ousted next turn most likely and there is little difference here... but at least their predator will have to do some ousting work. But maybe they do have the pool to bring out another minion, even though it seems hopeles. And maybe things change radically in the game (someone calls Anarchist Uprising / Banishment / ?, and that rush enemy is suddenly gone). Maybe someone gives you pool. Maybe you get lucky with your hand and the other guy doesn't. Play the game. I've seen a lot of "totally hopeless" situations change into 0.5VP (at the very least). What I'm trying to say is: if the situation is actually totally hopeless, the player will get ousted very soon anyway. If not, then that player has a chance for at least 0.5VP and should go for it. Allowing self-oust as an option lets people give up, sometimes with ulterior motives. That's bad for the game, and an absolute bitch to judge. No, we cannot 100% stop illegal play (collusion, etc etc). But we can and imho should make these easier to rule on by a judge. Because the current situation is still messy, and removing the "ok, I will directly kill myself" option from the game would help things. As I said, that at least requires (ousting) actions from other players.

As an example, at last weekend's EC one guy at one of the tables said to another "you are not letting me play my game, I will just self-oust". This was in a situation where his actions were getting blocked all the time, but he was in zero danger of being ousted or anywhere near it. And that sort of thing is regrettably all too common, in my experience (mostly at the EC, very rarely run into that bullshit in local tournaments). Some people are self-ousting (or threatening to) when "they don't have a game" (in their view), in situations where they actually have a very decent chance for that 0.5VP by at least hanging on. They do it in situations where the game is not fun for them and they are in a bad spot. And while I sympathize (a small bit) with that, that's the game and petulantly ruining it for others because things are not going your way should not be a valid option (at least in tournament games). And yeah, if he had actually followed up on that, I would have called for a judge. Which would have involved an annoyed judge listening to the player try to explain why his situation was hopeless (it wasn't), wasting everyone's time. He didn't, which is good. But it would be much, much clearer if self-oust was not an option in the first place. No bullshit like the above, less judge workload.

Yes, collusion or being annoyed and self-ousting are bad side effects of the mechanic. But it's sometimes the only solution to punish unfair deals, your prey killing you, rush crosstables, and those kind of situations. When my prey is flat out getting me out of the game or a wall and a combat deck team together to take an easy win, I'd like to have an answer to those situations. And in last resort I'd like to give my VP the way I want.

> Lech wrote: > It was kingmaking that was made by bleeder who seemingly run out of options in that very moment, and was under impression he would be dead next turn (which might to be false, given game state). It's hard to judge if he would get any vp or not, it was not far from time out so perhaps he might, but he didn't even tried, so he played out of spite to deny his grandprey VP (and most likely GW). > Instead of whining in the forums you should have called the judge. And if you did and the judge was Pascal or Vincent you’re probably wrong.

"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, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted." - Ankha Actually it does makes sense. Vampire are fighting for dominance in the Jyhad and survivors therefore they won't give up. Never like those kingmaking situations...

Influencing 2 when you're at two pools is a much lighter kingmaking situation than people doing 5+ pool damage crosstable with ancilla empowerement without a second thought, rush crosstables or irresponsible bleed for 7 deflected etc ... If we ban self-ousting to limit kingmaking then we'll have to monitor a lot more kingmaking situations in a given game and I'm pretty sure it happens in a huge majority of VTES tables.

> cordovader wrote: > > > Lech wrote: > > It was kingmaking that was made by bleeder who seemingly run out of options in that very moment, and was under impression he would be dead next turn (which might to be false, given game state). It's hard to judge if he would get any vp or not, it was not far from time out so perhaps he might, but he didn't even tried, so he played out of spite to deny his grandprey VP (and most likely GW). > > > Instead of whining in the forums you should have called the judge. > > And if you did and the judge was Pascal or Vincent you’re probably wrong. > why you are under impression that it was me playing? I was like 1500 km away from the location. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > > > cordovader wrote: > > > > > Lech wrote: > > > It was kingmaking that was made by bleeder who seemingly run out of options in that very moment, and was under impression he would be dead next turn (which might to be false, given game state). It's hard to judge if he would get any vp or not, it was not far from time out so perhaps he might, but he didn't even tried, so he played out of spite to deny his grandprey VP (and most likely GW). > > > > > > > > Instead of whining in the forums you should have called the judge. > > > > And if you did and the judge was Pascal or Vincent you’re probably wrong. > > > why you are under impression that it was me playing? I was like 1500 km away from the location. > So you’re just complaining for sport?

This still a thing... 3 times in the pasts tournaments, my cross-table self ousted in the round i was going to get a VP, and some of those were deliberated so i could not get the VP. and i was playing to help them all game, this is fucking frustrating.

> Vaughnad wrote: > This still a thing... > 3 times in the pasts tournaments, my cross-table self ousted in the round i was going to get a VP, and some of those were deliberated so i could not get the VP. > and i was playing to help them all game, this is fucking frustrating. > What did the judge say? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Vaughnad wrote: > This still a thing... > 3 times in the pasts tournaments, my cross-table self ousted in the round i was going to get a VP, and some of those were deliberated so i could not get the VP. > and i was playing to help them all game, this is fucking frustrating. > You should have presented your situation - as you see it - to a judge every single time. If Judges rule against you, maybe should consider the factor that's present in these situations: yourself. It's not great advice, but a hint i can give you. VtES can be unjust, kingmaking is very hard to exclude, but one can certainly evolve - by reconsidering actions, deals, even deck types - to be able to mitigate these unfair repercussions happening to them. For every other shady situations, call a freagging judge! NC of Hungary ///

Thats the thing, i was not the cause of the demise of my crosstable, two of those him was having a hard time even with my help and decided to drop, the judge said him had no real change of removing his prey (a wall deck in the 3 cases). In the last one it pissed me off cause i was playing with my cross the entire game, them when my prey was amosted ousted he started aiming kines on both his prey and me, so ok, no more aliance... then on the turn i was going to get my vp he had 4 pool and 3 vamp, called 2 kines, but his prey stoped him both times and sended one of the vamp to torpor and he did all of these without consunting anyone.. then he just freak drive his vamp and tried to leave torpor, his prey was suffering the entire game and had also only 4 pool, he blocked the attemp and asked if i would vote for him to burn if he diableri the vamp, i said i would not vote for him to burn since my cross started the agression agains me and he had the votes to control the table (and on my turn he would become my prey), and then he ousted him self it was very clear to everyone the table that him was doing it to prevent me from getting my VP, so i called the Judge, and he started lying, saying he was playing against the entire table and that he could not gain the table. i was very pissed of cause of the lies, he had an easy game cause his prey a wall deck had a problem with contesting the first vamp, so he started the game to late, and his deck was a deck with bloot and kiss of ra (the prey did not have fort), his predator was dead, i was with a nosferatu without bleed, so there was plenty of time for him to be able to take his prey ousted, but the judge ruled that his hand was bad and he could not get passed the deck in front of him. the first two times a few months ago it was kinda ok, but was still frustrant anyway... But this last time it was very clear that the player who did it was just trying to make me lose the game and affect the points which it did. the player was catch on his lyies later and even adimited that he did this to prevent me from getting VPs. But the judge still say that if the user cant resonable get anything from that table, he can do WHATEVER he wants. I see two problems: One Juding if someone is not able to do anything. Two Allowing someone to do kingmaking as he pleases.

You will never be able to legislate poor play.

> kschaefer wrote: > You will never be able to legislate poor play. > No, but if we have tournament rules, those rules should be enforced by the judge to the best of their ability. If they do not have ability, they should not organize tournaments. The VEKN can try to sort things out if there is a problem. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

I personnally think that you always have more chances to get 1VP by not ousting than by ousting, even if just 0,01%. I had started tournament rules guide to enforce this by forbidding people from self-ousting but those tournament rules are not enforceable yet. Since, for the moment, it's not in place, people can effectively choose however they seem fit to do 0VP and maybe it will involve some other players' making VPs they did not deserve and that's how it is. When it happens, just try to discuss with the player to understand if the problem with you is personnal or not, and try to solve the situation. If you don't manage to, just consider that this specific player will always try to play against you and consider this an additionnal challenge because for the moment it's legal. IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

> TapeTaChatte wrote: > I personnally think that you always have more chances to get 1VP by not ousting than by ousting, even if just 0,01%. I had started tournament rules guide to enforce this by forbidding people from self-ousting but those tournament rules are not enforceable yet. > > Since, for the moment, it's not in place, people can effectively choose however they seem fit to do 0VP and maybe it will involve some other players' making VPs they did not deserve and that's how it is. When it happens, just try to discuss with the player to understand if the problem with you is personnal or not, and try to solve the situation. If you don't manage to, just consider that this specific player will always try to play against you and consider this an additionnal challenge because for the moment it's legal. > How your plan to enforce no self oust handles a situation where player is choosing not to block when able while sitting at 3 pool when being bled for 3 and holding an Archon investigation in hand? Is it valid to hope cross table player who has discarded Major Boon as their turn 1 card has another in their deck and is willing to play it? How about when that cross table player is bluffing and the player being bled does not know it, are they still trying to play to win or should they always attempt to block the bleed? How about in situation where the cross table player is sitting at 4 pool, and the possible +1 stealth, +1 bleed might push them to a situation where they no longer cannot play the Major boon, is not blocking allowed in that situation? Basically, where do you draw the line, or is it just "player may not intentionally move the last pool out of their pool"? How do you plan to handle Repo Man self-ousts or similar "oopsies" still open for people? I'm asking because I'm interested how you plan to achieve such abstract concept via rules without people figuring out ways around it while maintaining the complex mechanics present in the game and cards. My apologies if they're freely accessible here somewhere and I've just missed them, if so just pointing there with a link is enough, thank you. Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.

PTW is an extremely difficult Can Of Worms TM that I would really REALLY hate to tackle in the rules! Finnish Politics!

Probably some rule that prevent self ousting by influencing or something similar would already do wonders to prevent this kingmaking situations out of nowhere.

Except you're removing a teaching tool by eliminating that. Example: I was in a three-player with 1 VP and my predator had 1 VP and my prey had 0 VPs. I told him that if I am ousted he cannot win the table, that it's in his interest to let me rescue my vampire and perhaps rescue one himself. He torporized the vampire trying to rescue, leaving me with no ready minions. I transferred out. If he's not going to play to win and he's taken away my ability to win, I see no reason I should have to sit in that game. I doubt he learned any lesson whatsoever.

again, the rules should not be here to prevent bad play. And I disagree you should have self ousted. Every one see the things differently. And IMO, a rule preventing anybody to use his last pool no matter how is not a bad thing, I saw too many self oust out of spite for no other reason that the player had a bad game. And if the rules would have prevented you from self ousting, the play you are talking about would not necessarily be a bad play because he could have the opportunity to prevent your death with rush/eagle's sight/other thing and could have killed the 2 remaining players and secure a GW.

> Timo wrote: > ...for no other reason that the player had a bad game. > It's the most important reason, IMO. The most loud opponents of self-ousting are players, who prefer to play with decks, which deny others an ability to play by blocking everything/rushing all minions to torpor or something similar. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Timo wrote: > > ...for no other reason that the player had a bad game. > > > It's the most important reason, IMO. The most loud opponents of self-ousting are players, who prefer to play with decks, which deny others an ability to play by blocking everything/rushing all minions to torpor or something similar. > Absolutely! Amongst the playerbase there can easily evolve a gentlemen's agreement kinda thing... the most obscene decks tend to be gotten rid of... hey player A, are you playing Nana weenie animalism in a table where Meths want to actually play the game? Bye! One does not even have to actively hurt player A, merely denying help. Also 2 D combat decks sitting allied position in a 4 player table will split the table almost instantly by demolshing vamps backwards... NC of Hungary ///

> kschaefer wrote: > Except you're removing a teaching tool by eliminating that. > > Example: I was in a three-player with 1 VP and my predator had 1 VP and my prey had 0 VPs. I told him that if I am ousted he cannot win the table, that it's in his interest to let me rescue my vampire and perhaps rescue one himself. He torporized the vampire trying to rescue, leaving me with no ready minions. > > I transferred out. If he's not going to play to win and he's taken away my ability to win, I see no reason I should have to sit in that game. I doubt he learned any lesson whatsoever. > You chose to collect your 0 additional VPs as you saw fit, you were still playing to win (er..... as much as one can) Since you aren't going to draw a card that says "master: move a vampire from torpor to its controllers ready region with 3 blood from the blood bank" no other factors would change the outcome for you. Your prey was ostensibly not playing to win by not abiding the simple math of 1vp<2vp. In a tournament setting, depending on who is situated where on VPs, it may make sense to have the guy tied with you going into round 2 get less VPs, but that's a stretch. Learning experiences aside, your VPs are to your left, the only reason to go to your right (or cross table) should be to advance you ousting of the person to your left (staying alive furthers this, wrecking your predator to the point t of them having no game typically makes you a bad predator yourself). Playing combat well requires being aware of how to imbalance the table in your favor. I draw the line on ptw at plays directly leading to an ousting of not your prey.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > I draw the line on ptw at plays directly leading to an ousting of not your prey. > But there are lots of reasons to oust cross table to improve the table situation for yourself. Examples off the top of my head: *) A vote deck may oust a wall deck cross table because it will be able to sweep the rest the table easily if it doesn't have to worry about the wall deck blocking it later. *) Ousting some variety of gehenna event deck cross table might be needed to remove various events from play before doing a lunge. *) Ousting a fast bleed deck cross table might be the only way it stop it getting the GW. Nothing is ever completely black and white, and always depends on the decks, the exact table situation and judgment calls by the players involved. This is also why it can be incredibly hard to judge PTW issues for someone who hasn't been observing the table. -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > I draw the line on ptw at plays directly leading to an ousting of not your prey. > > > But there are lots of reasons to oust cross table to improve the table situation for yourself. > > Examples off the top of my head: > *) A vote deck may oust a wall deck cross table because it will be able to sweep the rest the table easily if it doesn't have to worry about the wall deck blocking it later. > *) Ousting some variety of gehenna event deck cross table might be needed to remove various events from play before doing a lunge. > *) Ousting a fast bleed deck cross table might be the only way it stop it getting the GW. > > Nothing is ever completely black and white, and always depends on the decks, the exact table situation and judgment calls by the players involved. > > This is also why it can be incredibly hard to judge PTW issues for someone who hasn't been observing the table. > You are quite right, and power bleed and table poison imbued certainly come to mind immediately. I meant I don't bother questioning if things are a PTW violation (over stupid playing) unless it meets that criteria. There are several situations where eliminating a non-your-prey player either maximizes VPs or puts you in a position of living another turn(or more) to claim VPs. I simply meant anything below that threshold i can chalk up to bad play.

> Vaughnad wrote: > Probably some rule that prevent self ousting by influencing or something similar would already do wonders to prevent this kingmaking situations out of nowhere. > Except not self-ousting is also king-making. Why should one specific form of king-making be favoured over another? -- National Coordinator South Africa

> drnlmza wrote: > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > I draw the line on ptw at plays directly leading to an ousting of not your prey. > > > But there are lots of reasons to oust cross table to improve the table situation for yourself. > > Examples off the top of my head: > *) A vote deck may oust a wall deck cross table because it will be able to sweep the rest the table easily if it doesn't have to worry about the wall deck blocking it later. > *) Ousting some variety of gehenna event deck cross table might be needed to remove various events from play before doing a lunge. > *) Ousting a fast bleed deck cross table might be the only way it stop it getting the GW. > > Nothing is ever completely black and white, and always depends on the decks, the exact table situation and judgment calls by the players involved. > > This is also why it can be incredibly hard to judge PTW issues for someone who hasn't been observing the table. > During the first day of the EC, I had to oust my predator with a back-KRC because he was taking too much time each turn (many minions, and he was also a bit drunk), and there were like 20 minutes left. So he ranted about it, arguing that I should move forward with the KRC rather than giving a free VP to my grand-predator. Fact is my grand-predator was not that dangerous for me, I just wanted time to oust my own prey. Judge agreed. It's a bit little your point 2/ Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Vaughnad wrote: > Probably some rule that prevent self ousting by influencing or something similar would already do wonders to prevent this kingmaking situations out of nowhere. > You cannot start enumerating the list of things you cannot do because it's an endless list. I started doing it, but at some point I had to give up. Among other things: - can I vote in favor of a vote that is ousting me without giving me a VP? - must I vote against? - must I burn the Edge in that case? - can I play an Anarch Revolt if I'm at 1 pool, and have no Anarch? - same question with no ready vampire - same question with no vampire at all - same question if I plan to play Liquidation as a second master - can I call a vote that ousts me, even if I plan to vote against? - can I play Frontal Assault if it's certain / likely / unlikely it will oust me during my discard phase? The best thing to do is to let the judge decide if the player is PTW or not based on the situation and the plans of the player. PTW is about the intent, not the way things are done (a player can play to win and still make mistakes). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Vaughnad wrote: > > Probably some rule that prevent self ousting by influencing or something similar would already do wonders to prevent this kingmaking situations out of nowhere. > > > You cannot start enumerating the list of things you cannot do because it's an endless list. I started doing it, but at some point I had to give up. Among other things: > - can I vote in favor of a vote that is ousting me without giving me a VP? > - must I vote against? > - must I burn the Edge in that case? > - can I play an Anarch Revolt if I'm at 1 pool, and have no Anarch? > - same question with no ready vampire > - same question with no vampire at all > - same question if I plan to play Liquidation as a second master > - can I call a vote that ousts me, even if I plan to vote against? > - can I play Frontal Assault if it's certain / likely / unlikely it will oust me during my discard phase? > > The best thing to do is to let the judge decide if the player is PTW or not based on the situation and the plans of the player. > > PTW is about the intent, not the way things are done (a player can play to win and still make mistakes). > I'm ok with all of those, my problem is with self ousting by influencing, if you read my description of the table i played, you'll see that allowing someone to just influence his last 4 pool out of nowhere at the end of the turn is way to easy to affect the vps in the table, the other methods that involving actions i'm not oposing those.

> Vaughnad wrote: > I'm ok with all of those, my problem is with self ousting by influencing, if you read my description of the table i played, you'll see that allowing someone to just influence his last 4 pool out of nowhere at the end of the turn is way to easy to affect the vps in the table, the other methods that involving actions i'm not oposing those. > In my experience, any player who is in such a position that transferring out seems like the best option for them, they should be allowed to do so because clearly they are not having any fun playing the game. Any sort of promise that one might get that their Predator might run out of Conditionings or Governs and then end up not winning the game if you make them play the cards feels bad if you've already been ousted. Some people will gleefully go all in on a Pyrrhic Victory, and good for them, but saddling players with the obligation to make their predator play as many cards as possible to oust them can be just as much 'Kingmaking' as transferring out is; just in the other direction. To put it another way: If you're complaining that you could have won the game, if an already ousted player made their predator play cards... that feels like a reach, and maybe you should "build better decks."

> self wrote: > > > Vaughnad wrote: > > I'm ok with all of those, my problem is with self ousting by influencing, if you read my description of the table i played, you'll see that allowing someone to just influence his last 4 pool out of nowhere at the end of the turn is way to easy to affect the vps in the table, the other methods that involving actions i'm not oposing those. > > > In my experience, any player who is in such a position that transferring out seems like the best option for them, they should be allowed to do so because clearly they are not having any fun playing the game. Any sort of promise that one might get that their Predator might run out of Conditionings or Governs and then end up not winning the game if you make them play the cards feels bad if you've already been ousted. > > Some people will gleefully go all in on a Pyrrhic Victory, and good for them, but saddling players with the obligation to make their predator play as many cards as possible to oust them can be just as much 'Kingmaking' as transferring out is; just in the other direction. > > To put it another way: If you're complaining that you could have won the game, if an already ousted player made their predator play cards... that feels like a reach, and maybe you should "build better decks." > As i said before, in my example, my prey was almost dead: 1 pool, no blocks and i had 3 untaped nosferatos and a creeping sabotage on the table. my prey was not doing anything to my crosstable for a few rounds, then he ousted himself after he was not able to oust his prey on his round, just to prevent me from winning vps, and he adimitted that latter on. He was in no danger to be ousted in the next few rounds, he had a bloot deck so i might even die to my predator before i was able to take him out, but he would probably not be able to take his prey out (tyz wall). still he did that to prevent me from even having a chance of collecting vps or maybe a gw if i was able to take him out. and i repeat he did admitted that later.

> Vaughnad wrote: > then he ousted himself after he was not able to oust his prey on his round, just to prevent me from winning vps, and he adimitted that latter on. > You get the VP and pool if your prey is ousted, period. It doesn't matter how the ousting happens.

> self wrote: > > > Vaughnad wrote: > > then he ousted himself after he was not able to oust his prey on his round, just to prevent me from winning vps, and he adimitted that latter on. > > > You get the VP and pool if your prey is ousted, period. It doesn't matter how the ousting happens. > LOL, as i said please read my report on a previous post. There was 4 on the table the one that selfousted was my crosstable to give pool to my prey, and it was on a tournament, please stop making assumptions base on one commment alone.

> Vaughnad wrote: > Thats the thing, i was not the cause of the demise of my crosstable, two of those him was having a hard time even with my help and decided to drop, the judge said him had no real change of removing his prey (a wall deck in the 3 cases). > In the last one it pissed me off cause i was playing with my cross the entire game, > them when my prey was amosted ousted he started aiming kines on both his prey and me, so ok, no more aliance... > then on the turn i was going to get my vp he had 4 pool and 3 vamp, called 2 kines, but his prey stoped him both times and sended one of the vamp to torpor > and he did all of these without consunting anyone.. then he just freak drive his vamp and tried to leave torpor, his prey was suffering the entire game and had also only 4 pool, he blocked the attemp and asked if i would vote for him to burn if he diableri the vamp, i said i would not vote for him to burn since my cross started the agression agains me and he had the votes to control the table (and on my turn he would become my prey), and then he ousted him self > it was very clear to everyone the table that him was doing it to prevent me from getting my VP, so i called the Judge, and he started lying, saying he was playing against the entire table and that he could not gain the table. > i was very pissed of cause of the lies, he had an easy game cause his prey a wall deck had a problem with contesting the first vamp, so he started the game to late, and his deck was a deck with bloot and kiss of ra (the prey did not have fort), his predator was dead, i was with a nosferatu without bleed, so there was plenty of time for him to be able to take his prey ousted, but the judge ruled that his hand was bad and he could not get passed the deck in front of him. > > the first two times a few months ago it was kinda ok, but was still frustrant anyway... > But this last time it was very clear that the player who did it was just trying to make me lose the game and affect the points which it did. the player was catch on his lyies later and even adimited that he did this to prevent me from getting VPs. > > But the judge still say that if the user cant resonable get anything from that table, he can do WHATEVER he wants. > I see two problems: > One Juding if someone is not able to do anything. > Two Allowing someone to do kingmaking as he pleases. > The way I see this is you have trouble with cross table players influencing themself out, more then once. My question to you is, why you don't use tools in the game available to prevent that? Life Boon exists for a reason and it does not require the methuselah in question to accept. Or is this more about not wanting to use the tools already provided in your deck and instead seeking the easier way out by limiting other players options as opposed your own? Or perhaps you've missed that such card with that interaction existed in the first place? As for having trouble with rulings made by a tournament judge, in the past it was bit harder to handle as judging is akin to football where calls on the field stay. But since BCP and VEKN made their www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/VEKN_Code_of_Ethics.pdf a thing and it includes play to win you're free to follow it's procedures. Or if the proceedings are not to your liking, well, create and maintain your own event with your own rules. It does not need to be sanctioned for people to have fun, after all that should be behind this hobby. This is not some "pack up and leave" remark and instead I'm trying to convey a message where you determine the enjoyment and limits. Heck there was a time when restricted list for certain tournaments existed, no more then 6 earth melds was a tactical possibility you could plan for. V:EKN did not agree and made their own rules, with blackjack and hookers! There's nothing to prevent you from doing the same to have fun. Incidentally the homebrew tournament rules play is a way to limit kingmaking to a degree you feel is adequate, as discussed earlier, drawing the line on where the kingmaking starts is tad hard and varies. To me you were the kingmaker in your example by not having Life boon in your deck and thus allowing your grand prey to oust themself. You feel it was your grand prey that was the kingmaker. Who's correct or is it a case where we both are? When you are the one choosing the rules, it's much easier to limit options you dislike. Like V:EKN did with the 6 card restricted list, or the 40% Jyhad requirement, or playing for real ante in a sanctioned tournament table or... You get the idea. The Reason I recommend that course for players is the easiness of it. Changing existing rules and rulings will be met with for and against discussion aplenty, while you only need to get few other people to tag along to have your own fun. And if it's truly fun, you'll attract more and if not, then some introspection with new perspective might bring new conclusions to old questions. Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.