Hello,
is legal in some situation to transfer himself to death on tournament? And is legal to tranfer himself near to death (for example to one pool)?
Practical example: there are five players: A, B, C, D and E. Player C kills players D and E. Then player A which play combat deck kill all minions of players B and C. Can player C decide to tranfer himself to death? He have no chance for another point. And he decide to give point to player B. So there will not be game win.
Kiddo's answer is correct.
If C has absolutely no chance of getting more than 0, she may decide how to gain this 0 VP. This can be achieved via self-ousting.
> Pascal wrote:
> If [a Methuselah] has absolutely no chance of getting more than 0, she may decide how to gain this 0 VP. This can be achieved via self-ousting.
>
Everyone should note, however, that the individual who has final say on whether or not a player may self-oust is not the player themselves, but the head judge.
My suggestion is that if ANYONE at the table believes that the self-ousting player is able to easily achieve ANY VPs -- even 0.5 -- then the head judge should be called over to the table, have the situation explained to them, and the suspicious players should do their best to have the head judge rule the self-ousting player unable to self-oust.
In over one hundred tournaments that I have judged, players know better than to self-oust willy-nilly on me, because I tell everyone that I'm going to stop them from doing it if they are being poor sports and they are obviously able to get more than 0 VPs (which is the case with 99.99% of self-ousts). So, players at my tournaments just don't act this way, almost ever. They Play To Win.
It has happened twice, that I have had to rule a self-oust illegal and FORCE the player to continue playing. In one case, the player achieved 1 VP fairly easily, and almost got 2. In another case, the dumb ass got a Game Win.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Ok, I change a little example situation:
5 players, A,B,C,D,E. Player C kills players D and E. Player A then put in torpor all B's minions and 1 of 3 C's minions. So player C still have two minions. But they have only bleed 1 and no chance to increase it. Player A have 20 pools (and four minions), Player B 6 pools and player C 3 pools. Player C have theoretical chance to win - he have ready minions an can bleed. Is legal for player C to oust himself?
This is real situation. I am player A and was little shocked when player C ousted himself. Head judge confirmed that it is ok.
> fojtik wrote:
> Ok, I change a little example situation:
>
> 5 players, A,B,C,D,E. Player C kills players D and E. Player A then put in torpor all B's minions and 1 of 3 C's minions. So player C still have two minions. But they have only bleed 1 and no chance to increase it. Player A have 20 pools (and four minions), Player B 6 pools and player C 3 pools. Player C have theoretical chance to win - he have ready minions an can bleed. Is legal for player C to oust himself?
>
> This is real situation. I am player A and was little shocked when player C ousted himself. Head judge confirmed that it is ok.
>
You shouldn't have gone backward so hard. Next time you have 20 pool, go forward and kill your prey and not your impotent predator. Then you could have ousted C at your leisure, giving you the GW.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> fojtik wrote:
> Is legal for player C to oust himself?
>
Only if player C has no reasonable chance to gain more VP's. It's difficult to say whether that's the case based on your description of the game state. Maybe C could have rescued B's minions, maybe A was out of rush cards, maybe A had 4 minions with permarush, 10+ blood and Heroic Might, maybe B was holding on to a Golconda, maybe one of the players had depleted their libraries, maybe the clock was running close to time limit... Really, it all boils down to whether you trust the head judge's assessment and/or interpretation of PTW.
Based on the description of the game state that would be perfectly legal. Of course some other factors might've made it illegal (e.g. being close to timeout with a reasonable chance to 2.5 without stalling).
Jussi Hattara
Webmaster Extraordinaire
Finnish Politics!
> KevinM wrote:
> You shouldn't have gone backward so hard. Next time you have 20 pool, go forward and kill your prey and not your impotent predator. Then you could have ousted C at your leisure, giving you the GW.
>
To be fair, he only rushed 1 of C's 3 minions.
I as player C declined first offer to oust myself, because I had small chance but still chance to kill you. You responded by torporizing most of my minions, despite the fact, that your pool gain was bigger than my potential bleed power.
Prince of Hradec Králové
> KevinM wrote:
>
> > fojtik wrote:
> > This is real situation. I am player A and was little shocked when player C ousted himself. Head judge confirmed that it is ok.
> >
> You shouldn't have gone backward so hard. Next time you have 20 pool, go forward and kill your prey and not your impotent predator. Then you could have ousted C at your leisure, giving you the GW.
>
Sorry but this is not answer. I only backrush and send to torpor one predator's vampire. So If I do not do it, it was illegal for him to oust himself?
> KevinM wrote:
> You shouldn't have gone backward so hard. Next time you have 20 pool, go forward and kill your prey and not your impotent predator. Then you could have ousted C at your leisure, giving you the GW.
>
Or gone backwards harder: if D ousts E then C ousts D and A is the last one standing, A gets the GW.
The important point is: don't let one player score the first 2 VPs.
> aahzmandius wrote:
> One of two READY minions in fact. The remaining ready minion had one blood.
>
Ok, but it was not backrush but blocking, when you tried rush my different vampire with fame...
In fact I prefere to discover if there is some determinate rule which can be used for self ousting.
For player C was situation really unpleasant. Player A have 4 vampires. 3 of them have permanent rush ability. There was a lot of time, no chance for time limit. But still have one ready vampire.
> fojtik wrote:
> Sorry but this is not answer. I only backrush and send to torpor one predator's vampire. So If I do not do it, it was illegal for him to oust himself?
>
It is impossible for us who were not there to make a judgement as to whether or not it was "illegal". The judge made a decision. Hopefully it was the correct one.
What I'm saying is that something caused C to want to self oust, and perhaps it was your rushing his minion. Because if you took zero actions against him, then why would he wish to self-oust after gaining 2vp? It's possible, but much less likely, that he would have self-ousted right then. Maybe he would have tried to team-up with B, maybe he would have tried to work out a way to oust you. At the very least, he should sit back and do nothing and gain 0.5 addition VP for a timeout, right? Because if he sits and does nothing, and B ousts him anyway, that's the same as him self-ousting, and THAT is a reason the judge could have disallowed his self-oust. But if you're going to beat him up, even one minion per turn, and he cannot defend against you, well, that is a possible reason to self-oust.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> fojtik wrote:
> In fact I prefere to discover if there is some determinate rule which can be used for self ousting.
>
There is no such thing. If the head judge ruled it legal, then it was.
From what both of you say, it sounds like the main question is not so much about the number of minions and pool totals, but whose combat trumps the other. What were the decks?
> For player C was situation really unpleasant. Player A have 4 vampires. 3 of them have permanent rush ability. There was a lot of time, no chance for time limit. But still have one ready vampire.
>
If you acknowledge that C cannot oust you and cannot hope for a time limit, then it is clear: C may self-oust. How many minions and pool he has is irrelevant.
Player A - Animal combat with a lot of masters, Nana Buruku, Enkidu, Nangila a Talbot were out. All have about 2 bloods. 25 pools
Player B - everything in torpor, 6 pools
Player C - Salubri Antitribu rush with Weighted Walking Sticks, one vampire with stick, vessel and one blood. Have superior fortitude and valorean (i thing). About three pools.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > For player C was situation really unpleasant. Player A have 4 vampires. 3 of them have permanent rush ability. There was a lot of time, no chance for time limit. But still have one ready vampire.
> >
> If you acknowledge that C cannot oust you and cannot hope for a time limit, then it is clear: C may self-oust. How many minions and pool he has is irrelevant.
>
So there is question if C really have no chance to oust me. I agree that chance was extrremely low. He needs a lot of untaps, and prevents. And player A should have no Carrion crows or Aids from Bats. But IMHO there was a chance.
Player A has Enkidu, so even without bats+crows player C is in tough spot, not to mention that it feels that player A was playing Girls with aids version like Hugh did, in that case, player A is one golconda away from additional 10+ pool.
In this case, self-oust is, I feel , completely in order, as it ensures that player C gets most points (realistically, c'mon), and NOBODY else gets more points than him.
Again, difficult to say, without actually watching the game itself.
Yes, player player A was playing Girls with aids. Player C was in very bad situation. But he still have one ready minion and his deck takes him theoretical chance to block all player A minions and kill them. I agree that it was theoretical chance and there was low probability to do it. Is it enought for player C to oust himself?
> fojtik wrote:
> Yes, player player A was playing Girls with aids. Player C was in very bad situation. But he still have one ready minion and his deck takes him theoretical chance to block all player A minions and kill them. I agree that it was theoretical chance and there was low probability to do it. Is it enought for player C to oust himself?
>
An official guideline might be in order. Does "reasonable chance" mean
a) a purely theoretical chance, as in some other player on the table has to play some very unlikely sequence of cards that are uncharacteristic to his deck,
b) a very small chance, as in you have to top deck 1-3 times in a row or
c) you're playing Legacy of Pander and your prey is playing AUS-weenie?
> fojtik wrote:
> I agree that it was theoretical chance and there was low probability to do it. Is it enought for player C to oust himself?
>
Theorically, by self ousting, player C may force player A to Life Boon him (A hopes to save his Game Win) with some much pool C may oust A. There is a low probability, but it exists too.
Between both two low and nearly equal probabilities, C may choose one or another.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Suoli wrote:
>
> > fojtik wrote:
> > Yes, player player A was playing Girls with aids. Player C was in very bad situation. But he still have one ready minion and his deck takes him theoretical chance to block all player A minions and kill them. I agree that it was theoretical chance and there was low probability to do it. Is it enought for player C to oust himself?
> >
> An official guideline might be in order. Does "reasonable chance" mean
> a) a purely theoretical chance, as in some other player on the table has to play some very unlikely sequence of cards that are uncharacteristic to his deck,
> b) a very small chance, as in you have to top deck 1-3 times in a row or
> c) you're playing Legacy of Pander and your prey is playing AUS-weenie?
>
LSJ has given previous answers to this, and the important point is that "reasonable chance" is defined by risk analysis. It's not as simple as "if you have greater than X% chance, then you have a reasonable chance." The word "reasonable" includes considering other options. For example:
Case 1:
a) Go for GW: 10% chance for GW, 90% chance for 0 VPs
b) Settle for less: 100% chance of 0 VPs
Case 2:
a) Go for GW: 10% chance for GW, 90% chance for 0 Vps
b) Settle for less: 100% chance for 2-2-1 split
In Case 1, a judge might rule that there's a reasonable chance to go for a GW, and force the player to go for the GW.
In Case 2, a judge might rule that there's not a reasonable chance to go for the GW, and allow the player to take the 2-2-1 split.
There is no hard rule for this. It requires the judge's judgement. The best way to ensure we have good judges around is to discuss case studies and explain what we might rule as a judge.
For the example you gave:
Player A: 25 pool, lots of minions
Player B: 3 pool, all minions in torpor
Player C: 6 pool, 2 ready minions, already has 2 VPs.
Assuming there is plenty of time left on the clock, I would assess player C's situation as:
a) Go for GW: 0.1% chance of GW, 99.9% chance of 0 more VPs.
b) Settle for less: self oust, 100% chance of 0 more VPs.
In that case, I personally would rule that Player C has no reasonable chances for more VPs (assuming the game won't time out), and would allow Player C to transfer out.
Finally, from a game design perspective, this is a wise ruling. If a player isn't having fun and feels like they have no chance of winning, it's good for the longevity of the game to let them stop playing that game. We want people to keep coming back and playing more games; if they get to a situation where they don't have reasonable chances to get more VPs, let them end their participation in the game how they want. Trying to force people to play a game that isn't fun for them is bad for business.
Ira