Player A bleeds player B (his prey). Both players have one pool, and
there are other players in the game. Player B has a tapped vampire.
Player B declines to block and is going to be ousted.
1). Can (and should) the judge ask Player B whether he has Wake card
and force him to block if he has it?
2). The same question, but Player B previously openly agreed to allow
Player A to oust him?
3). The same question, but Player B already has enough GW to get to the
finals, but player A and his predator need some VPs to pass?
AFAIK, Tournament Rules disallow conceding. Our playgroup really needs
a clear answer.
Ector wrote:
> Player A bleeds player B (his prey). Both players have one pool, and
> there are other players in the game. Player B has a tapped vampire.
> Player B declines to block and is going to be ousted.
IANLSJ, but here's what I'd say from my understanding of previous
threads..
> 1). Can (and should) the judge ask Player B whether he has Wake card
> and force him to block if he has it?
I don't think the judge has to hover over the player(s) going 'do you
have a Wake? Do you?' However, if the Judge has reason to think that
the player is purposefully tanking the game in such a fashion (for no
valid reason), then yes. Especially if other players are asking for
intervention (see below).
> 2). The same question, but Player B previously openly agreed to allow
> Player A to oust him?
You're allowed to honor deals - even those that do not optimize your VP
- so B can choose not to block without violating 'play to win'.
> 3). The same question, but Player B already has enough GW to get to
the
> finals, but player A and his predator need some VPs to pass?
Then Player B is not playing to win the game he is in the midst of
playing, but basing his decision on considerations outside that game
(like who he wants to see make it to the finals). Which is against the
'play to win' rules.
> AFAIK, Tournament Rules disallow conceding. Our playgroup really
needs
> a clear answer.
You are mistaken. From the tourney rules: "Players may concede a game
at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede, with
the result that game is recorded as if the remaining player had
succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence."
If Player B wants to concede to Player A, he can - but only if
everybody else is also conceding to Player A at the same time.
-John Flournoy
In message <1114710120.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, John
Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes:
>Ector wrote:>> 2). The same question, but Player B previously openly agreed to allow
>> Player A to oust him?>
>You're allowed to honor deals - even those that do not optimize your VP
>- so B can choose not to block without violating 'play to win'.
You're allowed to honour deals, if the deal was legal when it was made.
That is, if the player was playing to win when they made the deal (e.g.
otherwise they'd have most likely got 0 VPs, but this way they got 2,
and there wasn't much bother about it all), they can honour the deal.
--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1114710120.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, John
> Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Ector wrote:
>>>>>2). The same question, but Player B previously openly agreed to allow
>>>Player A to oust him?>>
>>You're allowed to honor deals - even those that do not optimize your VP
>>- so B can choose not to block without violating 'play to win'.>
>
> You're allowed to honour deals, if the deal was legal when it was made.
>
> That is, if the player was playing to win when they made the deal (e.g.
> otherwise they'd have most likely got 0 VPs, but this way they got 2,
> and there wasn't much bother about it all), they can honour the deal.
Correct (And John is correct on the rest of his article, as well).
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
John Flournoy wrote:
> Ector wrote:
> > Player A bleeds player B (his prey). Both players have one pool,
and
> > there are other players in the game. Player B has a tapped vampire.
> > Player B declines to block and is going to be ousted.
>
> IANLSJ, but here's what I'd say from my understanding of previous
> threads..
>
>
> > 1). Can (and should) the judge ask Player B whether he has Wake
card
> > and force him to block if he has it?
>
> I don't think the judge has to hover over the player(s) going 'do you
> have a Wake? Do you?' However, if the Judge has reason to think that
> the player is purposefully tanking the game in such a fashion (for no
> valid reason), then yes. Especially if other players are asking for
> intervention (see below).
That's clear enough, and I think this way myself (in the other case I
wouldn't post the other variants), but thanks for your clarification
anyway.
> > 2). The same question, but Player B previously openly agreed to
allow
> > Player A to oust him?
>
> You're allowed to honor deals - even those that do not optimize your
VP
> - so B can choose not to block without violating 'play to win'.
You mean "a completed deal", at least for Player B. In the real game
Players A and B had a table-splitting deal (2/2 for a 4-player table),
but actually they failed to oust Player B's prey. Can Player B allow
Player A to oust him if he got NOTHING from the deal? Is it "honoring
the deal" or not? And, ultimately, what should the judge do in this
situation?
> > 3). The same question, but Player B already has enough GW to get to
> the
> > finals, but player A and his predator need some VPs to pass?
>
> Then Player B is not playing to win the game he is in the midst of
> playing, but basing his decision on considerations outside that game
> (like who he wants to see make it to the finals). Which is against
the
> 'play to win' rules.
Well, so the judge should ask whether Player B has Wake (or inspect his
hand) and force him to play it and block if he has?
> > AFAIK, Tournament Rules disallow conceding. Our playgroup really
> needs
> > a clear answer.
>
> You are mistaken. From the tourney rules: "Players may concede a game
> at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede,
with
> the result that game is recorded as if the remaining player had
> succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence."
>
> If Player B wants to concede to Player A, he can - but only if
> everybody else is also conceding to Player A at the same time.
I know the rule. When I wrote "disallow conceding", I meant
"conceding in this situation". Obviously, Player A's predator isn't
going to concede here.
Thanks in advance,
Ector
[ quoted text not captured ]
Please answer my questions! Our playgroup is awaiting for clear answers
to know whether the judge can "rollback" the game and force Player B to
block or not.
Thanks in advance.
Yours,
Ector
Ector wrote:
> Please answer my questions! Our playgroup is awaiting for clear answers
> to know whether the judge can "rollback" the game and force Player B to
> block or not.
> Thanks in advance.
No. The judge cannot force player B to try and block. A player is compelled
to try and win the game, by the tournament rules, yes. This does not mean,
however, that it is the judges job to look at all the players' hands and
compell them to make the optimal play in every situation. Nor does it mean
that it is the judge's job to look at people's hands and say "You have a
Wake! You must try to block that action!", as that would be both stupid and
insane to attempt to enforce.
Most of the time, players will do this on their own--I am at 1 pool, my
opponent comes to bleed me for 1, in a vain attempt to stop him, I'll play
the Wake and attempt to block even if it is unlikely to work. But nothing is
saying I *must* try and block, as I am in a mostly untennable position to
begin with--maybe I want to spite my predator's ability to cycle cards more
than I want to try and live for one extra action. It isn't the judges' place
to outguess this.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Ector wrote:
> Please answer my questions! Our playgroup is awaiting for clear answers
> to know whether the judge can "rollback" the game and force Player B to
> block or not.
Illegal play is not allowed, by definition. If it is not noticed until
after it has already occured, it should be corrected. If logistically
feasible, that correction should be the rewinding of the game state to
the point before the illegal activity occured, so that legal play
can then be made.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Illegal play is not allowed, by definition. If it is not noticed until
> after it has already occured, it should be corrected. If logistically
> feasible, that correction should be the rewinding of the game state to
> the point before the illegal activity occured, so that legal play
> can then be made.
Are you actually implying that a Judge is compelled to look in every
player's hand at all times, and if they "illegally" fail to block by playing
a Wake in their hand to avoid getting ousted, the Judge is then empowered to
fix this "illegal" play?
Honestly?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <BE994ECC.1F224%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>Are you actually implying that a Judge is compelled to look in every
>player's hand at all times, and if they "illegally" fail to block by playing
>a Wake in their hand to avoid getting ousted, the Judge is then empowered to
>fix this "illegal" play?
I believe the implication is that if the player concerned isn't playing
to win, the judge rectifies the situation and rolls back as necessary -
where practical, at least.
However, playing badly is not the same as not playing to win.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> I believe the implication is that if the player concerned isn't playing
> to win, the judge rectifies the situation and rolls back as necessary -
> where practical, at least.
There is only so much of this you can do. If anything at all. And the
specific instance being discussed is something along the lines of "A guy
with 1 pool has a Wake in his hand but doesn't block the bleed that ousts
him. Can the judge make him block?"--declaring this illegal by virtue of the
"play to win" rule, as well as trying to mandate that a player play that
Wake and try to block, is bordering on insanity (not on LSJ's part, just in
a gand scheme--I think he is giving a general answer of "if someone plays
illegally, you fix it", but the general answer doesn't really seem to fit
the specific question here that someone is trying to find the answer to).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija a écrit :
> James Coupe wrote:
>
>>>I believe the implication is that if the player concerned isn't playing
>>to win, the judge rectifies the situation and rolls back as necessary -
>>where practical, at least.>
>
> There is only so much of this you can do. If anything at all. And the
> specific instance being discussed is something along the lines of "A guy
> with 1 pool has a Wake in his hand but doesn't block the bleed that ousts
> him. Can the judge make him block?"--declaring this illegal by virtue of the
> "play to win" rule, as well as trying to mandate that a player play that
> Wake and try to block, is bordering on insanity
not counting that the player may want to trigger something by notplaying
the wake (life boon, eagle sight block from an ally)...
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Are you actually implying that a Judge is compelled to look in every> player's hand at all times, and [...]
No.
(Stopping at the "and", since "Are both A and B true" is false if either are.)
[ quoted text not captured ]