Burning the Spirited [LSJ]

If a minion is "borrowed" through Spirit Marionette and burns, was it considered to be a minion you controlled at the time ? Meaning, to retrieve him, should I use Possession or Daemonic possession ? T.I.A. -- Orpheus ----------------- - Remove the Withdraw rule in the next booklet !!! - Ban Succubus Club and Protect Thine Own - Fix Anarch Revolt ...and let's PLAY !!!

In article <418a1351$0$9036$636a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote: >If a minion is "borrowed" through Spirit Marionette and burns, was it >considered to be a minion you controlled at the time ? Meaning, to retrieve >him, should I use Possession or Daemonic possession ? I think you cannot use either one. It was "controlled" by you, but it's not in your ash heap, so it doesn't satisfy card text for either Possession (has to be in your own ash heap) or Daemonic Possession (has to be controlled by another Methuselah when burned). -- charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca

"Charles Lechasseur" <da...@novideospamtron.ca> escribió en el mensaje news:danov-04110...@192.168.1.4... [ quoted text not captured ] In depends. If the spirited vamp is burned through an inferior daring the dawn, you can choose the order of the "end action" steps. So you can choose to send it back to its owner and *then* the 2 aggro damage from the daring the dawn takes place. So I guess that in this scenario you can daemonic possess the poor spirit. Smiling Tom

"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:2uulu8F...@uni-berlin.de... [ quoted text not captured ] No choice. You control it when it burns. It is not in your ash heap. Google: marionette dawn author:LSJ -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Orpheus wrote: > - Remove the Withdraw rule in the next booklet !!! You keep mentioning this, and I apprenty haven't seen you explain this anywhere. Wha? > - Ban Succubus Club and Protect Thine Own > - Fix Anarch Revolt Solid. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> a écrit dans le message de news: BDB026C0.1A9F7%pd...@lightlink.com... > Orpheus wrote: > > > - Remove the Withdraw rule in the next booklet !!! > > You keep mentioning this, and I apprenty haven't seen you explain this > anywhere. Wha? Yes I did... See the "Deals, deals again" (very long) thread. To make a long story short : without a Withdraw rule (currently pointless except for Brinksmanship, which can be updated), one cannot "give a single VP to, say, his predator, so it reduces lots of VP deals, among the most despicable in my opinion (" I'm losing, I want a VP, I'm ready to screw the table for it). > > - Ban Succubus Club and Protect Thine Own > > - Fix Anarch Revolt > > Solid. Cheers from the Dead, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > Withdraw rule (currently pointless > except for Brinksmanship, which can be updated) Incorrect (the "pointless" part). http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F54C657.80501%40white-wolf.com -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Orpheus wrote: > Yes I did... See the "Deals, deals again" (very long) thread. No, no, *I* didn't see you explain it anywhere--not implying that you haven't explained it anywhere, just pointing out that I probably didn't read it if I did see it. > To make a long story short : without a Withdraw rule (currently pointless > except for Brinksmanship, which can be updated), one cannot "give a single > VP to, say, his predator, so it reduces lots of VP deals, among the most > despicable in my opinion (" I'm losing, I want a VP, I'm ready to screw the > table for it). But it is really hard to withdraw. You need cooperation, generally, from the whole table, as it is really easy to foil a withdraw attempt from anywhere, so I'm not really seeing how it is currency in a deal so much. On the other hand, it does allow a group of players all dug in and unwilling to lunge the ability to agree to mutually withdraw and all get out with a single VP (which is easily better than sitting stuck till time runs out and then getting .5 VPs). And occasionally, someone will actually try and withdraw 'cause they are out of a deck, and sometimes it even works, which is always hysterical. And without the ability to Withdraw, you totally hose this fantastic deck: 6x March Halcyon (1) for 6x Isabel De Leon (3) AUS 2x Telepathic Counter 1x My Enemy's Enemy 1x Forced Awakening 56x Freak Drive [ quoted text not captured ]

>But it is really hard to withdraw. You need cooperation, generally, from the >whole table, as it is really easy to foil a withdraw attempt from anywhere, >so I'm not really seeing how it is currency in a deal so much. Huh? Cooperation isn't really that hard when you have a deal in place. How do you offer your predator one (additional) VP without either seat switching or withdrawing as an option? >On the other >hand, it does allow a group of players all dug in and unwilling to lunge the >ability to agree to mutually withdraw and all get out with a single VP >(which is easily better than sitting stuck till time runs out and then >getting .5 VPs). Why is this good? Why is it good for the one player who ousted someone at a table to get a GW because the other players at the table would rather have half more of a VP? >And occasionally, someone will actually try and withdraw >'cause they are out of a deck, and sometimes it even works, which is always >hysterical. PTOing all of someone's vampires can be hysterical too, I don't see this an argument in support of a rule that never should have been instituted in the first place. I don't know why the withdraw rule was created. I suppose it sounded good as a way to prevent stalemated situations. But, time limits deal with that fine and, in the absence of a time limit, it's easy enough for the judge to declare a stalemated situation. The ability for someone to get a VP without ousting anyone, creates more options for carving up tables, something routinely considered to be against the spirit of the game.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news: CCzid.840942$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Orpheus wrote: > > Withdraw rule (currently pointless > > except for Brinksmanship, which can be updated) > > Incorrect (the "pointless" part). > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F54C657.80501%40white-wolf.com Shit, I've hyperboled and I didn't know it... ;-) Seriously, what I meant was : the original (stated) goal is useless : as the golden rule of retrieving your cards (graverobbed etc.) when you leave the table, the withdraw rule, as Curevei point out, has lost its original purpose, and is only used now to make (ugly) deals. It is a flaw in the rules, not a rule used as such. Also : when players want to halt the game (because all their minions are in torpor etc) they don't withdraw : they transfer out !! It's ugly too but more understandable as they give the VP to their predator (either giving the guy who hurt them what he deserved, albeit too early IMHO, or giving his hurtful prey a new, more powerful predator, therefore getting revenge over a backfigthing prey). I've seen it lots of times, and never a withdraw in that case. But I've seen withdraws to get "easy VPs" all the time, including the "we want more than 0,5" at time limit. Who wants that ?! "The rule exists to encourage proactive play". It fails in that purpose. All it encourages is people trying to keep their only VP until 5 mn from Time Limit, blocking the whole table and proposing 1 more VP each. Not what I call "proactive". -- Orpheus ------------- "We're all living in Amerika / Amerika ist wunderbar We're all living in Amerika / Coca Cola, Sometimes War" Rammstein

In message <20041104233136...@mb-m22.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> writes: >>But it is really hard to withdraw. You need cooperation, generally, from the >>whole table, as it is really easy to foil a withdraw attempt from anywhere, >>so I'm not really seeing how it is currency in a deal so much. > >Huh? Cooperation isn't really that hard when you have a deal in place. Depends who you're playing with. In previous threads, LSJ himself has raised the issue of at least one person backstabbing during a mutual withdraw agreement on the table to get the extra VP he wanted by waiting until he drew the perfect card that he knew was in his deck. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <BDB0323F.1A9FD%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >But it is really hard to withdraw. You need cooperation, generally, from the >whole table, as it is really easy to foil a withdraw attempt from anywhere, >so I'm not really seeing how it is currency in a deal so much. On the other >hand, it does allow a group of players all dug in and unwilling to lunge the >ability to agree to mutually withdraw and all get out with a single VP >(which is easily better than sitting stuck till time runs out and then >getting .5 VPs). Just tacking on to a random post, mainly. I don't *like* the "Let's just sit here and discard until we withdraw and get a VP each" situation. It feels wrong. However, it is currently the best play in the game in a number of situations. So, I've just dug up something I wrote a month ago. The main thing it's missing is Brinksmanship - but then, I'm concerned about that card in general anyway. *** A more useful tack - if such [[edit: people mutually withdrawing]] is a problem - is to provide a series of disincentives. For instance, it might be worth considering the implications of withdrawal not being worth a full VP. For instance, were it worth only half a VP, there would be no difference between it and timing out. In such an instance, it would be worth playing to the end in case you could oust someone, since withdrawing now would gain you nothing over timing out at the end. (Unless one of the people likely to die is you. But if you're that precarious, the other people on the table may have something to say about allowing you to withdraw instead.) Of course, there are several knock-on effects so such a proposal might not be perfect. [[edit: it would mean that currently legitimate withdrawal was also penalised, say]] Alternative proposals might be to, say, have any ties resolved by withdrawals counting after non-withdrawals. So if you have 1 TW, 9 VPs (a sweep and two twos) and I have a 1 TW, 9 VPs (a sweep and two twos) *but* in one of my games I withdrew to get the two VP and we're tied for last place into the finals (small tournament)... I lose, you get in. This then makes more aggressive gains of VPs count "better" than withdrawals. You then don't have to ban the deal itself. A withdrawal is an inherently worse way to gain a VP than a non-withdrawal/oust, then. [[edit: I'm not sure that this is bad. It's social engineering, yes, but I tend to think that aggressive (in the sense of ousting their prey) decks should probably be rewarded]] Alternatively again, you might want to look at the withdrawal rule itself. If you decide you wanted to keep it (which you might not), you might want to change it. Picking a random idea from my Big Hat Of Random Ideas, only the first player to withdraw from a game receives a VP. Someone who has a legitimate need to get the hell out of the game can get a VP that way. But then it is *never* in the table's interests to mutually withdraw. [[edit: I still quite like this one. The legitimate withdrawer still can without any changes - and I don't think I've ever seen a game where two people withdraw for normal "I'm out of deck, oh my god I have to get out here" reasons, vs rapid withdrawal at the end of a game]]. The mutual throw down cards until we all leave the game situation isn't possible. You could still, maybe, bargain with someone so that they could withdraw to get a VP if they help you but...]] Again, this is not perfect. (Though a couple of them have a certain sense of... something to them. I admit it's three in the morning, though.) But what isn't it? It's not telling players "These are the facts of the game, in-game. This is how you would get the best out of the game. But you can't do it." Telling players that you, as the judge, have to deliberately curtail the best play is inherently wrong. If the "best play" is wrong for some reason, fix that. *** [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<418ac065$0$9257$636a...@news.free.fr>... > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > BDB026C0.1A9F7%pd...@lightlink.com... > > Orpheus wrote: > > > > > - Remove the Withdraw rule in the next booklet !!! > > > > You keep mentioning this, and I apprenty haven't seen you explain this > > anywhere. Wha? > > Yes I did... See the "Deals, deals again" (very long) thread. > > To make a long story short : without a Withdraw rule (currently pointless > except for Brinksmanship, which can be updated), one cannot "give a single > VP to, say, his predator, so it reduces lots of VP deals, among the most > despicable in my opinion (" I'm losing, I want a VP, I'm ready to screw the > table for it). I think that we could let the Brinkmanship loving sect (these guys who always invoke Brinkmanship as an argument without using it) happy by making withdraw legal, yet worth 0 VPs. > > > - Ban Succubus Club > > > - Let Protect Thine Own and Anarch Revolt as they are [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > "The rule exists to encourage proactive play". > > It fails in that purpose. All it encourages is people trying to keep their > only VP until 5 mn from Time Limit, blocking the whole table and proposing 1 > more VP each. Not what I call "proactive". Just because that's all you've seen it do doesn't mean that that is all it does. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Peter D Bakija wrote: > But it is really hard to withdraw. Only if whoever is left on the table doesn't want you to. Make a deal with your prey for 1 VP and watch him gobble up the rest of the table and then let you withdraw. Easy. Grind the table to a halt and with 3 minutes left and everyone at 20 pool, propose mutual withdrawl. Easy. Matt Morgan

Matt wrote: >>Only if whoever is left on the table doesn't want you to. >> Yah. In most cases, someone won't want you to. So you'll fail. Unless it is the result of a deal, and unless everyone at the table is ok with the deal, in all likelyhood, you'll fail here too. >> Make a deal with your prey for 1 VP and watch him gobble up the rest of the table and then let you withdraw.>> But if you just let your prey do that, you are breaking the "play to win" rule. Unless you are in an unwinnable position, in which case, you successfully get your 1 VP for a withdrawl. Which is a better outcome than getting zero VPs. You can only pull it off when there are only two of you left. And really, getting that 1 VP is a better plan than getting zero VPs. >>Easy. Grind the table to a halt and with 3 minutes left and everyone at 20 pool, propose mutual withdrawl. Easy.>> How is that a problem, really? One person can't grind a table to a halt. Tables grind to a halt 'cause everyone grinds them to a halt together. -Peter

On 5 Nov 2004 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Matt wrote: > >>Only if whoever is left on the table doesn't want you to. >> > > Yah. In most cases, someone won't want you to. So you'll fail. Unless > it is the result of a deal, and unless everyone at the table is ok with > the deal, in all likelyhood, you'll fail here too. I think these cases are the minority, actually. At least they are in my experience. Most of the time when I see someone withdraw, it is because of some deal that everyone left at the table (usually just two players except when the whole table is withdrawing to avoid a timeout). In casual play I almost never see players attempt to withdraw. In tournaments the other cases I mentioned are more frequent. > >> Make a deal with your prey for 1 VP and watch him gobble up the rest > of the table and > then let you withdraw.>> > > But if you just let your prey do that, you are breaking the "play to > win" rule. Unless you are in an unwinnable position, in which case, you > successfully get your 1 VP for a withdrawl. Which is a better outcome > than getting zero VPs. You can only pull it off when there are only two > of you left. And really, getting that 1 VP is a better plan than > getting zero VPs. Sure, I wasn't saying it wasn't a fair play. I was just saying that I see this kind of withdraw not too infrequently and it isn't difficult. Of course, with the temptation of a certain VP, some players might too quickly judge their positions to be unwinnable. That's the downside. > >>Easy. Grind the table to a halt and with 3 minutes left and > everyone at 20 pool, propose mutual withdrawl. Easy.>> > > How is that a problem, really? One person can't grind a table to a > halt. Tables grind to a halt 'cause everyone grinds them to a halt > together. Decks packing zillions of Autarkis Persecutions and other table bloat votes can certainly do this. Weenie AUS can do it as well. Millicent Smith can sometimes slow things significantly. Sure, the table could unite to stop such a deck, but the second someone at the table gets into trouble, the grindout deck (is this a new term?) will be his best friend. Anyway, I didn't say it was a problem. I said it was easy to do. If I wanted to argue it was a problem, I'd point out that aggressiveness, not passiveness should be rewarded. Of course the good counter to that argument is that it's pretty much impossible to get into a tournament finals with 3 VP except in the case of very small tournaments. Matt Morgan

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:418b3407$0$32094$636a...@news.free.fr... > Seriously, what I meant was : the original (stated) goal is useless : as the > golden rule of retrieving your cards (graverobbed etc.) when you leave the > table, the withdraw rule, as Curevei point out, has lost its original > purpose, and is only used now to make (ugly) deals. ... > "The rule exists to encourage proactive play". > > It fails in that purpose. All it encourages is people trying to keep their > only VP until 5 mn from Time Limit, blocking the whole table and proposing 1 > more VP each. Not what I call "proactive". I don't know. If you read the post LSJ gave the link to, I don't see where you come to the conclusion that if fails in that purpose. You haven't cited any evidence of that or addressed it directly. If you want advocate the "useless" line of argument you're pursuing, then you need to respond to the point he made: that the withdrawl rule prevents people from turtling and waiting for their neighbors to expose themselves. In fact, turtling is exactly one of my complaints about the game as it is now. I fear that if the withdrawl rule were removed, there would be even _less_ incentive for good players to be proactive. Fred

In message <jKPid.82225$bk1.62981@fed1read05>, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> writes: >In fact, turtling is exactly one of my complaints about the game as it >is now. I fear that if the withdrawl rule were removed, there would be >even _less_ incentive for good players to be proactive. I believe there's two sorts of withdrawal being talked about, and it's the non-pro-active bit of the second that Orpheus doesn't like: - withdrawal during the normal flow of the game, with bags of time to spare, when you want to get out of it for whatever reason - people throwing down cards at the end, which isn't "pro-active", aggressive or whatever at all A system which preserved the former (however rarely it's used) and made the later unprofitable (or at least rarely profitable) would, in my view, be worth looking at. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:7rMd0ISEI9iBFw7$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <jKPid.82225$bk1.62981@fed1read05>, Frederick Scott > <dont...@mymail.com> writes: > I believe there's two sorts of withdrawal being talked about, and it's > the non-pro-active bit of the second that Orpheus doesn't like: > > - withdrawal during the normal flow of the game, with bags of time to > spare, when you want to get out of it for whatever reason > > - people throwing down cards at the end, which isn't "pro-active", > aggressive or whatever at all I'm not sure I would divide things up like that. Or say I don't exactly understand your dichotomy. And, in any event, I don't see any lip service paid to the idea expressed in Scott's post: that the threat of withdrawl - at _whatever_ point in the game you want to look at - gives players who feel like they have a chance of ousting their prey a specific reason to get started NOW. As opposed to eternally waiting for a more opportune time. If you wait, your prey eventually runs out of deck, declares his intent to withdraw, and gets away. This is a long term threat if you're looking at the situation in the early/mid parts of the game. But it is a threat, on some level, however vague and eventual. Fred

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Anyway, I didn't say it was a problem. I said it was easy to do. It is really hard to withdraw when people want to stop you. It is really easy to withdraw if there are two or three people who all agree to either let you or mutually withdraw. That it is difficult to withdraw on your own is good, but it is also good that you can try--it gives incentive to go forward in a deadlock situation. That it is easy to withdraw when everyone agrees to it doesn't strike me as a problem at all. I'm guessing what Orpheus is objecting to is people using Withdrawl as a bargaining tool (i.e. "If you let me withdraw, I'll stop doing anything to you as my prey..."), which is effectively a kind of table split deal, which is kind of a problem. But as it goes, it is a very weak table split deal, and is only legal if you aren't going to get any VPs otherwise. So I'm not really seeing the problem there. > If I > wanted to argue it was a problem, I'd point out that aggressiveness, not > passiveness should be rewarded. That is exactly what the Withdrawl rule does. If you have 4 people all deadlocked, and all out of deck, and someone tries to withdraw (which is a reasonable thing to do, given that it gets oy umore VPs), the reward comes from foiling the withdraw attempt. Being passive does not let you withdraw. Your *opponents* being passive lets you withdraw. In terms of deals, however, thta is a completely different issue, and I think it is the deal issue that is objected to here. I would point out, however, that the only difference in this situation between there being a withdrawing rule and not is that people can finagle an extra .5 VP by making a withdraw deal. Which is not even remotely a big deal in the grand scheme of things. > Of course the good counter to that > argument is that it's pretty much impossible to get into a tournament > finals with 3 VP except in the case of very small tournaments. Especially given that in three games, you are giving someone different each time a sweep by giving up for the 1 VP. I don't think the "You get 4 VP and I get 1 'cause you let me withdraw" deal is even close to a winning one. And likely isn't one that happens all that often, let alone frequently. All I can think of as being what Orpheus is objecting to is the use of "let me withdraw" as a bargaining chip. Usually, it is only going to be worth your time to do that if you were getting zero VPs in any case, and if there wasn't a withdraw rule, you could do the same thing by saying "let me time the game out for the .5 VP..." which would be the exact same deal, except for just .5 VP less. Is it worth quibbling over the .5 VP? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: TdSid.82245$bk1.5846@fed1read05... > > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > news:7rMd0ISEI9iBFw7$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > In message <jKPid.82225$bk1.62981@fed1read05>, Frederick Scott > > <dont...@mymail.com> writes: > > I believe there's two sorts of withdrawal being talked about, and it's > > the non-pro-active bit of the second that Orpheus doesn't like: Sort of... > > - withdrawal during the normal flow of the game, with bags of time to > > spare, when you want to get out of it for whatever reason ...although "whatever reason" doesn't appear to me... > > - people throwing down cards at the end, which isn't "pro-active", > > aggressive or whatever at all Agreed. > I'm not sure I would divide things up like that. Or say I don't > exactly understand your dichotomy. And, in any event, I don't see > any lip service paid to the idea expressed in Scott's post: that > the threat of withdrawl - at _whatever_ point in the game you want > to look at - gives players who feel like they have a chance of ousting > their prey a specific reason to get started NOW. As opposed to eternally > waiting for a more opportune time. Quite the opposite, really. The withdraw rule is used by people who wait until the last time to act, and it is one of the reasons why so many games, especially finals, are so boring lately. Let's see : > If you wait, your prey eventually runs out of deck, No. Not if she doesn't play cards. Or not too many cards. Doing it on purpose means the prey doesn't play to win, maybe doesn't play at all. Anyway, if she wants to punish you for not doing anything, she will most likely gains VPs by acting and having no pressure from her predator ! I don't see how withdrawing is a better threat than winning. > declares his intent to withdraw, and gets away. This > is a long term threat if you're looking at the situation in the > early/mid parts of the game. But it is a threat, on some level, however > vague and eventual. Not really a threat at all. If you don't act against your prey, she will probably win the table. Withdraw the withdraw !! ;-) Why not allow it just 0,5 like Time Limit ? -- ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

Curevei wrote: > Why is this good? Why is it good for the one player who ousted someone at a > table to get a GW because the other players at the table would rather have > half more of a VP? Without the withdraw rule, that one player could still win with the 1.5 VP. > PTOing all of someone's vampires can be hysterical too, I don't see this an > argument in support of a rule that never should have been instituted in the > first place. Why not? It gives incentive to go forward late in the game--if you just sit there, your prey can withdraw. If they run out of cards and say "I want to withdraw" (which they have incentive to do), their predator is now virtually compelled to lunge forward. At least some. > I don't know why the withdraw rule was created. To prevent stalement situations. Oh, wait. You mention that below. What it often gets used for, however, is a deal. But if the rule didn't exist, the exact same deals would happen, just for .5 VP instead of 1 VP (as everyone would time out instead of withdraw). Is that half a VP that big of a deal, that it makes eraditcating the otherwise perfectly valid withdraw rule worth doing? > The ability for someone to get a VP without ousting anyone, creates more > options for carving up tables, something routinely considered to be against > the spirit of the game. You only can pull it off if A) you are incredibly lucky or B) someone lets you. If they let you, they could just as well let you time out for .5 VP. I don't see the extra .5 VP as big enough of a deal to worry about. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:418bfd86$0$29156$626a...@news.free.fr... > "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > TdSid.82245$bk1.5846@fed1read05... >> And, in any event, I don't see >> any lip service paid to the idea expressed in Scott's post: that >> the threat of withdrawl - at _whatever_ point in the game you want >> to look at - gives players who feel like they have a chance of ousting >> their prey a specific reason to get started NOW. As opposed to eternally >> waiting for a more opportune time. > > Quite the opposite, really. The withdraw rule is used by people who wait > until the last time to act, and it is one of the reasons why so many games, > especially finals, are so boring lately. See, this is why we're not likely to agree without this. Contained in your statement and your other posts about the subject, you seem to assume that a rule has no effect unless you see someone actively make use of it. But that's not the only way a rule can affect the game. In the case of withdrawal, it's very existance causes an effect. > Let's see : > >> If you wait, your prey eventually runs out of deck, > > No. Not if she doesn't play cards. Or not too many cards. Doing it on > purpose means the prey doesn't play to win, maybe doesn't play at all. Who said the prey wasn't going to play any cards or play to win? Your assumptions limit the possibilities but they aren't necessary assumptions. The prey's best chance of winning, like the predator's, may be to wait for someone *else* (perhaps his prey, in turn) to expose himself. Pursuing your best chance of winning *is* "playing to win", so this line of argument is refuted. > Anyway, if she wants to punish you for not doing anything, she will most > likely gains VPs by acting and having no pressure from her predator ! I > don't see how withdrawing is a better threat than winning. You seem to misunderstand my point. If the prey acts and taps out, then the predator starts to bleed. Of course, in truth, it isn't just tapping that amounts to exposing one's self. It's acting, getting intercepted, fighting, having one's minion's torporizing, making enemies, and so forth that add up to put one's self in a bad position - ripe for the picking by a patient predator. > If you don't act against your prey, she will probably win the table. True. But that is a misunderstanding of the point I made. No one said, "don't act against your prey UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". It's about, "as long as your prey does nothing, you do nothing". Because you do nothing, your predator does nothing. Because your predator does nothing, HIS predator does nothing. And circle goes 'round... Fred

> It is really hard to withdraw when people want to stop you. It is really > easy to withdraw if there are two or three people who all agree to either > let you or mutually withdraw. > > That it is difficult to withdraw on your own is good, but it is also good > that you can try--it gives incentive to go forward in a deadlock situation. I don't see why. A deadlock situation can always be unlocked (one vote, one rush, one big bleed can do that), and if it cannot, well, there's always the Time Limit. > That it is easy to withdraw when everyone agrees to it doesn't strike me as > a problem at all. > > I'm guessing what Orpheus is objecting to is people using Weird how everyone tries to guess what I think... I'll try to be more precise then. Withdrawl as a > bargaining tool (i.e. "If you let me withdraw, I'll stop doing anything to > you as my prey..."), which is effectively a kind of table split deal, which > is kind of a problem. Yes, it is part of what annoys me. > But as it goes, it is a very weak table split deal, > and is only legal if you aren't going to get any VPs otherwise. So I'm not > really seeing the problem there. I do. A is losing, going to make no VP. He can help B. B can win with A's help. A will probably prostitute himself for one meager VP. Don't ask me why. Sometimes a VP will make the difference towards the finals ; sometimes not ; but more often than not players will be willing to go to extreme lengths to get just that mediocre, beggar's VP. > > If I > > wanted to argue it was a problem, I'd point out that aggressiveness, not > > passiveness should be rewarded. Yes. > That is exactly what the Withdrawl rule does. No. > If you have 4 people all > deadlocked, and all out of deck, and someone tries to withdraw (which is a > reasonable thing to do, given that it gets oy umore VPs), the reward comes > from foiling the withdraw attempt. It is a big condition. Harbingers put aside, you don't see often a player running out of library, let alone 4 of them !! > Being passive does not let you withdraw. ??? > Your *opponents* being passive lets you withdraw. If being proactive is bleeding for 1 when your prey is out of library, great !!! If your prey has no library, either he's a very good player with some big ressources on the table (lots of Masters and equipement, allies, retainers etc.) either you can kill him easy ! Who needs a withdraw rule ??? > In terms of deals, however, thta is a completely different issue, and I > think it is the deal issue that is objected to here. Mostly, yes. > I would point out, > however, that the only difference in this situation between there being a > withdrawing rule and not is that people can finagle an extra .5 VP by making > a withdraw deal. Which is not even remotely a big deal in the grand scheme > of things. As pointed out, it may be for some players (1 VP if you already made a GW or two may mean finals / no finals), and the bad players who don't stand a chance anyway will probably not aknowledge that fact, and be more than happy to make 1 VP in the tournie rather than 0. Even if they give the table to their prey !! :-(( > > Of course the good counter to that > > argument is that it's pretty much impossible to get into a tournament > > finals with 3 VP except in the case of very small tournaments. See above. > Especially given that in three games, you are giving someone different each > time a sweep by giving up for the 1 VP. Not if you already made a VP. > I don't think the "You get 4 VP and > I get 1 'cause you let me withdraw" deal is even close to a winning one. If you've lost, you're free to lose the way you want. That is another part of the same problem. > And > likely isn't one that happens all that often, let alone frequently. We haven't been in the same tournaments, then. Lucky you... > All I can think of as being what Orpheus is objecting to is the use of "let > me withdraw" as a bargaining chip. Usually, it is only going to be worth > your time to do that if you were getting zero VPs in any case, and if there > wasn't a withdraw rule, you could do the same thing by saying "let me time > the game out for the .5 VP..." which would be the exact same deal, except > for just .5 VP less. No. As stated, 1 VP can make a difference towards the ratings, while 0,5 mostly won't. Also, if a player has a VP and all the table withdraws, the said player gets a GW. That wouldn't happen with Time Limit or a modification of the withdraw rule (for 0,5 VPs at most). > Is it worth quibbling over the .5 VP? Please ask that question to the players who prostitute themselves for the 0,5 point. Also bear in mind that in the cases where these deals are made, the losing part of the deal may not arrive to Time Limit. So it's a 1VP difference. -- Deadly yours, Orpheus [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <TdSid.82245$bk1.5846@fed1read05>, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> writes: >If you wait, your prey eventually >runs out of deck, declares his intent to withdraw, and gets away. This >is a long term threat if you're looking at the situation in the >early/mid parts of the game. But it is a threat, on some level, however >vague and eventual. Well. If you're not being particularly aggressive now, it's quite possible to thwart their attempt to withdraw. You - presumably - still have quite a reasonable number of resources lurking around, since you haven't been aggressive, so it presumably hasn't been a game where e.g. your vampires have died too much, relative to how much they could have done. So I'm not entirely certain that this is true. In any event, I have (as I've said) no problems with this sort of withdrawal and would like to see it retained as part of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BDB1688D.1AA4E%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Curevei wrote: > >> Why is this good? Why is it good for the one player who ousted someone at a >> table to get a GW because the other players at the table would rather have >> half more of a VP? > >Without the withdraw rule, that one player could still win with the 1.5 VP. Assuming they only have a total of 1.5 VP, they've won - but they haven't got a table win. Table wins need 2 VP. [ quoted text not captured ]

Darky wrote: > You honestly have seen the withdraw rule encourage proactive play? > Wow. Do you have any examples? Still, yes. Google: withdrawal rule author:LSJ Cited again: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F54C657.80501%40white-wolf.com (and surrounding thread) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Why is this good? Why is it good for the one player who ousted someone at >a >> table to get a GW because the other players at the table would rather have >> half more of a VP? > >Without the withdraw rule, that one player could still win with the 1.5 VP. 1.5 VP isn't a win. I guess I might as well address this now. You keep asking why people would care about half a VP. Obviously people do care about gaining half a VP more or people wouldn't care so much about this issue. Someone with the only oust at a table in a prelim is going to care a lot. Then, if the argument is that the withdraw rule has so little impact, then why not get rid of it and simplify the game? >> PTOing all of someone's vampires can be hysterical too, I don't see this an >> argument in support of a rule that never should have been instituted in the >> first place. > >Why not? It gives incentive to go forward late in the game--if you just sit >there, your prey can withdraw. If they run out of cards and say "I want to >withdraw" (which they have incentive to do), their predator is now virtually >compelled to lunge forward. At least some. By "at least some" - the vast majority of situations to prevent someone from withdrawing requires a mighty action of bleeding for one. Your very argument is that people can't withdraw unless others let them. How is that consistent with the idea that people have to expend any sort of meaningful effort to stop someone from withdrawing? >> I don't know why the withdraw rule was created. > >To prevent stalement situations. Oh, wait. You mention that below. What it >often gets used for, however, is a deal. But if the rule didn't exist, the >exact same deals would happen, just for .5 VP instead of 1 VP (as everyone >would time out instead of withdraw). Is that half a VP that big of a deal, >that it makes eraditcating the otherwise perfectly valid withdraw rule worth >doing? Why is the rule "perfectly valid"? Because it already exists? I see it as an encumbrance on the game and only significant as a tool for dealmaking. I want to stress that - I see it as only significant as a tool for dealmaking. If people are fine with that, well, I guess there's no reason to get rid of the rule. OTOH, because I also often see dealmaking irk players, I'd rather try to find ways to limit it. Anecdote: We had a surprise turnout at one tournament of players I had never run across. In the first round, my table did the mutual withdraw thing (giving me a GW, surprised me that people went for this since I hadn't encouraged it any); the other table fought it out to the bitter time limit. One of the new players was displeased by the "cheese". We haven't seen any of that group at any other events since. While I wouldn't necessarily blame this one feature of the event entirely, I believe that it displayed a mentality where winning was more important than playing that was to blame for us not retaining this group. It being possible to withdraw in the absence of a deal, as common as apparently it is in LSJ's experience, is not common enough to justify it. There is such a thing as nontournament play (even the ridiculousness of tournament play without time limits), but people aren't so stupid that they couldn't figure out themselves how to resolve a game that stalemated. This is why I wonder if there was a second reason as to why the rule was created. >> The ability for someone to get a VP without ousting anyone, creates more >> options for carving up tables, something routinely considered to be against >> the spirit of the game. > >You only can pull it off if A) you are incredibly lucky or B) someone lets >you. If they let you, they could just as well let you time out for .5 VP. Which is not the same as 1 VP, one. And, two, having someone be taken out of the predator-prey dynamic can be useful for dealmaking as well and is something that cannot be duplicated by timing out. Another anecdote: Before Brinksmanship, we had a player testing Slaughterhouse and, as his prey, I had a deck that could defend itself (from him) with permanents. By my withdrawing, that deck got an easier prey to oust. Is that sort of thing desirable either? >I don't see the extra .5 VP as big enough of a deal to worry about. And, yet, there's this thread and others. And, yet, if it's not that important a rule, why not make the game simpler and eliminate it?

> > If you don't act against your prey, she will probably win the table. > > True. But that is a misunderstanding of the point I made. No one > said, "don't act against your prey UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". It's about, > "as long as your prey does nothing, you do nothing". Because you do > nothing, your predator does nothing. Because your predator does nothing, > HIS predator does nothing. And circle goes 'round... > > Fred Been there, done that. And ultimately, when Time Limit approaches, it is a question of making the first move, or enticing someone to make it. THAT is playing the great Jyhad. I can speak of a game recently where I pooled like crazy, so did my grand'prey, and his prey, and no one did anything to my predator, who did nothing to me (we had allied). I just went progressively on my prey. The waiting game stopped at H-10, and I killed my prey, then both my new prey and his (Reins of Power). Then we withdrew. Yes, I use the rules as they exist. My point ? a) Very few games are really stalemate when one player decides to move on b) without the withdraw rule I would have had to deal differently and my predator wouldn't have accepted 1 point (as a matter of fact, I had promised 2 but we ran short of time). No one needs this crazy rule. Except maybe the newbies who can't make a VP any other way, but then they will learn the game and make theirs the normal way, sooner or later. For the other issues you addressed, I think my man Curevei summed up my viewpoint perfectly. -- Deadly yours, Orpheus

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<7rMd0ISEI9iBFw7$@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <jKPid.82225$bk1.62981@fed1read05>, Frederick Scott > <dont...@mymail.com> writes: > >In fact, turtling is exactly one of my complaints about the game as it > >is now. I fear that if the withdrawl rule were removed, there would be > >even _less_ incentive for good players to be proactive. > > I believe there's two sorts of withdrawal being talked about, and it's > the non-pro-active bit of the second that Orpheus doesn't like: > > - withdrawal during the normal flow of the game, with bags of time to > spare, when you want to get out of it for whatever reason > > - people throwing down cards at the end, which isn't "pro-active", > aggressive or whatever at all > > > A system which preserved the former (however rarely it's used) and made > the later unprofitable (or at least rarely profitable) would, in my > view, be worth looking at. I agree. I was looking at this earlier (search for author: me and withdraw) First i think the "good" withdrawal doesn't happen all that often. If it happens, cool, but not much lost by it (IMO) if it is scrapped all together. (you could errata brinksmanship to "you are ousted if you have less than a full hand and lost a pool or blood from your vamps during the last round or something) The second option happens all the time in tournament play. I don't like it, but ofcourse iw ill use it if it gets me more VP's. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would solve some outcrops of the problem if we did it like this: No more than 1 player can succesfully withdraw each game. (has anyone ever seen a game in which we are talking about the "good" withdrawal more than once in a game?) This will protect at least some tables from mutually withdrawing. I wouldn't mind seeing it removed all together though. It doesn't add enough fun to the game to weigh up against the annoying deals and the annoying mutual withdrawal. W

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:v6Yid.69672$OD2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Darky wrote: > > You honestly have seen the withdraw rule encourage proactive play? > > Wow. Do you have any examples? > > Still, yes. > > Google: withdrawal rule author:LSJ > > Cited again: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F54C657.80501%40white-wolf.com > (and surrounding thread) Ok so Ben Peal could withdraw because you were down to 1 minion and he had a dummy corporation. Let me repeat my question: "You honestly have seen the withdraw rule encourage proactive play?". What your cornercase example does prove (and is meant to prove) is that it can be used, not that it encourages anything. You couldn't oust him anyway, he could've done something more proactive with his turns. Leaving the game might give you a VP, but IMO it's in the 'reactive play' category, just like walling up-and-never-being-ousted for some reason gives you VPs, and isn't quite proactive either. Do you have any examples, or when lacking these, hypothetical situations where the withdrawal rule would encourage *proactive* play? As in: Someone hurting his prey because the rule exists? -Bram Vink

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 17:13:56 +0100, Darky <remove...@phil.uu.nl> wrote: > Let me repeat my question: "You honestly have seen the withdraw rule > encourage proactive play?". > > What your cornercase example does prove (and is meant to prove) is that > it > can be used, not that it encourages anything. You couldn't oust him > anyway, > he could've done something more proactive with his turns. > > Leaving the game might give you a VP, but IMO it's in the 'reactive play' > category, just like walling up-and-never-being-ousted for some reason > gives > you VPs, and isn't quite proactive either. > > Do you have any examples, or when lacking these, hypothetical situations > where the withdrawal rule would encourage *proactive* play? As in: > Someone > hurting his prey because the rule exists? Well, I must point out that I'm not certain that I wish to protect the withdrawal rule (or, that I think that it needs protecting). I will point out a table where the existance of the withdrawal rule gave me some hope of scoring a table win (though I was in the end not awarded one). I was playing a Ventrue Antitribu - Political Antagonist deck. The initial seating was: Me (!V PA deck) -> Ventrue fattie voter -> Toreador + !Toreador voter -> Tzimisce War Ghoul -> Harbingers Slaughterhouse. The table went in a logical fashion: I ousted two preys, but was stopped by the War Ghouls. So, I had 2 VPs, a Harbinger milling through my library, and three War Ghouls killing off my minions from the left. Seen better chances in my carrier. So I took advantage of the situation, and by spending pool and going forward actively I tried to achieve a situation where all my minions were in torpor (empty, but War Ghouls do that easily), and my predator had no minions either. I would have then announced the Withdraw, which would have been unstoppable. ;) Unfortunately, my prey forgot that my hand was empty, and was expecting an unblockable Govern bleed, so I got pummeled before my predator, who then ousted me and proceeded to lose to the War Ghouls. :( Well, the idea wasn't lost to begin with, and the option of not having to oust my (apparently unoustable) prey to gain a VP (and the GW) made me keep on playing (and not giving up). My subjective view of the withdrawal rule: it _would_ be a cool rule except for the "let's just discard cards like a madman and get 1 VP each instead of the 0.5 that comes with the time out" mayhem. It turns the game into a test of manual dexterity or something, which is so far from the VTES I like that it is similar to the "keen eyes" contest some players use for information gathering on their prey's defences. Not fun, if you ask me. If we can get away with that, I'd all be pro-withdrawal. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsg19oo...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] It would've been nice :), but as much as you might've liked the withdrawal rule, IMO the (existence of the) withdrawal rule in this case didn't really encourage the ousting-of-preys (you or anyone else) in this example (well, except that it made you suicide and accidentally die to your pred :P) I frankly don't think there are any examples imaginable where the rule actively makes people try to oust their prey more than they would otherwise. > My subjective view of the withdrawal rule: it _would_ be a cool rule > except for the "let's just discard cards like a madman and get 1 VP each > instead of the 0.5 that comes with the time out" mayhem. It turns the game > into a test of manual dexterity or something, which is so far from the > VTES I like that it is similar to the "keen eyes" contest some players use > for information gathering on their prey's defences. Not fun, if you ask > me. If we can get away with that, I'd all be pro-withdrawal. ;) It's not good for the game, and enhances the 'Maybe I could get a VP the normal way, but I'd rather just sit here till time' set of mind, which is also aided by the dubious 0.5VP you get for making it to time without withdrawal. I don't see the merit in V:tES being a 'zero sum game', which LSJ for some reason seems to want it very much to be. Also a second "bad thing" on withdrawal rules is that it allows you, as a player, to make a VP deal with your predator, giving him 1 VP, if he helps you. Or on a 5 player table to have someone else get 2VPs etc. Anyway, in both cases it facilitates GW/VP deals. Both these "uses" are so much more common than the 'wow, someone withdrew from a game without making a deal, wtf happened?!'-aspect of the rule, that it IMO isn't worth maintaining for the comic-relief factor. -Bram vink

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 03:49:18 +0100, Darky <remove...@phil.uu.nl> wrote: > It would've been nice :), but as much as you might've liked the > withdrawal > rule, IMO the (existence of the) withdrawal rule in this case didn't > really > encourage the ousting-of-preys (you or anyone else) in this example > (well, > except that it made you suicide and accidentally die to your pred :P) I must point out that there is only a very slight difference (if there is one at all) between "going heavily forward for a VP in one way" and "going heavily forward for a VP in another". ;) Yeah, in one case the VP is gained from ousting said prey, in another it is gained from another source, but all in all the result is the encouragement of active play. > I frankly don't think there are any examples imaginable where the rule > actively makes people try to oust their prey more than they would > otherwise. Frankly, I don't think hairsplitting with existing examples serves you any puspose. You want to focus on the obviously bad aspects of the withdrawal rule, not the obviously good ones, because doing so discredits your cause. I mean, the withdrawal rule can add extreme strategic depth to a game. It allows players to "sneak" out of the game with their VPs. I'm positive that something that gives a little variety with respect to the "MUST... KILL... PREY..." situation is definitely good for the game, because it allows players who have an unoustable prey to score somehow, without selling their assess off. Doubting this alienates your point from those people who actually had VPs, fun or chances thanks to the withdrawal rule. > It's not good for the game, and enhances the 'Maybe I could get a VP the > normal way, but I'd rather just sit here till time' set of mind, which is > also aided by the dubious 0.5VP you get for making it to time without > withdrawal. Observe the real problem. #1. Juggling with cards (mad discard) is allowed to give players who play to time 1 VP instead of what they deserve. #2. Playing till time gives you 0.5 VP. You may consider lobbying to lower this to 0.33, 0.25 or even 0.0 VPs. > I don't see the merit in V:tES being a 'zero sum game', which > LSJ for some reason seems to want it very much to be. I doubt that a table going to time is the perfect example for this with a possibly low 2.5 VPs instead of the maximum 5. > Also a second "bad thing" on withdrawal rules is that it allows you, as a > player, to make a VP deal with your predator, giving him 1 VP, if he > helps you. ??? How on earth would that be impossible without the Withdrawal rule? Anyway, even if removing the withdrawal rule would indeed prevent certain types of table splits, it would not affect other types, being in the end unsuited for solving the table-split problem (if one indeed exists). > Or on a 5 player table to have someone else get 2VPs etc. Anyway, in > both cases it facilitates GW/VP deals. But it does not allow them. Either cure the problem, or let it be, but doing something that has many effects, but no real gain is not necessarily beneficial to the game. > Both these "uses" are so much more common than the 'wow, someone withdrew > from a game without making a deal, wtf happened?!'-aspect of the rule, > that it IMO isn't worth maintaining for the comic-relief factor. So? That is a problem with table split deals then, and not with Withdrawal, in my book. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsg3n9f...@news.chello.hu... > On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 03:49:18 +0100, Darky <remove...@phil.uu.nl> wrote: > > > It would've been nice :), but as much as you might've liked the > > withdrawal > > rule, IMO the (existence of the) withdrawal rule in this case didn't > > really > > encourage the ousting-of-preys (you or anyone else) in this example > > (well, > > except that it made you suicide and accidentally die to your pred :P) > > I must point out that there is only a very slight difference (if there > is one at all) between "going heavily forward for a VP in one way" and > "going heavily forward for a VP in another". ;) Yeah, in one case the > VP is gained from ousting said prey, in another it is gained from > another source, but all in all the result is the encouragement of > active play. > > > I frankly don't think there are any examples imaginable where the rule > > actively makes people try to oust their prey more than they would > > otherwise. > > Frankly, I don't think hairsplitting with existing examples serves you > any puspose. You want to focus on the obviously bad aspects of the > withdrawal rule, not the obviously good ones, because doing so > discredits your cause. The obviously good ones are fun. Agreed. Also they are extremely unlikely to happen. > I mean, the withdrawal rule can add extreme strategic depth to a game. > It allows players to "sneak" out of the game with their VPs. I'm > positive that something that gives a little variety with respect to the > "MUST... KILL... PREY..." situation is definitely good for the game, > because it allows players who have an unoustable prey to score somehow, > without selling their assess off. True, but the whole point of the withdrawal rule is that you have to sit and *nothing* happens. I like it when used outside the dealmaking spectrum, but the "have to have run out of deck" bit makes the rule so cornercase it's not very likely to happen in a game. (Especially if you run into your unoustable prey, which doesn't help cardcycling) > Doubting this alienates your point from those people who actually had > VPs, fun or chances thanks to the withdrawal rule. I'm not doubting that the in-game fun bit of the rule is bad. I'm saying the deal-making aspect of the deal is probably a detriment to the fun people have in playing this game. > > It's not good for the game, and enhances the 'Maybe I could get a VP the > > normal way, but I'd rather just sit here till time' set of mind, which is > > also aided by the dubious 0.5VP you get for making it to time without > > withdrawal. > > Observe the real problem. > > #1. Juggling with cards (mad discard) is allowed to give players who play > to time 1 VP instead of what they deserve. > > #2. Playing till time gives you 0.5 VP. You may consider lobbying to lower > this to 0.33, 0.25 or even 0.0 VPs. Tried that. > > I don't see the merit in V:tES being a 'zero sum game', which > > LSJ for some reason seems to want it very much to be. > > I doubt that a table going to time is the perfect example for this with a > possibly low 2.5 VPs instead of the maximum 5. Still it's a recurring point LSJ makes when discussing withdrawal/timing out. The 0.5 is already a sacrifice made, and for some reason LSJ seems to want to limit the amount of deviance from this 'zero sum ideal' to a minimum. The reason eludes me. > > Also a second "bad thing" on withdrawal rules is that it allows you, as a > > player, to make a VP deal with your predator, giving him 1 VP, if he > > helps you. > > ??? How on earth would that be impossible without the Withdrawal rule? A->B->C->D. You're A. You oust B. C is giving D a hard time and C is looking strong. You make a deal with D to give him 1VP if he helps you kill C. Without withdrawal rule that's quite impossible. > Anyway, even if removing the withdrawal rule would indeed prevent certain > types of table splits, it would not affect other types, being in the end > unsuited for solving the table-split problem (if one indeed exists). Withdrawing is a major tool in tablespliting. A fair amount of people think tablesplitting is bad. It helps me win games though. > > Or on a 5 player table to have someone else get 2VPs etc. Anyway, in > > both cases it facilitates GW/VP deals. > > But it does not allow them. Either cure the problem, or let it be, but > doing something that has many effects, but no real gain is not necessarily > beneficial to the game. The problem of tablesplitting isn't cureable as such. Deals are allowed, it's a multiplayer game, and every deal comes down to trade in potential VP. Removing withdrawal rule would IMO reduce the amount of tablesplits by a fair bit, and as well remove the attractiveness of timing out. Both effects are good in my book. > > Both these "uses" are so much more common than the 'wow, someone withdrew > > from a game without making a deal, wtf happened?!'-aspect of the rule, > > that it IMO isn't worth maintaining for the comic-relief factor. > > So? That is a problem with table split deals then, and not with Withdrawal, > in my book. See above. > -- > Bye, > > Daneel -Bram Vink

Darky wrote: > Let me repeat my question: "You honestly have seen the withdraw rule > encourage proactive play?". Let me repeat my answer: Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Darky" <remove...@phil.uu.nl> writes: > The problem of tablesplitting isn't cureable as such. Bull. You really think table split dealing cannot be cured? Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in the movie Commando: "Remember when I said I'd oust all others and then let you oust me?" "Yes?" "I lied." (Arnold bleeds for six, unblockable, ousting his partner.) -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

"Janne Hägglund" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> schreef in bericht news:m3hdo1o...@nothung.homelinux.net... > "Darky" <remove...@phil.uu.nl> writes: > > > The problem of tablesplitting isn't cureable as such. > > Bull. > > You really think table split dealing cannot be cured? Yes. > Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in the movie Commando: Actually, I do, but not the particular oneliner. > "Remember when I said I'd oust all others and then let you oust me?" > "Yes?" > "I lied." > (Arnold bleeds for six, unblockable, ousting his partner.) Arnold continues to do this a few times, then loses all his tournaments because people split tables without him being involved. Table splitting cured? Breaking deals for GWs etc. is bad play of your partner, and good play of you. Breaking deals for 2 VP is bad play from you. Table splits can be secure if you play it out well/have a good rep/etc. -Bram Vink

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:SEujd.858990$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Darky wrote: > > Let me repeat my question: "You honestly have seen the withdraw rule > > encourage proactive play?". > > Let me repeat my answer: Yes. > Let me repeat my implied questions to you, since you might've misunderstood my meaning. Could you also clarify how your previous example can be explained as the withdraw rule encouraging proactive play? Did it make anyone try to oust someone when they wouldn't have if the rule didn't exist? Cause with the example and answer you gave me, I'd say the answer to both questions is 'no'. Am I correct? -Bram Vink

Darky wrote: > Could you also clarify how your previous example can be explained as the > withdraw rule encouraging proactive play? > Did it make anyone try to oust someone when they wouldn't have if the rule > didn't exist? If your prey tries to withdraw, you need to go forward to stop them. Heck, even if going forward consists of everyone going forward to bleed for one just to keep their prey from withdrawing, that is more actions being taken than if there was no withdrawing attempted. And if people are taking actions to go forward, they are tapping minions and getting in combat or bleeding folks. Eventually, some hole will break open and something is bound to happen. With no Withdraw rule, in a deadlock, everyone just sits and waits for time to run out. With a Withdraw rule, in a deadlock, if someone is out of cards, they can attempt to withdraw, forcing forward action. Sure, maybe not a lot of forward action, but some, and maybe that is all that is necessary to get the game going somewhere. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BDB4104D.1AAC3%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Darky wrote: > > > Could you also clarify how your previous example can be explained as the > > withdraw rule encouraging proactive play? > > Did it make anyone try to oust someone when they wouldn't have if the rule > > didn't exist? > > If your prey tries to withdraw, you need to go forward to stop them. Heck, > even if going forward consists of everyone going forward to bleed for one > just to keep their prey from withdrawing, that is more actions being taken > than if there was no withdrawing attempted. Or you let him withdraw, which might very well be advantageous in a serious deadlock. > And if people are taking actions to go forward, they are tapping minions and > getting in combat or bleeding folks. Eventually, some hole will break open > and something is bound to happen. > > With no Withdraw rule, in a deadlock, everyone just sits and waits for time > to run out. With a Withdraw rule, in a deadlock, if someone is out of cards, > they can attempt to withdraw, forcing forward action. Sure, maybe not a lot > of forward action, but some, and maybe that is all that is necessary to get > the game going somewhere. The part I disagree with you is that it forces forward action. It might not be in the best interests of the withdrawee's predator (as there is a deadlock, and he's not acting against him with a good reason) to stop the withdrawal. Secondly the rule usually encourages people to maintain the deadlock (especially if they still have some deck left, something quite common) to make it to time and be 'rewarded' with 1VP. However I do agree that it's an possible (if extremely rare) example of encouraging proactive play. It's not an answer to the questions above, though :) (rare because it would have to involve: 3 players or more, every deck pressing the other in inactivity, while at least one of the decks has run out of cards, and something would change in the deadlock if the person running out of cards would be gone, in the disadvantage of the withdrawee's predator) -Bram Vink

"Darky" <remove...@phil.uu.nl> wrote in message news:418e9b90$0$766$3a62...@reader20.nntp.hccnet.nl... [ quoted text not captured ] No. That a given example doesn't satisfy you doesn't mean that no example exists. I have seen the withdrawal rule encourage proactive play, as I said above. In another game, it eventually went down to just Joe Churchill and myself. Joe had a 3-2 minion advantage on me and my pool was low enough that (together with my untap ability), I couldn't take any actions. My minions could easily deal with combat, if they could get any, though. But Joe was sitting on the edge and biding his time until he could get out a fourth minion. That changed when I ran out of cards and attempted to withdraw -- forcing him "off the seat", as it were (or watch me walk with an additional VP, which would, IIRC, have given me the GW or at least a tie). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:418c91d6$0$4672$626a...@news.free.fr... >> > If you don't act against your prey, she will probably win the table. >> I wrote: >> True. But that is a misunderstanding of the point I made. No one >> said, "don't act against your prey UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". It's about, >> "as long as your prey does nothing, you do nothing". Because you do >> nothing, your predator does nothing. Because your predator does nothing, >> HIS predator does nothing. And circle goes 'round... > Been there, done that. And ultimately, when Time Limit approaches, it is a > question of making the first move, or enticing someone to make it. THAT is > playing the great Jyhad. First of all, who said anything about a time limit? Time limits are not part of the game, they are only optional parts of tournaments, rules do-dads that shouldn't exist but do for practical reasons. Secondly, what you're talking about does _not_ appear to be "playing great Jyhad" in any form I understand, it is using a time limit. At best, this is taking advantage of a coincidence (that the time limit approached before your prey was able to discard to a withdrawal situation), at worst it is deliberate stalling. And, in any event, this is the stuff that makes the game BORING! Hardly "great Jyhad". This is the kind of stuff we need to get rid of because it's not playing the game, it's the "make everyone fall asleep so you can win" strategy. You're not going to get any sympathy from me to pursue eliminating the withdrawal rule if this is the kind of game you're looking to create. > No one needs this crazy rule. Sorry, I agree with Scott. The rule certainly helps create proactive play, though it's possibly debatable to what extent it does. And, in any event, the thing you're complaining about - people using withdrawals to strike VP splitting deals - doesn't seem to be a problem to me. Fred

Darky wrote: > Or you let him withdraw, which might very well be advantageous in a > serious deadlock. Ok. But it is a choice you can make, and then things change in the game. Which is better than a grinding deadlock in either case. > The part I disagree with you is that it forces forward action. My prey declares an intent to withdraw. I don't want him to get that 1 VP. So I go forward and try to bleed him or beat up one of his guys or somthing. Forward action exists where, if there was no way to withdraw, it would not have otherwise. > It > might not be in the best interests of the withdrawee's predator (as > there is a deadlock, and he's not acting against him with a good > reason) to stop the withdrawal. Sure. Maybe. But a lot of the time, you stop them. 'Cause the withdrawl gives them a VP which you don't want them to have. > Secondly the rule usually encourages > people to maintain the deadlock (especially if they still have some > deck left, something quite common) to make it to time and be > 'rewarded' with 1VP. You don't get rewarded with 1 VP for making it to time. You get .5 VP for making it to time. You get 1 VP for withdrawing, which you can only do if everyone agrees on it or you are incredibly fortunate. > However I do agree that it's an possible (if extremely rare) example > of encouraging proactive play. Extremely rare? I have been playing VTES competetively for a really long time. Granted, this is totally anecdotal evidence (just like with Succubus Club...), but in my life as a competetive VTES player, I have been involved in exactly one game that ended with a three way mutual withdrawl (and I was already ousted by then) by agreement. I have been involved in exactly zero games where someone withdrew by virtue of a table split deal or something. On the other hand, I have been in many, many games where someone ran out of a deck and tried to withdraw simply 'cause they were out of a deck and weren't going anywhere else soon, and the vast majority of the time, the person trying to withdraw has failed, due to someone messing with them. I really don't think that withdrawing comes up that much one way or the other, and usually when it does, it is the result of simply someone trying to withdraw 'cause they ran out of deck and it can't hurt to try. I mean, ok, I really don't feel that strongly one way or the other about this issue--if the Withdrawing rule was eliminated, I wouldn't really miss it, as it really doesn't come up that often. But I am yet to be convinced that it *needs* to be eliminated, as I have never seen it be disruptive (as opposed, again, to Succubus Club, I say full well realizing the irony of this statement :-). Yeah, I have seen a mass withdrawl occur a few times (i.e., like 4 or 5 players in a deadlock all agreeing to mutually withdraw and doing the monkey dance till their decks run out and then all withdrawing), but pretty rarely, and a few of those time, the mass withdraw was actually saving everyone's sanity in a game that everyone just wanted to end. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BDB549AC.1AB13%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Darky wrote: > > > Or you let him withdraw, which might very well be advantageous in a > > serious deadlock. > > Ok. But it is a choice you can make, and then things change in the game. > Which is better than a grinding deadlock in either case. > > > The part I disagree with you is that it forces forward action. > > My prey declares an intent to withdraw. I don't want him to get that 1 VP. > So I go forward and try to bleed him or beat up one of his guys or somthing. > Forward action exists where, if there was no way to withdraw, it would not > have otherwise. If there was no forward action, however, there must've been a good reason for it. Withdrawal can help you, but only in a stable position which is destabilizing in the disadvantage of the person withdrawing, while the person withdrawing has permanent-based combat ability. (as he's almost out of cards) > > It > > might not be in the best interests of the withdrawee's predator (as > > there is a deadlock, and he's not acting against him with a good > > reason) to stop the withdrawal. > > Sure. Maybe. But a lot of the time, you stop them. 'Cause the withdrawl > gives them a VP which you don't want them to have. Or if you're in a serious deadlock, it won't really matter to you since you're not going to oust them anyway. > > Secondly the rule usually encourages > > people to maintain the deadlock (especially if they still have some > > deck left, something quite common) to make it to time and be > > 'rewarded' with 1VP. > > You don't get rewarded with 1 VP for making it to time. You get .5 VP for > making it to time. You get 1 VP for withdrawing, which you can only do if > everyone agrees on it or you are incredibly fortunate. Ok, be 'rewarded' with 0.5 VP if not everyone agrees to withdraw (which I usually never do, by the way.) > > However I do agree that it's an possible (if extremely rare) example > > of encouraging proactive play. > > Extremely rare? I have been playing VTES competetively for a really long > time. Granted, this is totally anecdotal evidence (just like with Succubus > Club...), but in my life as a competetive VTES player, I have been involved > in exactly one game that ended with a three way mutual withdrawl (and I was > already ousted by then) by agreement. I have been involved in exactly zero > games where someone withdrew by virtue of a table split deal or something. > On the other hand, I have been in many, many games where someone ran out of > a deck and tried to withdraw simply 'cause they were out of a deck and > weren't going anywhere else soon, and the vast majority of the time, the > person trying to withdraw has failed, due to someone messing with them. In which case the person messing with them was probably messing with them anyway. Almost all the tournaments i've played I've at least once used the 'You do this for me, I'll let you withdraw'. It's a good tool. > I really don't think that withdrawing comes up that much one way or the > other, and usually when it does, it is the result of simply someone trying > to withdraw 'cause they ran out of deck and it can't hurt to try. Not my experience. Not a single time in a tournament have I seen the withdraw rule (the in-game no deal type) used to any effect. > I mean, ok, I really don't feel that strongly one way or the other about > this issue--if the Withdrawing rule was eliminated, I wouldn't really miss > it, as it really doesn't come up that often. But I am yet to be convinced > that it *needs* to be eliminated, as I have never seen it be disruptive (as > opposed, again, to Succubus Club, I say full well realizing the irony of > this statement :-). Yeah, I have seen a mass withdrawl occur a few times > (i.e., like 4 or 5 players in a deadlock all agreeing to mutually withdraw > and doing the monkey dance till their decks run out and then all > withdrawing), but pretty rarely, and a few of those time, the mass withdraw > was actually saving everyone's sanity in a game that everyone just wanted to > end. True, withdrawing isn't half the problem the 0.5 VP at the end, or succubusclub is. -Bram Vink "How does this end?" "Well, you give me your vampires..." :)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2v9lb4F...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Good example, personally I've never seen a deck being able to: 1) win combat w/o cards, combined with: 2) pass quite a few turns while the other's building up, then running out of cards, without a timeout looming. Nonetheless, thanks for clarifying. -Bram vink

"Darky" <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in message news:93148a54.04110...@posting.google.com... > Good example, personally I've never seen a deck being able to: > 1) win combat w/o cards, combined with: Permanents are good things to have once your deck is depleted. Assault Rifles, Flamethrowers, or even a .44 (depending on your opponent). Or Talons of the Dead or Samantha. > 2) pass quite a few turns while the other's building up, then running > out of cards, without a timeout looming. Depends on the time limit, I guess.

Darky wrote: > If there was no forward action, however, there must've been a good > reason for it. People set up defenses and play protectively. Your prey is an intercept wall. You are an intercept wall. Whatever. Often situations come up where people feel it is best just to hunker down and wait for a window to open. Someone trying to withdraw and someone doing something about it just might be that window. > In which case the person messing with them was probably messing with > them anyway. Almost all the tournaments i've played I've at least once > used the 'You do this for me, I'll let you withdraw'. It's a good > tool. Weird. I don't know what to tell you. It seems likely, however, that many people are a lot more wheely-deally than I am. When I play competetive VTES? I generally try to, ya know, oust my prey. When people at the table try and make deals, I encourage them to oust their prey. I usually oust my prey or die trying. I very rarely make deals of any significance (i.e. VP spliting deals or whatever). And I do pretty well in competetive VTES. But that is me. So, I mean, yeah, ok, I accept that withdrawing is certainly used for wheeling and dealing, but in my experience, I simply don't see it that much, if ever. And even if it is used for wheeling and dealing, I'm not really seeing it as that much of an actual problem. > Not my experience. Not a single time in a tournament have I seen the > withdraw rule (the in-game no deal type) used to any effect. I see it happen all the time. It usually doesn't work, but it certainly provides incentive to go forward. In draft tournaments, it is actually used all the time, and often effectively (heck, my pal Jon Darbro got into the finals of a draft tournament at Origins a couple years ago pretty much 'cause he successfully withdrew from a game). > True, withdrawing isn't half the problem the 0.5 VP at the end, or > succubusclub is. The Succubus Club was only in there 'cause this here discussion is virtually identical to the war I was waging on SC last week, except this time I'm on the other side of a similar (structurally speaking) argument. Which struck me as funny. I don't find the .5 VP at the end of the game that big of a deal either, myself. 'Cause again, when I play VTES competetively, I do so with the goal of, ya know, ousting my prey, and when I play, I tend to either oust my prey (preys) or die trying. Personally, I very rarely live to the end of a round and collect the .5 VP for survival, and I very rarely make VP split deals (i.e. I get the vast majority of my VPs by, ya know, ousting my prey). And I do pretty well, competetively speaking. So maybe I don't see these things 'cause my apparently unorthodox "oust your prey" style tends to make games not go in the "Table split" or "5 way mutual withdraw" or "everyone time out for .5 VP" direction. But again, I win as often as not, and end up in the finals more tournaments than not (in the last three big tournaments I played; 35 people at Origins; 15 people in NYC; 18 people storyline; I got into the finals in one and won another--granted, my win was a 1.5 vp table time out, ironically, but I was the only guy at the table with an actual VP from ousting my prey, and no one withdrew or tried to table split). So, I'm not, like, trying to say I'm the best player in the world or anything, but in my experience, I play to oust my prey and minmize deal making, and doing so tends to work pretty well and result in games without much in the way of sketchy table splitting and withdrawl deals. My point? Maybe the answer to time out VPs, withdrawl VPs, and table split deals is not to change the rules. Maybe it is just to play agressively and, ya know, oust your prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > In which case the person messing with them was probably messing with > > them anyway. Almost all the tournaments i've played I've at least once > > used the 'You do this for me, I'll let you withdraw'. It's a good > > tool. > > Weird. I don't know what to tell you. It seems likely, however, that many > people are a lot more wheely-deally than I am. When I play competetive VTES? > I generally try to, ya know, oust my prey. When people at the table try and > make deals, I encourage them to oust their prey. I usually oust my prey or > die trying. I very rarely make deals of any significance (i.e. VP spliting > deals or whatever). And I do pretty well in competetive VTES. But that is > me. For what it's worth, I see this quite a bit. I've offered this deal twice and it's been accepted both times. One time it gave the other guy 2nd place in a tournament when he would've placed worse. The other time it gave the other guy nothing because the table timed out, but it would've given him 2nd place. Both times it gave me the table and tournament win (of course we'll never know if I would've won anyway). I don't really think it's that positive a thing that I've been able to convince people to play for second place and give me the win, but the object of the game is to win. As long as this is a legal avenue to victory, then it's one I'll use. On the other hand, if a player simply can't win, she shouldn't be required to suicide herself trying. The withdraw rule gives an option out. It just sucks for everyone else when someone at the table is trying to make sure someone else wins. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On the other hand, if a player simply can't win, she shouldn't be required > to suicide herself trying. The withdraw rule gives an option out. Sure. Which is why I have no actual problem with the Withdraw rule. But still, if more folks tried to oust their prey, rather than trying to make deals? I think the game would work better overall. > It > just sucks for everyone else when someone at the table is trying to make > sure someone else wins. It does. A good way to avoid that, though, is to not make such deals in the first place. Using myself as an example, I don't see much of this. And I generally try and oust my prey or die trying. This results in either me doing well, or me not doing well, but games I'm involved in overall tend to not go to time and someone usually wins one way or the other, with little deal making kinda stuff. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there... [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2vcekuF...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] There's quite a few prerequisites for withdrawal to actually encourage someone to act against the withdrawee. Since you need: A) A destabilizing deadlock where the position of the withdrawee is becoming worse. (so that there's a reason someone would act against him) B) A situation where acting against the withdrawee is more attractive than letting him withdraw. C) A situation where acting against the withdrawee is bad for the non-withdrawee acting against him. (so there's a reason he would withdraw) B is often more difficult to get than it seems imo. Time limit should probably be around the corner (with a standard 2hr timelimit) and there has to be a good reason why this person isn't acting against the withdrawee. IF B is fulfilled it is probably because the person acting against the withdrawee thinks he will have a better chance to oust the withdrawee soon. (since he had a good reason not to be acting against the withdrawee) If thats the case, he most likely would've been trying to oust soon anyway. If that's not the case, the only reason I could think of to act against the withdrawee, would be stalling the game to prevent the withdrawee from getting 2 VP for the gamewin. If he didn't have a good reason not to act against the withdrawee, withdrawing (and thus spurring him into action) is just bad play upon bad play IMO. Because of these reasons, I think it (assuming good play) only sometimes, very slightly, moves the proactive play to an earlier point in time. I'm not sure if I'd call that encouraging proactive play, as there has to be proactive play looming in the (near)future to encourage someone to act against someone withdrawing. I hope I made myself clear, I wrote this when I couldn't sleep at 4 am :P -Bram Vink

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BDB6B949.1AB88%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > On the other hand, if a player simply can't win, she shouldn't be required > > to suicide herself trying. The withdraw rule gives an option out. > > Sure. Which is why I have no actual problem with the Withdraw rule. > > But still, if more folks tried to oust their prey, rather than trying to > make deals? I think the game would work better overall. > > > It > > just sucks for everyone else when someone at the table is trying to make > > sure someone else wins. > > It does. A good way to avoid that, though, is to not make such deals in the > first place. Using myself as an example, I don't see much of this. And I > generally try and oust my prey or die trying. This results in either me > doing well, or me not doing well, but games I'm involved in overall tend to > not go to time and someone usually wins one way or the other, with little > deal making kinda stuff. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there... Tables hardly go to time, except when in deadlocks or when too much voting/excessive whining/slow players are involved. Ousting your prey is fine, though when that doesn't work out as planned, making deals is the way to scrap the 'or die trying' part. It sucks for some people, sure, but hey, it's in the rules. -Bram Vink Please ban/scrap: (sorted in order of brokenness) Inexperienced players Succubus club 0.5 VP for timing out Withdrawing

> > Tables hardly go to time, except when in deadlocks or when too much > voting/excessive whining/slow players are involved. > Ousting your prey is fine, though when that doesn't work out as > planned, making deals is the way to scrap the 'or die trying' part. > It sucks for some people, sure, but hey, it's in the rules. > > -Bram Vink I just *have* to jump in here. Sorry to say it Bram, but what you probably mean is: "Tables hardly go to time *where you play*" I think I'm entitled to say I'm a relatively experienced player, who plays in a lot of different countries/environments, both small tournaments and a lot of really really big ones, and occasionaly judge them as well. and from what I see: tables go to time A LOT! As in: very very very often. Actually, the more passive decks are encouraged (and I know this will sound like ranting against weenie auspex again), the more tables risk to timeout. People often prefer taking the full VP instead of the 0.5 vp, because in big tournaments, where you need like, 2GW and 8VP to get into the finals, every single 0.5VP counts. And of late (like, the past 1.5-2 years) passive decks (of all kinds) are again, alas, becoming more popular.So what you get is a gridlocked table, with nobody able to unlock it without suiciding. Also, people are rapidly learning that 1 sure vp due to a mutual withdraw is a lot better than taking their chances in some situations, and maybe ending up with nothing.. So, I have to just contradict you on this: it happens a lot. Greetz jo > > Please ban/scrap: (sorted in order of brokenness) > > Inexperienced players for bigger tournaments: I agree > Succubus club I agree > 0.5 VP for timing out I agree > Withdrawing I agree; but then you also have to ban Brinksmanship and preferably: if they don't ditch the withdrawal rule, lose the Gamewinsystem

On 10 Nov 2004 02:23:29 -0800, wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote: > and preferably: if they don't ditch the withdrawal rule, lose the > Gamewinsystem Interesting you would say that. I thought that the "invention" of the Game Win system was to discourage "suicidal" FFW decks (like weenie computer hacking) that are almost bound to get 1-2 VPs on every table, but which cannot really sweep or reliably score 3-4 VPs. The Praxis Seizure: Budapest held two weeks ago made me think the rule over... ;) The fifth player had 2 / 6.5 while the sixth had 1 / 8. From the perspective of the sixth player, who incidentally had the third highest VP total, the Game Win rule smelled kind of fishy... ;) You need 2 VPs for a possible, or 2.5+ for a sure game win. In my book that means that once the usual required VPs for the finals reach about 7.5 VPs, Game Wins only differentiate between the distribution of the VPs the player has gained. Because, a deck that can only make 1 or 2 VPs each table will not even have a chance. We're talking about decks that _can_ make an average of 2.5 VPs each table. However, instead of encouraging people to play to oust as much as possible, the Game Win rule encourages people to be passive, make table split deals or bring 3VP decks. I think that it might do the game some good to consider abolishing the GW rule for 50+ player tournaments. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsg8zbc...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I thought that the "invention" of the Game Win system was to discourage >"suicidal" FFW decks (like weenie computer hacking) that are almost >bound to get 1-2 VPs on every table, but which cannot really sweep or >reliably score 3-4 VPs. Well, it does discourage decks which can't get 3+VPs reliably. But, a lot more of it (from where I stood) came from the point of view that being able to split up a table for VPs was happening a lot. The Game Win criterion helps combat that, whilst not rendering it entirely pointless. People splitting a table have a direct incentive to get a Game Win out of it. Before, a differential of 1 VP in a 3-2 split was very, very small. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.