Let's end the "desperate madness"!

I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate rulings" that allow players without any "reasonable chances" of getting any VPs to do everything they want, including crazy crosstable actions and even self-ousting. Nobody likes just to sit at the table and wait until somebody ousts him. But, IMHO, the current solution generates more problems than solves, and it must be changed as soon as possible. Let's imagine that there are three remaining players at the table: Alex, Bob and Claire, sitting in the listed order. Alex is playing a very good rush deck, so all minions of Bob and Claire are lying bloodless in their torpors. Who can argue that Alex doesn't really DESERVE to get a GW? He's built a good deck, and played it right, he rendered all other players helpless and will inevitably oust them provided there is enough time. But current rules give Claire the right to self-oust and "steal" the GW from Alex just because she is helpless! A tournament where even extremely bad and unfortunate players decide who will be the winner has nothing common to sport and shouldn't be called "tournament" at all. Legal self-ousting negatively affects the metagame, making slowly- ousting rush and intercept decks (which are already quite difficult to win with) even more weak. Just look at the example above. A rush player has to torporize vampires of its predator (to avoid being ousted) and of its prey (to win). He rarely has chances of preventing self-oustings "just for the revenge". Same about the wall decks: if your predator feels that he's unable to oust you, he has the "right" of stealing your GW. I bet that most players cannot even imagine how ugly can the game become when somebody abuses the "desperate rulings". Our players are already accustomed to the threats of self-ousting, usually to make somebody's grandpredator to help him. What can be more filthy than "Do what I say or I will self-oust, and your prey will get 6 pool"? What would you do if some beggar approach you with a knife, threatening to commit suicide unless you give him money? I guess you'd call the police. So why such behaviour should be tolerated in VTES? But even this isn't the most awful behaviour. Believe me or not, but in one of my games one player said to his grandpredator: "Make a deal with me to give me GW, or I'll have to self-oust"! And the deal was really made!!! My words bring little new thoughts, I know, since many players already blamed self-ousting. But, IMHO, if we feel that something should be changed, we have to struggle for it, and eventually our dreams may come true. Do you remember the anti-PTO discussions? It took several years until PTO finally got banned, but our humble voices were heard. Now it's time to defeat the "self-ousting plague". I've though for the best solution for a while, and my current suggestion is following: 1. Change the rules of withdrawing from the game to the following: --------------------------------- 9.2. Withdrawing from the game To withdraw from the game, you must announce your intent to withdraw during your untap phase. If you do, all ready vampires you control must hunt during your next minion phase (even if they have some blood). Your minions cannot perform any actions directed at other Methuselahs or cards under their control until your next turn. At end of your turn, burn all vampires in torpor you control. For the withdrawal to succeed, none of your vampires should get into torpor from the withdrawal announcement till your next turn. If you successfully withdraw, you receive 0.5 victory points to add to any victory points you have already gained. Your predator gets 0.5 victory points and 3 pool for your withdrawal. --------------------------------- 2. Change the PTW philosophy to the following: As long as each player now has the option to withdraw from the game, there is always a chance of getting 0.5 VP even without the time limit, and the chance is greater than zero. Self-ousting, as well as insane behaviour leading to zero VPs, is thereby a clear violation of PTW, since the player deliberately decreases his "expected outcome" from the game. If some player feels that he has no reasonable chances of getting at least 1 VP, he should try to withdraw. Not "avenge the enemies", not "help his friends to win", just withdraw. IMHO, the suggested change solves all problems. No player will be forced to hopelessly wait until somebody ousts him: if he tries to withdraw, his fate will usually be decided in one turn. Other players have many ways to prevent him from withdrawing: intercept decks can block his hunts and torporize somebody, rush decks can rush and torporize, while bleed and voting decks can just oust him. But look, if you had no ready vampires, then the only way to prevent you from withdrawing is ousting you in one turn! And if somebody torporizes your last vampire to prevent withdrawal, this makes the next attempt much easier :)

On May 10, 3:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate > rulings" Apparently not, given the rest of the post. (You definitely seem to understand the rules behind it, but I'm not sure you're clear on the philosophy.) > Who can argue that Alex doesn't really > DESERVE to get a GW? Does he have 1 VP already? If so, he *gets* a GW even if Claire self- ousts. If not, then there was at least one other oust by someone else. "I could win eventually" =/= "I deserve to win." Build a deck that works within the time available, and if your goal is total table control make sure you can put the hammer down even in the face of self- oust. > A tournament where even extremely bad and unfortunate > players decide who will be the winner has nothing common to sport and > shouldn't be called "tournament" at all. Step away from the hyperbole, please; it's not going to lead to a productive discussion. > Legal self-ousting negatively affects the metagame, making slowly- > ousting rush and intercept decks (which are already quite difficult to > win with) even more weak. There's a point of view that that's actually a positive effect in the metagame. Besides, slow-ousting decks are more hampered by time limits than self-ousting; why are you railing against this and not that? > Our players are > already accustomed to the threats of self-ousting, usually to make > somebody's grandpredator to help him. What can be more filthy than "Do > what I say or I will self-oust, and your prey will get 6 pool"? Ummm... people actually accept those ridiculous deals? Wow. Let them self-oust, then. Once they realize that they'll never win a game if they hand every game to their predator, that will stop. > But even this isn't the most awful behaviour. Believe me or not, > but in one of my games one player said to his grandpredator: "Make a > deal with me to give me GW, or I'll have to self-oust"! And the deal > was really made!!! Sure. How was it *kept*, though? Once the player in question has the two VP that are sitting between him and his grandpredator, and the grandpredator has his prey's VP, it's a 2P game and the deal is off, and the grandpredator can win 3-2. If you deal yourself into a losing position because it's the best option you have of getting VP's, then it's a good deal for you. > 1. Change the rules of withdrawing from the game to the following: > 9.2. Withdrawing from the game Way too massive a change to make sense. Way too different from the spirit and intent of the withdrawal rules. If you want to propose it as something else, that's different. > IMHO, the suggested change solves all problems. And creates many more, particularly by nerfing the very torpor-heavy decks you're claiming you want to make these changes to support. - D.J.

On May 10, 2:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > IMHO, the suggested change solves all problems. No player will be > forced to hopelessly wait until somebody ousts him: if he tries to > withdraw, his fate will usually be decided in one turn. Other players > have many ways to prevent him from withdrawing: intercept decks can > block his hunts and torporize somebody, rush decks can rush and > torporize, while bleed and voting decks can just oust him. ....Assuming that the bleed and voting decks can oust him in a single turn. Let's say that I have a hand full of bounces and deflections - the last 7 cards in my deck. A bleed deck is going to be very, very, very hard-pressed to stop me from withdrawing in a single turn, since I can just bounce their attempts. Intercept decks can block the hunts... but they have to also torporize the vampires, which is by no means guaranteed. Just because you are saying "I want to withdraw" doesn't suddenly empty your vampires of blood or remove S:CEs from your hand, etc etc. In fact, your change makes withdrawing easy enough (when facing certain types of opponents) where declaring your intent to withdraw is actually a more likely method of getting .5 VP than trying to last to timeout.. so suddenly, PTW becomes "Must play to withdraw." Perhaps you just play in a very combat-heavy environment - but I have seen many, many games where even when a player is decked, their predator and prey cannot reliably put one of their minions in torpor in a specific turn.. -John Flournoy

On May 10, 2:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > To withdraw from the game, you must announce your intent to withdraw > during your untap phase. If you do, all ready vampires you control > must hunt during your next minion phase (even if they have some > blood). Your minions cannot perform any actions directed at other > Methuselahs or cards under their control until your next turn. At end > of your turn, burn all vampires in torpor you control. > > For the withdrawal to succeed, none of your vampires should get into > torpor from the withdrawal announcement till your next turn. If you > successfully withdraw, you receive 0.5 victory points to add to any > victory points you have already gained. Your predator gets 0.5 victory > points and 3 pool for your withdrawal. > --------------------------------- So, imbued decks can say "I intend to withdraw", take their turn as normal and successfully withdraw (as long as they don't get ousted) - since they have no vampires to have to hunt with (or get burned) and have no vampires to be torpored to prevent it... (Same holds true for any ally-using deck who have no vampires in the ready region when the withdraw attempt would begin.) -John Flournoy

On May 10, 3:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate > rulings" that allow players without any "reasonable chances" of > getting any VPs to do everything they want, including crazy crosstable > actions and even self-ousting. Or crazy walling-up, or crazy lunging. Every action (or inaction) is just as "crazy" as any other, from the point of view of the lost-postion player, since they all lead to losing (or rather to no-gaining). > Nobody likes just to sit at the table > and wait until somebody ousts him. But, IMHO, the current solution > generates more problems than solves, and it must be changed as soon as > possible. It "generates" no problems, it merely acknowledges what it means to be in a lost position vis a vis the play to win rule. Changing it would most likely introduce problems. > Let's imagine that there are three remaining players at the table: > Alex, Bob and Claire, sitting in the listed order. Alex is playing a > very good rush deck, so all minions of Bob and Claire are lying > bloodless in their torpors. Who can argue that Alex doesn't really > DESERVE to get a GW? Whoever can show that he fails to win the game as defined in the game rules under the section "Object of the game". > He's built a good deck, and played it right, he > rendered all other players helpless and will inevitably oust them > provided there is enough time. But current rules give Claire the right > to self-oust and "steal" the GW from Alex just because she is > helpless! She doesn't "steal" the GW, since apparently Alex didn't have the GW (and therefore could not have it stolen form him). She merely illustrated this fact. Legally. > A tournament where even extremely bad and unfortunate > players decide who will be the winner has nothing common to sport and > shouldn't be called "tournament" at all. True I suppose (assuming you're not just talking about luck of the draw deciding the winner at a table which includes bad players), but non-sequitur. > Legal self-ousting negatively affects the metagame, making slowly- > ousting rush and intercept decks (which are already quite difficult to > win with) even more weak. Some decks are more difficult to win with than others, sure. See also "bad play" or "bad deck". This fact wasn't introduced to the game by the play-to-win rule, however. > Just look at the example above. A rush > player has to torporize vampires of its predator (to avoid being > ousted) and of its prey (to win). He rarely has chances of preventing > self-oustings "just for the revenge". Same about the wall decks: if > your predator feels that he's unable to oust you, he has the "right" > of stealing your GW. If you don't get the GW, then you don't get it, sure. But you never had it, either, and it wasn't, therefore, stolen. > I bet that most players cannot even imagine how ugly can the game > become when somebody abuses the "desperate rulings". Our players are > already accustomed to the threats of self-ousting, usually to make > somebody's grandpredator to help him. What can be more filthy than "Do > what I say or I will self-oust, and your prey will get 6 pool"? Allowing a player in a non-lost position to follow through on such a threat, for one. Lots more, I'm sure, since that particular avenue (assuming you're not covering the PTW-violating cases with it) is not filthy at all. > What > would you do if some beggar approach you with a knife, threatening to > commit suicide unless you give him money? I guess you'd call the > police. So why such behaviour should be tolerated in > VTES? Non-sequitur. Suicide is illegal (here in the states, anyway). > But even this isn't the most awful behaviour. Believe me or not, > but in one of my games one player said to his grandpredator: "Make a > deal with me to give me GW, or I'll have to self-oust"! And the deal > was really made!!! The way you present it, it sounds like the threat was to self-oust from a non-lost position. In which case the player agreeing to the deal made a very bad play.

[ quoted text not captured ] I had a lot of sleepless nights thanks to this problem. What I figured out is that if everyone would do the following, then there would be no problem at all: 1. Try to maximize your vp's. Well there is actually a rule saying this. If you see a 0,1% chance to somehow get that 1 or 0,5 vp before getting ousted then don't hesitate! Try it! 2. If your chances to survive is totaly 0 and nobody can help you out, then try to stay in the game as long as possible (without stealing time ofc). Try to make it as hard for your predator as possible to oust you. If you have to die, die like a man! It's this simple. No rule change will be able to prevent people from acting stupid. I think the only way to go is showing a good example and "teaching" them. Always remember that v:tes is a GAME!

Ector wrote: > I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate > rulings" that allow players without any "reasonable chances" of > getting any VPs to do everything they want, including crazy crosstable > actions and even self-ousting. Nobody likes just to sit at the table > and wait until somebody ousts him. But, IMHO, the current solution > generates more problems than solves, and it must be changed as soon as > possible. > Let's imagine that there are three remaining players at the table: > Alex, Bob and Claire, sitting in the listed order. Alex is playing a > very good rush deck, so all minions of Bob and Claire are lying > bloodless in their torpors. Who can argue that Alex doesn't really > DESERVE to get a GW? I can. Alex shouldn't have left Claire with no hope. He played badly, and therefore doesn't "deserve" (ow, my ears hurt, stop shouting please... :-) ) to get a GW. best - chris

On May 10, 12:45 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On May 10, 3:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate > > rulings" that allow players without any "reasonable chances" of > > getting any VPs to do everything they want, including crazy crosstable > > actions and even self-ousting. > > Or crazy walling-up, or crazy lunging. > > Every action (or inaction) is just as "crazy" as any other, from the > point of view of the lost-postion player, since they all lead to > losing (or rather to no-gaining). I think that's the point that many people get stuck on. Every action or inaction doesn't actually feel as crazy as any other. The lost- position player had previously been non-lost, and had spent the last 100 minutes trying to oust his/her prey and stay alive. Then, once the player is in a lost position, he or she suddenly can not stay alive, not try to oust his/her prey, and instead self-oust or go cross- table. Such actions feel more crazy than the other actions, because they are such a divergence from the previous play style. In real life, a crazy person is someone who acts unexpectedly and unpredictably. Trying to stay alive and trying to oust one's prey is predictable and not crazy. Doing anything else is "crazy." To be clear, I think that the current rules are good and shouldn't be changed, and I don't share Ector's view that there is a problem. Ira

On May 10, 5:13 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 12:45 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Every action (or inaction) is just as "crazy" as any other, from the > > point of view of the lost-postion player, since they all lead to > > losing (or rather to no-gaining). > To be clear, I think that the current rules are good and shouldn't be > changed, and I don't share Ector's view that there is a problem. Noted... > I think that's the point that many people get stuck on. Every action > or inaction doesn't actually feel as crazy as any other. The lost- > position player had previously been non-lost, and had spent the last > 100 minutes trying to oust his/her prey and stay alive. Then, once > the player is in a lost position, he or she suddenly can not stay > alive, not try to oust his/her prey, and instead self-oust or go cross- > table. > > Such actions feel more crazy than the other actions, because they are > such a divergence from the previous play style. Sure, but that's a problem of perception. For the first 100 minutes, the player was choosing good options over bad ones. Then "suddenly" there are no good choices (or rather, no choices that are any better than any other choice -- all the choices are equal). So the player is still "suddenly" playing the same way: choosing from among the best available choices.

On May 10, 12:48 pm, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The rules don't require a 0% chance. The rules require a "reasonable" chance. "Reasonable" is defined by the judge, and can vary from judge to judge. Also, "reasonable" includes weighted averages, so you might have these choices: a) 1% chance 5 VP and a GW, 99% chance 0 VPs. b) 99% chance 2 VPs (and someone else gets GW), 1% chance 0 VPs. Many judges would rule that b is also "reasonable", and a player would be free to pick either course of action. Ira

On May 10, 4:36 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I can. Alex shouldn't have left Claire with no hope. He played badly, and > therefore doesn't "deserve" (ow, my ears hurt, stop shouting please... :-) > ) to get a GW. Alex: "But it's what my deck does. I have to play my deck..." (I should note that I'm merely jumping ahead to the expected reaction, and side with librarian and not Alex on this subject.) John Eno

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Meej Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Let's end the "desperate madness"! To: On May 10, 3:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate >> rulings" >Apparently not, given the rest of the post. (You definitely seem to >understand the rules behind it, but I'm not sure you're clear on the >philosophy.) Such words must be immediately backed up by the real arguments. Without them, they're just empty insults. >> Who can argue that Alex doesn't really >> DESERVE to get a GW? > >Does he have 1 VP already? If so, he *gets* a GW even if Claire self- >ousts. If not, then there was at least one other oust by someone >else. "I could win eventually" =/= "I deserve to win." Build a deck >that works within the time available, and if your goal is total table >control make sure you can put the hammer down even in the face of self- >oust. Please don't drive the discussion to MY goals and similar stupid things. I play all kinds of decks. How could a sane person argue that a player who completely disabled all other players (they can do NOTHING) may be "legally" stripped of the GW? That's just a demagogy. >> A tournament where even extremely bad and unfortunate >> players decide who will be the winner has nothing common to sport and >> shouldn't be called "tournament" at all. >Step away from the hyperbole, please; it's not going to lead to a >productive discussion. Really? A "tournament" is the term closely tied to sports. There are no tournaments without the sport spirit: the very idea of "tournament" implies that the winner should have the best skills and/or the best training and/or the best luck, but definitely NOT the best friends/ relatives who can give him some Victory Points. >> Legal self-ousting negatively affects the metagame, making slowly- >> ousting rush and intercept decks (which are already quite difficult to >> win with) even more weak. >There's a point of view that that's actually a positive effect in the >metagame. Besides, slow-ousting decks are more hampered by time >limits than self-ousting; why are you railing against this and not >that? I'm not a Don Quixote: I completely understand the necessity of time limits at the tournaments. Besides, I was a judge for several years :) There is no sense in chasing things that cannot be changed, but there is a lot of sense to attack ugly rules that can be and SHOULD be changed. >> Our players are >> already accustomed to the threats of self-ousting, usually to make >> somebody's grandpredator to help him. What can be more filthy than "Do >> what I say or I will self-oust, and your prey will get 6 pool"? > > Ummm... people actually accept those ridiculous deals? Wow. > Let them self-oust, then. Once they realize that they'll never win a > game if they hand every game to their predator, that will stop. Yes, people actually accept these ridiculous deals. Not all players are clever enough to understand their best interest, and playing stupid isn't a PTW violation. That's just an additional reason for me to struggle against the stupid "desperate rules". >> But even this isn't the most awful behaviour. Believe me or not, >> but in one of my games one player said to his grandpredator: "Make a >> deal with me to give me GW, or I'll have to self-oust"! And the deal >> was really made!!! > Sure. How was it *kept*, though? Once the player in question has the > two VP that are sitting between him and his grandpredator, and the > grandpredator has his prey's VP, it's a 2P game and the deal is off, > and the grandpredator can win 3-2. If you deal yourself into a losing > position because it's the best option you have of getting VP's, then > it's a good deal for you. Yes, the deal was kept, since it really put the suggesting player into the winning position. He ousted his prey, gained 6 pool and removed the intercept deck that was holding him at bay both with the intercept and with the votes. It was 3-1 deal, as it was a 4-player table, and I seriously doubt that 1VP was really the maximum that player could hope... but, again, playing stupid isn't a PTW violation. IMHO, it's absolutely clear that abusing the "desperate rulings" is the easiest way of cheating or deceiving "legally", and this alone is more than enough to prohibit such behaviour. >> 1. Change the rules of withdrawing from the game to the following: >> 9.2. Withdrawing from the game > Way too massive a change to make sense. Way too different from the > spirit and intent of the withdrawal rules. If you want to propose it > as something else, that's different. There is no secret that the "current withdrawal rules" almost never work. Withdrawing conditions are so harsh that they could just state "if all other players with ready minions agree to let you withdraw, you withdraw" :) >> IMHO, the suggested change solves all problems. > And creates many more, particularly by nerfing the very torpor-heavy > decks you're claiming you want to make these changes to support. What "torpor-heavy decks" are you talking about? Did you care to read my post?

John Flournoy wrote: > On May 10, 2:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > IMHO, the suggested change solves all problems. No player will be > > forced to hopelessly wait until somebody ousts him: if he tries to > > withdraw, his fate will usually be decided in one turn. Other players > > have many ways to prevent him from withdrawing: intercept decks can > > block his hunts and torporize somebody, rush decks can rush and > > torporize, while bleed and voting decks can just oust him. > > ....Assuming that the bleed and voting decks can oust him in a single > turn. Let's say that I have a hand full of bounces and deflections - > the last 7 cards in my deck. A bleed deck is going to be very, very, > very hard-pressed to stop me from withdrawing in a single turn, since > I can just bounce their attempts. Is this bad? If your hand is really full of bounce, then you're likely to make your bleed predator to oust your prey for you. The withdrawal announcement may be a bait, forcing your predator to apply maximum bleed and increasing your chances of getting a VP. IMHO, this makes game more dynamic and interesting, especially compared to sadly awaiting the death :) > Intercept decks can block the hunts... but they have to also torporize > the vampires, which is by no means guaranteed. Just because you are > saying "I want to withdraw" doesn't suddenly empty your vampires of > blood or remove S:CEs from your hand, etc etc. I know. Actually, my suggestion is just a draft version that could be (and probably even should be) polished. But even talking fluff-wise, the proposed withdrawal rules are quite logical: the Methuselah is trying to get out of the conflict, keeping as much minions and influence as he can. Other Methuselahs can try to stop this, but if his vampires are well-protected, they can escape. > In fact, your change makes withdrawing easy enough (when facing > certain types of opponents) where declaring your intent to withdraw is > actually a more likely method of getting .5 VP than trying to last to > timeout.. so suddenly, PTW becomes "Must play to withdraw." More specifically, "must play to withdraw if you have no reasonable chances of getting VPs". How can this rule be worse than "do whatever crazy things you want (including self-ousting)"? What's more typical for the "real" Methuselah if he has no chances of winning anything - to withdraw or to perform crazy actions? Except for the Malkavian Methuselah, of course? :) > Perhaps you just play in a very combat-heavy environment - but I have > seen many, many games where even when a player is decked, their > predator and prey cannot reliably put one of their minions in torpor > in a specific turn.. My environment isn't the theme of the discussion, so let's talk about the suggested rules. If other players cannot torporize even one of your vampires, you withdraw. This may be bad, but it's still much better than self- ousting: 1). My version of withdrawing at least allows some interaction with the other players. Even if they fail to prevent withdrawal, they at least have some chances. Self-ousting usually present no chances of interrupting: you just move your pool to vampires in the uncontrolled region. Who can prevent this? 2). Withdrawing takes more time (the whole turn), allowing other players to do something. Self-ousting happens immediately, and nobody usually expects it. 3). Withdrawing is less likely to "steal a GW" from the player. In the mentioned example, if Bob and Claire had 1 VP both, then they would have 1.5 after Claire's withdrawal, and Alex would get 2VP and GW. > So, imbued decks can say "I intend to withdraw", take their turn as > normal and successfully withdraw (as long as they don't get ousted) - > since they have no vampires to have to hunt with (or get burned) and > have no vampires to be torpored to prevent it... >(Same holds true for any ally-using deck who have no vampires in the > ready region when the withdraw attempt would begin.) Yes, Imbued have some advantages, but even that looks logical fluff- wise: they are mortals and can mix with the other mortals easily. If you think that I should add "to successfully withdraw, no allies you control may be burned or incapacitated", this may be logical. Thanks a lot for discussing the matter seriously, unlike many others :)

A few months ago, there was a very long thread discussing a similar topic. In this thread LSJ confirmed to me that once you have no chance of gaining additional VPs, you are free to play arbritrarily, and it is technically sportsmanlike. That means that you can help your friend and hurt your enemy based completely on your out-of-game feelings for them as long as you have decided that you cannot gain any more VPs. After learning this, I was really turned off by the game. LSJ has steadfastly refused to give guidance on how to act in these "no-more VPs" situations, and I have seen the posts of other top VTES players who believe there should be no defined way to act in "hopeless" situations. I've read things like "Self-ousting is just another way to earn your maximum 0 VPs." and "Why punish a stealth-bleeder? That is arbitrary." Like Martin I spent some "sleepless nights" thinking about this issue. I tried to think of a way to act non-arbitrarily when I've reached a hopeless situation in a game. In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, arbitrary play comes down to "kingmaking" or "retaliation", and it is unsportmanslike. My solution was to focus on tournament points when I can no longer earn additional VPs. I know that tournament points are only for tournaments, but I think that they could easily be part of the scoring of casual games as well. To determine tournament points, you have to rank the players in a game. If a player can no longer earn more VPs, he can still act non-abitrarily to try to ensure that as few other players are ranked above him as possible. It is an easy system of "ethics" for players in "hopeless" situations. It's not necessarily pretty - for example, helping an aggressive predator sweep the table might be the only way for a player to ensure maximum tournament points. It is also easy to misjudge when things are hopeless. If the official rules made tournament points part of the scoring for casual games, and if the rules said you have to play to maximize your tournament points after you have maximized your victory points, I think it would make the game more enjoyable and clear up a lot of questions about what constitutes sportmanslike play.

LSJ wrote: > On May 10, 3:07 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > I fully understand the philosophy and meaning of the "desperate > > rulings" that allow players without any "reasonable chances" of > > getting any VPs to do everything they want, including crazy crosstable > > actions and even self-ousting. > > Or crazy walling-up, or crazy lunging. > > Every action (or inaction) is just as "crazy" as any other, from the > point of view of the lost-postion player, since they all lead to > losing (or rather to no-gaining). That's why I'm suggesting the new withdrawing rule as an alternative. Attempting to withdraw CAN lead to 0.5 VP, which is better than nothing. > > > Nobody likes just to sit at the table > > and wait until somebody ousts him. But, IMHO, the current solution > > generates more problems than solves, and it must be changed as soon as > > possible. > > It "generates" no problems, it merely acknowledges what it means to be > in a lost position vis a vis the play to win rule. May I remind you the discussion about "prize-splitting in the finals"? That rule also SEEMED to cause no problems, but potentially allowed violating PTW and even cheating. I guess that was the reason of its removal. Now we have completely the same situation. Self-ousting can be used (and actually IS used quite frequently) to cheat, deceive other players and violate PTW. That's why it should be prohibited as soon as possible. It's quite easy to demonstrate a "legal cheating" using self-ousting. Let's assume that Claire is Bob's wife, she isn't very interested in getting into finals herself, but she'd like to promote Bob. That's why her mind is set on get ting ousted from the beginning of the game, and she was just waiting for the chance. No judge can read her mind, so this tactics is going to work smoothly... but essentially this is Cheating: Collusion, isn't it? > Changing it would most likely introduce problems. What problems? It would introduce changes, but "changes" is very different from "problems". In my eyes, "a problem" is a situation where the rules make the game counter-intuitive and even crazy. My example of a game with Alex, Bob and Claire represents a problem. If you see some situation where my suggestion can result in a problem, please tell me. > > Let's imagine that there are three remaining players at the table: > > Alex, Bob and Claire, sitting in the listed order. Alex is playing a > > very good rush deck, so all minions of Bob and Claire are lying > > bloodless in their torpors. Who can argue that Alex doesn't really > > DESERVE to get a GW? > > Whoever can show that he fails to win the game as defined in the game > rules under the section "Object of the game". I know the rules, thanks. Not as good as you, for sure :) But we're discussing the "quality" of the rules and the suggested rules change, aren't we? :) Good game rules should never produce counter-logical results. If some rules lead to such things, they should be changed. In every game a player who manages to completely disable all other players wins - that's logical. Forcing such player to lose the victory just because some player is in hopeless position is counter-logical. That's why such rules should be changed. > > Legal self-ousting negatively affects the metagame, making slowly- > > ousting rush and intercept decks (which are already quite difficult to > > win with) even more weak. > > Some decks are more difficult to win with than others, sure. See also > "bad play" or "bad deck". This fact wasn't introduced to the game by > the play-to-win rule, however. Are you trying to say that every deck that controls the table instead of removing pool of its prey is "bad"? AFAIK, enabling as many different winning strategies as you can is a part of your job as game designer. Thus, as long as the self-ousting rule makes already hard-to-win strategies even more weak, you should hate the rule, since it reduces variety of "good decks". At least I would if I'd be a game designer :) > > Just look at the example above. A rush > > player has to torporize vampires of its predator (to avoid being > > ousted) and of its prey (to win). He rarely has chances of preventing > > self-oustings "just for the revenge". Same about the wall decks: if > > your predator feels that he's unable to oust you, he has the "right" > > of stealing your GW. > > If you don't get the GW, then you don't get it, sure. But you never > had it, either, and it wasn't, therefore, stolen. Technically, it wasn't stolen, right. But logically, it was. Losing a victory just because some player is completely helpless is extremely counter-logical. Making your enemies helpless may be your primary strategy! The rules that disable such strategies actually make the game more dull and poor. > > I bet that most players cannot even imagine how ugly can the game > > become when somebody abuses the "desperate rulings". Our players are > > already accustomed to the threats of self-ousting, usually to make > > somebody's grandpredator to help him. What can be more filthy than "Do > > what I say or I will self-oust, and your prey will get 6 pool"? > > Allowing a player in a non-lost position to follow through on such a > threat, for one. > > Lots more, I'm sure, since that particular avenue (assuming you're not > covering the PTW-violating cases with it) is not filthy at all. Not filthy at all? Do you really like beggars threatening to commit suicide unless you give them money? :) Or beggars threatening to harm YOU unless you give them money? I guess not. So why do you tolerate such behaviour in the game? Please, don't tell again "because the rules allow it". Everyone knows that YOU make the rules. :) > > What > > would you do if some beggar approach you with a knife, threatening to > > commit suicide unless you give him money? I guess you'd call the > > police. So why such behaviour should be tolerated in > > VTES? > > Non-sequitur. Suicide is illegal (here in the states, anyway). Then imagine it's legal (as it is here). Does this change anything? No matter whether the suicide legal or not, threatening people with it, while demanding something, IS illegal, and should remain illegal. Both in the real life and in the game. > > But even this isn't the most awful behaviour. Believe me or not, > > but in one of my games one player said to his grandpredator: "Make a > > deal with me to give me GW, or I'll have to self-oust"! And the deal > > was really made!!! > > The way you present it, it sounds like the threat was to self-oust > from a non-lost position. In which case the player agreeing to the > deal made a very bad play. No, the deal was suggested in a win-or-lose position. The suggesting player was very low on pool and needed votes to oust his prey. Bad play was demonstrated by the other player, who failed to resist the threats and lost chances of getting more than 1 VP. And this will happen more and more, since there are lot of newbs and poorly- competent players who would be happy to get even 1 VP :(

[ quoted text not captured ] Alex "shouldn't have left Claire with no hope"??? Now that's really funny :) When you're playing the rush deck, do you refuse to torporize the last vampire of your predator just to leave him some hope of ousting you? :) This may be logical if you want him to defend from his predator, but otherwise it's just silly. Imagine that Alex had 1 pool. He simply had to "leave Claire with no hope". He barely managed to survive, but still managed, and now he is the only player with the ready minions. All possible logic says he should be a winner, but the current rules allow Claire to "present" 1 VP to Bob.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 02:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > In every game a >player who manages to completely disable all other players wins - >that's logical. The other Players are not completly disabled, they can still selfoust.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not a psychiater, so I'm not going to argue what is "crazy" and what isn't. In the initial post I've meant actions that obviously bring a player closer to 0 VPs. Self-ousting is the most vivid example of such behaviour. In my eyes, players should always playing to win, even if the chances of getting VPs aren't "reasonable". Thus, you still bleed even if your stealth cannot match your prey's intercept, and so on - you continue to pursuit the strategy of your deck until somebody ousts you. Playing for 0.5 VPs, if there is a time limit, is much better than playing for zero. > To be clear, I think that the current rules are good and shouldn't be > changed, and I don't share Ector's view that there is a problem. > > Ira At least I've presented some arguments to defend my point of view :)

On Tue, 11 May 2010 02:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > All possible logic says he >should be a winner, but the current rules allow Claire to "present" 1 >VP to Bob. No. The rules merely allow Claire to selfoust. Bob simply gets the Vp for his prey leaving the game.

LSJ wrote: > On May 10, 5:13 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 10, 12:45 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Every action (or inaction) is just as "crazy" as any other, from the > > > point of view of the lost-postion player, since they all lead to > > > losing (or rather to no-gaining). > > > To be clear, I think that the current rules are good and shouldn't be > > changed, and I don't share Ector's view that there is a problem. > > Noted... How can you note an opinion that isn't backed at all? Isn't it too early to cast votes now? :) > > I think that's the point that many people get stuck on. Every action > > or inaction doesn't actually feel as crazy as any other. The lost- > > position player had previously been non-lost, and had spent the last > > 100 minutes trying to oust his/her prey and stay alive. Then, once > > the player is in a lost position, he or she suddenly can not stay > > alive, not try to oust his/her prey, and instead self-oust or go cross- > > table. > > > > Such actions feel more crazy than the other actions, because they are > > such a divergence from the previous play style. > > Sure, but that's a problem of perception. > > For the first 100 minutes, the player was choosing good options over > bad ones. > Then "suddenly" there are no good choices (or rather, no choices that > are any better than any other choice -- all the choices are equal). > > So the player is still "suddenly" playing the same way: choosing from > among the best available choices. No, that is not a "problem of perception". Playing for some VPs (even for 0,5 VP) is the normal, sane play: you're trying to oust your prey and prevent your predator from ousting you. Playing for 0 VPs is "crazy" since it drastically differs from the normal style of play. Self-ousting is the best example, as normal play assumes doing your best to prevent being ousted.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >Alex "shouldn't have left Claire with no hope"??? Now that's really >funny :) >When you're playing the rush deck, do you refuse to torporize the last >vampire of your predator just to leave him some hope of ousting >you? :) This may be logical if you want him to defend from his >predator, but otherwise it's just silly. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, depending on your deck. Having your prey put pressure on his prey is typically a good thing for most decks. This is, in fact, the reason that most naive rush decks fail - they obliterate their prey, oust him via bleeds, and then find themselves up against their grand-prey who's had almost no pressure on them all game. In general, this is not a good situation to find yourself in. (There's the reverse problem too, and often the next step in a player's evolution of rush decks - going from a) tunnel vision on prey to b) rushing everyone to try to excessively control the table.) It's perfectly reasonable to, for example, go about ousting your prey while a copy of Pentex Subversion keeps that one vampire from blocking you. I can certainly say that I've seen many poor rush decks that would be better taking advantage of such a play. You'll also find that a number of strong players advocate not demolishing your prey immediately, even if you can, for this reason. When your prey is down to six pool but has put a couple of bleeds on your grand-prey, it's perfectly reasonable to then demolish their last one or two minions (with or without Fame) and bleed them out. If they have a reasonable buffer of pool (such that it will take you a while to oust them with bleeds), it may also be to your advantage to keep one out so that you can try to pull Fame and play it on them immediately. Obviously, this won't be the right play in all games, but merely to dismiss potentially good play as "really funny" shows a lack of understanding of the game. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sanity doesn`t really factor into it. Like LSJ said above, you`re simply looking at the respective plays from the wrong angle. During a game of Vtes, we choose between options. The PTW rule restricts our choices insofar that it cuts out all the options that lower our chances of "reasonably" getting some amount of VP/the GW. If multiple choices offer the same "reasonable chance" of getting these VP our choice between them isn`t restricted. This is true while the amount of Vp we can get is 1, it is true while it is 2, 3 and so on. Why shouldn`t it be true if the amount of Vp is 0?

On May 11, 5:38 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > So the player is still "suddenly" playing the same way: choosing from > > among the best available choices. > > No, that is not a "problem of perception". Playing for some VPs (even > for 0,5 VP) is the normal, sane play Non-sequitur. The player is in a position where xe cannot play for 0.5 VPs. The player, according to the premise, is in a lost position. That means xe cannot reasonably get any more VPs, not even 0.5 VPs. If xe could get 0.5 VPs, then xe (still) has to play to maximize xer VPs. And 0.5 > 0. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2d3cff75fd5e8d26 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7a8f6a70dc380397

[ quoted text not captured ] > VP to Bob.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - Apparently, you want the rules to change to enforce your point of view which is : "when I totally crushed my opponents, i should win." In your example, it seems more like crushing their vampires, but anyway. "Alex rendered all other players helpless" "He played well" As long as they're not ousted, they still can play. So Alex hasn't won. And he did not play well because he doesn't get all the victory points he could have get if he had played differently. A similar example would be a player who manages to put 60 pool damage on other players, but fail to do a VP and dies. It's been as efficient as putting all vampires to torpor, but badly played. Take it like you want, I think you should see it the other way round : how do I win if my plan is to crush the other players? Then you'll play differently, and take into account the psychology of the other players. Said otherwise : you should adapt your gamestyle to the rules, not try to adapt the rules to your gamestyle.

[ quoted text not captured ] Because you simply cannot get less than 0 VP, so you really don't have to do anything to get it :) Most "crazy" actions are not intended to get *as much* VPs as 0, they are intended to get that zero *more quickly* or *more funny*. That's the reason they are usually quite different.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 04:23:59 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > >>Pascal wrote: >> Like LSJ said above, you`re simply looking at the respective plays >> from the wrong angle. During a game of Vtes, we choose between >> options. The PTW rule restricts our choices insofar that it cuts out >> all the options that lower our chances of "reasonably" getting some >> amount of VP/the GW. >> If multiple choices offer the same "reasonable chance" of getting >> these VP our choice between them isn`t restricted. >> This is true while the amount of Vp we can get is 1, it is true while >> it is 2, 3 and so on. >> Why shouldn`t it be true if the amount of Vp is 0? >Because you simply cannot get less than 0 VP, so you really don't have >to do anything to get it :) Leaving aside the fact that you obviously still have to do something for the game to progress, you concede that in a true no-win situation your choices all lead to the same end? >Most "crazy" actions are not intended to get *as much* VPs as 0, they >are intended to get that zero *more quickly* or *more funny*. That's >the reason they are usually quite different. You still don�t grasp my point. Normally we are free to choose different paths toward the same end. Why should we not have this choice in this particular situation?

On May 11, 3:15 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Really? A "tournament" is the term closely tied to sports. Well, except that there are plenty of tournaments that have nothing to do with sports (see: Bridge not being admitted into the olympics...). So claiming that the word "tournament" is "closely tied to sports" and expecting it to have any weight is a losing argument. > There are no tournaments without the sport spirit What is the "sport spirit"? >: the very idea of "tournament" > implies that the winner should have the best skills and/or the best > training and/or the best luck, but definitely NOT the best friends/ > relatives who can give him some Victory Points. This is completely true. But has nothing at all to do with sports. And the tournament rules already are structured to ensure that the winner has the best skills and luck and not the best friends/relatives (see: rules on cheating). > Yes, people actually accept these ridiculous deals. Not all players > are clever enough to understand their best interest, and playing > stupid isn't a PTW violation. That's just an additional reason for me > to struggle against the stupid "desperate rules". I realize I'm coming in late here, but I read your first post, and still I'm not sure what you mean by "desperate rules". > IMHO, it's absolutely clear that abusing the "desperate rulings" is > the easiest way of cheating or deceiving "legally", and this alone is > more than enough to prohibit such behaviour. How does one benefit from self ousting when it is allowed? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] For me, "play" is "play to win". Playing for 0 VPs isn't playing VTES anymore - it's playing a childish game called "kill me please". Such players don't care about earning more VPs - zero is always guaranteed. They only care about some personal convenience: revenge, "fun" or simply getting away as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason of allowing such things to spoil the game for the other players. Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- logical. Your words "he did not play well" mean that you also think that each player is responsible of "leaving some hope" to every other player he interacts, except for his prey. This is a very weak position, since: a). Nobody usually controls the whole table. Alex could leave Claire 1 ready vampire, but Bob still could torporize it later. If your actions + actions of other players make somebody's situation hopeless, who is to blame? b). Your opinion on whether the situation is hopeless or not will often differ from other players' opinions and from the judge's opinion. Alex could think that Claire still had enough pool to influence out some vampire, but she could argue that the vampire would be immediately torporized, so she is hopeless. The stupid "desperate ruling" almost *always* causes a violent discussion at the table. > A similar example would be a player who manages to put 60 pool damage > on other players, but fail to do a VP and dies. It's been as efficient > as putting all vampires to torpor, but badly played. This is nothing similar to my example! Deck that can do massive pool damage usually applies it to its prey. Rush deck usually starts the game with slowing its predator, giving the prey some time to weaken the grandprey. If you're playing rush and your predator deals a lot of pool damage to you, torporizing all his vampires is often your only way to survive. Are you trying to say that nobody should play rush just to avoid putting the predator into a desperate situation? :) > Take it like you want, I think you should see it the other way round : > how do I win if my plan is to crush the other players? Then you'll > play differently, and take into account the psychology of the other > players. > > Said otherwise : you should adapt your gamestyle to the rules, not try > to adapt the rules to your gamestyle. "My gamestyle" is completely out of the discussion. I've never validated the "desperate rules", at least for myself. I've never self- ousted. If you're trying to say that every player should determine what each other player is going to do in the hopeless situation, I have to remind that we're talking about VTES, not some game of psychiatria. At large tournaments you may meet a lot of new players: how can you predict their behaviour? Even if you can, what you can do if your game interests require disabling these players?

On May 11, 5:18 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Alex "shouldn't have left Claire with no hope"??? Now that's really > funny :) > When you're playing the rush deck, do you refuse to torporize the last > vampire of your predator just to leave him some hope of ousting > you? :) This may be logical if you want him to defend from his > predator, but otherwise it's just silly. If you are playing a deck that backousts people, you should expect that, once and a while, you will backoust someone. You can't expect to blast someone into a smoking crater upstream, and then have them obediently sit there as a pool sack. If you back oust them by destroying all their minions, and then they remove themselves from the game, that is as much your doing as theirs. > All possible logic says he > should be a winner, but the current rules allow Claire to "present" 1 > VP to Bob Claire didn't "present" anything to anyone. You did by destroying Claire. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 11, 3:15 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Really? A "tournament" is the term closely tied to sports. > > Well, except that there are plenty of tournaments that have nothing to > do with sports (see: Bridge not being admitted into the olympics...). > So claiming that the word "tournament" is "closely tied to sports" and > expecting it to have any weight is a losing argument. Bridge is a sport. It heavily depends on the luck, yes, but provided the luck is roughly equal for every team, the game skills have the most important impact on the result. I don't know why the Olympic officials refused to admit Bridge, but I guess that they simply know nothing about the games with the substantial influence of luck. Magic is a very competitive sport game, despite the role of luck. But self-ousting has absolutely nothing common with luck, skills or some other part of sports. It's just player's personal preference! In my example Claire could "give" 1 VP to Bob or to Alex, and she choose Bob. No sport game allows such things. > > There are no tournaments without the sport spirit > > What is the "sport spirit"? Sport spirit is: the best player should win, provided the equal luck. > >: the very idea of "tournament" > > implies that the winner should have the best skills and/or the best > > training and/or the best luck, but definitely NOT the best friends/ > > relatives who can give him some Victory Points. > > This is completely true. But has nothing at all to do with sports. And > the tournament rules already are structured to ensure that the winner > has the best skills and luck and not the best friends/relatives (see: > rules on cheating). Claire gets to choose between "giving" 1VP to Bob or to Alex. She will get nothing for herself in any case. If she is Bob's friend, girlfriend or wife, she is likely to choose him. While this is not *technically* a cheating, this actually increases Bob's chances of getting more VPs and decreases Alex's chances, and cannot be tolerated. > > Yes, people actually accept these ridiculous deals. Not all players > > are clever enough to understand their best interest, and playing > > stupid isn't a PTW violation. That's just an additional reason for me > > to struggle against the stupid "desperate rules". > > I realize I'm coming in late here, but I read your first post, and > still I'm not sure what you mean by "desperate rules". "Desperate rules" are rules that allow a player having no reasonable chances of getting more VPs do whatever he wants, including even self- ousting. I call them so because some player usually declares that he's in a desperate situation, and then the crazy stuff begins. > > IMHO, it's absolutely clear that abusing the "desperate rulings" is > > the easiest way of cheating or deceiving "legally", and this alone is > > more than enough to prohibit such behaviour. > > How does one benefit from self ousting when it is allowed? See the example with Claire's choice above. For me, this is Cheating: Collusion.

On May 11, 8:12 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > For me, "play" is "play to win". Playing for 0 VPs isn't playing VTES > anymore - it's playing a childish game called "kill me please". No, it's playing the mature game called "finish the game you started". When every activity (or inactivity) the player could make is playing for 0 VP (i.e., the player is in a lost position), then the player can either play the childish game of "take my ball and go home" (essentially just ceasing to exist at the table -- no longer participating in the game so as not to violate your impossible standards of "play to win"), or the player can finish the game. (incidentally, the tournament rules do not allow the former).

[ quoted text not captured ] >> > VP to Bob.- Masquer le texte des messages pr�c�dents - >> > >> > - Afficher le texte des messages pr�c�dents - >> >> Apparently, you want the rules to change to enforce your point of view >> which is : "when I totally crushed my opponents, i should win." >> In your example, it seems more like crushing their vampires, but >> anyway. >> >> "Alex rendered all other players helpless" "He played well" >> As long as they're not ousted, they still can play. So Alex hasn't >> won. And he did not play well because he doesn't get all the victory >> points he could have get if he had played differently. >For me, "play" is "play to win". Playing for 0 VPs isn't playing VTES >anymore - it's playing a childish game called "kill me please". Such >players don't care about earning more VPs - zero is always guaranteed. Any series of ingame actions whether it`s bleeding for 1 or transferring out is playing the game. >Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the >rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- >logical. Please outline your reasoning. >Your words "he did not play well" mean that you also think that each >player is responsible of "leaving some hope" to every other player he >interacts, except for his prey. Nope, his point is that if you do you will likely benefit from it, hence it usually being good play. The player doen�t have a particular responsibility to actually do it, just as a player in no-win situation has no responibility to remain in the game. >> Take it like you want, I think you should see it the other way round : >> how do I win if my plan is to crush the other players? Then you'll >> play differently, and take into account the psychology of the other >> players. >> >> Said otherwise : you should adapt your gamestyle to the rules, not try >> to adapt the rules to your gamestyle. >"My gamestyle" is completely out of the discussion. I've never >validated the "desperate rules", at least for myself. I've never self- >ousted. >If you're trying to say that every player should determine what each >other player is going to do in the hopeless situation, I have to >remind that we're talking about VTES, not some game of psychiatria. Vtes, like most multiplayer games (hell, most twoplayer games) has a psychological component. Predicting your Opponents actions and manipulating them to your benefit is a large part of the skillset required for success in tournament play. > At >large tournaments you may meet a lot of new players: how can you >predict their behaviour? Even if you can, what you can do if your game >interests require disabling these players? Adapt your gameplan or learn to live with the consequences.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 11, 5:18 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Alex "shouldn't have left Claire with no hope"??? Now that's really > > funny :) > > When you're playing the rush deck, do you refuse to torporize the last > > vampire of your predator just to leave him some hope of ousting > > you? :) This may be logical if you want him to defend from his > > predator, but otherwise it's just silly. > > If you are playing a deck that backousts people, you should expect > that, once and a while, you will backoust someone. You can't expect to > blast someone into a smoking crater upstream, and then have them > obediently sit there as a pool sack. If you back oust them by > destroying all their minions, and then they remove themselves from the > game, that is as much your doing as theirs. Don't mess *ousting* a predator with *slowing* your predator! Ousting a predator can be jusfified only if it's very dangerous, and the next predator will be much better - I've ousted some rush predator with Kindred Spirits :) Slowing a predator is much more common. In fact, every rush deck does it. What FORCES players without ready minions to "remove themselves from the game"? Nothing. They do that just to harm you, or just to avoid simply sitting at the table. In fact, we've played without the "desperate rule" for 3 years, and everything was great. > > All possible logic says he > > should be a winner, but the current rules allow Claire to "present" 1 > > VP to Bob > > Claire didn't "present" anything to anyone. You did by destroying > Claire. Oh, not again... Completely disabling predator's game is *normal*. Your predator tries to oust you - so why you should avoid shutting her down? If I'm playing rush and my predator is S&B, my only hope to survive is completely disabling it, since I cannot block it, and even a single vampire can oust me. Are you trying to say that rush decks are "bad" just because of the stupid "desperate rules"? Self-ousting is NOT normal. Nothing *forces* Claire to self-oust. And if she does so, she does that not to get more VPs - just to "take revenge" on Alex or to "present" Bob 1 more VP.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 05:49:10 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> > All possible logic says he >> > should be a winner, but the current rules allow Claire to "present" 1 >> > VP to Bob >> >> Claire didn't "present" anything to anyone. You did by destroying >> Claire. >Oh, not again... Completely disabling predator's game is *normal*. >Your predator tries to oust you - so why you should avoid shutting her >down? To avoid getting a new predator with six more pool. > If I'm playing rush and my predator is S&B, my only hope to >survive is completely disabling it, since I cannot block it, and even >a single vampire can oust me. Are you trying to say that rush decks >are "bad" just because of the stupid "desperate rules"? No, he is saying that the "destroy all predators"-stratagem tends to backfire. >Self-ousting is NOT normal. Sure it is. > Nothing *forces* Claire to self-oust. And nothing forces her to remain in the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Playing *what* game? Would you enjoy playing checkers with a man who plays at give-away? > > >Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the > >rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- > >logical. > Please outline your reasoning. It was outlined several times before. When a player cannot get even a single VP, he still should have some option of leaving the game without self-ousting and other "crazy" behaviour. I've demonstrated one way to introduce such option: the modified withdrawing rule. > > >Your words "he did not play well" mean that you also think that each > >player is responsible of "leaving some hope" to every other player he > >interacts, except for his prey. > Nope, his point is that if you do you will likely benefit from it, > hence it usually being good play. > The player doen�t have a particular responsibility to actually do it, > just as a player in no-win situation has no responibility to remain in > the game. You seem to miss clauses a) and b) from my previous post. Please read them once more. Nobody usually has the full control over the table, and players' opinions on the "desperate situation" is usually quite different. I've met players who argued that the inability to push their actions past their prey's intercept means they have no reasonable chances of getting VPs :) That means: leaving some player "hopeless" is rarely a result of "bad play". This can happen accidentally or be a necessary evil. Moreover, I still think that decks disabling their predators should have some chances, while the "desperate rules" make them almost unplayable. > > >> Take it like you want, I think you should see it the other way round : > >> how do I win if my plan is to crush the other players? Then you'll > >> play differently, and take into account the psychology of the other > >> players. > >> > >> Said otherwise : you should adapt your gamestyle to the rules, not try > >> to adapt the rules to your gamestyle. > >"My gamestyle" is completely out of the discussion. I've never > >validated the "desperate rules", at least for myself. I've never self- > >ousted. > >If you're trying to say that every player should determine what each > >other player is going to do in the hopeless situation, I have to > >remind that we're talking about VTES, not some game of psychiatria. > > Vtes, like most multiplayer games (hell, most twoplayer games) has a > psychological component. > Predicting your Opponents actions and manipulating them to your > benefit is a large part of the skillset required for success in > tournament play. VTES would have the psychological component even after removing the "desperate rules". Also, if you consider plans like "Claire is my friend, so she will self-oust and secure the GW for me" a "psychological component", I call it simply "cheating". Players' chances should never depend on having friends, lovers or relatives in the game. > > At > >large tournaments you may meet a lot of new players: how can you > >predict their behaviour? Even if you can, what you can do if your game > >interests require disabling these players? > > Adapt your gameplan or learn to live with the consequences. In other words, you have nothing to say :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe combat deck aren't a viable option if you want to get all the vp on the table... Anyway, let's say that Claire isn't allowed to self-oust, neither by revenge nor by fair play (because for instance Bob crushed all her vampires, and she thinks Bob deserves his VP). Claire is dead anyway, but may choose where her VP will go. Bob may be a reasonable choice so noone gets a GW and she may access the final. She may also make a mistake, getting down to 1 pool and forgetting the Famed vampire in torpor. She may also think that her only option to win is to get out a vampire spending all her pool, and hoping that someone has a Life Boon is hand (which is truly a best move than simply standing there doing nothing). How will you prevent this?

On May 11, 8:29 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Bridge is a sport. And yet the mostly widely recognized authority on sports in the world disagrees with this. I have no need to debate what is or is not a sport, I was just pointing out that "tournament" does not necessarily involve "sport", so dragging "sport" into a discussion about VTES is pointless. > But self-ousting has absolutely nothing common with luck, skills or > some other part of sports. Teams will resign (i.e. self ousting) from games when they have no chance of winning in a lot of sports. In Curling, for example, resigning from the game is standard practice when you have no mathematical chance of winning. Again, I'm not remotely interested in the connection between "sports" and VTES, but your argument on that front doesn't hold much water. Self ousting is only allowed by the rules in a small number of situations (when you have no hope of doing any better. Which happens a lot less often than these discussions seem to indicate). If you are totaly hosed, and have no hope of doing any better, you can choose the method of your own destruction. There are rules built into the tournament structure to prevent people from using out of game considerations to guide their actions. And that is the best we can do. > Sport spirit is: the best player should win, provided the equal luck. And yet VTES is not a sport, so comparing it to sports is silly. > Claire gets to choose between "giving" 1VP to Bob or to Alex. She will > get nothing for herself in any case. If she is Bob's friend, > girlfriend or wife, she is likely to choose him. While this is not > *technically* a cheating, this actually increases Bob's chances of > getting more VPs and decreases Alex's chances, and cannot be > tolerated. And yet there isn't anything that can be done about it. When someone is in a truly lost position, they can choose the method of their own destruction. If someone across the table disagrees with what happens, they can call a judge, who can judge as needed. > See the example with Claire's choice above. For me, this is Cheating: > Collusion. Claire isn't benefiting from the self oust. -Peter

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> Any series of ingame actions whether it`s bleeding for 1 or >> transferring out is playing the game. >Playing *what* game? Vtes, what else? >> >> >Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the >> >rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- >> >logical. >> Please outline your reasoning. >It was outlined several times before. When a player cannot get even a >single VP, he still should have some option of leaving the game >without self-ousting and other "crazy" behaviour. Why is selfousting any more "crazy" than not selfousting? >> Vtes, like most multiplayer games (hell, most twoplayer games) has a >> psychological component. >> Predicting your Opponents actions and manipulating them to your >> benefit is a large part of the skillset required for success in >> tournament play. >VTES would have the psychological component even after removing the >"desperate rules". >Also, if you consider plans like "Claire is my friend, so she will >self-oust and secure the GW for me" a "psychological component", I >call it simply "cheating". No, what i would consider a psychological component would be predicting how other players will react to your ingame actions. For example, by assigning you krc damage, bleeding you with kindred spirits or self-ousting. >> > At >> >large tournaments you may meet a lot of new players: how can you >> >predict their behaviour? Even if you can, what you can do if your game >> >interests require disabling these players? >> >> Adapt your gameplan or learn to live with the consequences. >In other words, you have nothing to say :) In other words, you have no rebuttal . As usual.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't want all the VP on the table. Moreover, in my example Alex obviously has no VPs, or he'd get GW even after Claire's self-ousting. > Anyway, let's say that Claire isn't allowed to self-oust, neither by > revenge nor by fair play (because for instance Bob crushed all her > vampires, and she thinks Bob deserves his VP). > > Claire is dead anyway, but may choose where her VP will go. Bob may be > a reasonable choice so noone gets a GW and she may access the final. The game rules prohibit taking finals into account - we're playing just for GW or more VPs. > She may also make a mistake, getting down to 1 pool and forgetting the > Famed vampire in torpor. This is another matter. Everyone can make a mistake. > She may also think that her only option to win is to get out a vampire > spending all her pool, and hoping that someone has a Life Boon is hand > (which is truly a best move than simply standing there doing nothing). > > How will you prevent this? There is clearly no way to prevent this *with the current rules*. That's why I've suggested the change - please read the first post. After changing the withdrawing rule and replacing the "desperate rule" with the withdrawing option, Claire would just attempt to withdraw. If the withdrawal succeeds, she will get 0.5 VP. This may even get her a GW if she had 2 VPs before.

On May 11, 8:49 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Don't mess *ousting* a predator with *slowing* your predator! I'm not. What you see as "slowing" your predator sees as "back ousting". If you remove all their minions, great for you, but don't expect them to then do what you want them to. > What FORCES players without ready minions to "remove themselves from > the game"? Nothing. They do that just to harm you, or just to avoid > simply sitting at the table. Correct. And you put them in the position to want to harm you or just avoid simply sitting at the table. And them not simply sitting at the table is the best weapon they have at that point, so they oust themselves to harm you. Which is a completely logical result of the chain of events that just took place. > Oh, not again... Completely disabling predator's game is *normal*. I'm not saying it isn't. But when you follow that path, don't expect your predator to simply sit there and act as a buffer for you. You ended their game, so they will use the only tool they have left (self ousting) to thank you for your actions. You seem to be wanting to make this illegal. Except the rules for self ousting existing discourage this kind of activity (backousting your prey by rushing all of their minions out of existence), which is a good thing. > Are you trying to say that rush decks > are "bad" just because of the stupid "desperate rules"? No, I'm saying that if you back oust your predator, expect that they will remove themselves from play to spite you. Which is just as "normal" as back rushing your prey out of existence is. > Self-ousting is NOT normal. According to what? > Nothing *forces* Claire to self-oust. Nothing *forces* you to back oust your predator. You could have included bleed bounce in your deck. Or accepted that you were out matched. Or, conversely, you could simply back oust your predator, and accept that they will self oust as a result, and live with the consequences. -Peter

Pascal wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > >> Any series of ingame actions whether it`s bleeding for 1 or > >> transferring out is playing the game. > >Playing *what* game? > Vtes, what else? I refuse to call a game of revenge, a game of helping one's friends/ hurting his enemies, or a game of "let me get out" VTES. Likewise, you don't play chess when you throw chess pieces at your opponent. :) > >> > >> >Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the > >> >rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- > >> >logical. > >> Please outline your reasoning. > >It was outlined several times before. When a player cannot get even a > >single VP, he still should have some option of leaving the game > >without self-ousting and other "crazy" behaviour. > Why is selfousting any more "crazy" than not selfousting? Because not being ousted is one of the major goals of each player, while self-ousting is just a trick to avoid waiting until someone ousts you. Or to cheat. > > > >> Vtes, like most multiplayer games (hell, most twoplayer games) has a > >> psychological component. > >> Predicting your Opponents actions and manipulating them to your > >> benefit is a large part of the skillset required for success in > >> tournament play. > >VTES would have the psychological component even after removing the > >"desperate rules". > >Also, if you consider plans like "Claire is my friend, so she will > >self-oust and secure the GW for me" a "psychological component", I > >call it simply "cheating". > > No, what i would consider a psychological component would be > predicting how other players will react to your ingame actions. > For example, by assigning you krc damage, bleeding you with kindred > spirits or self-ousting. I just assume that all players are playing to win, and they aren't stupid. Thus, they can understand what is good for them and what isn't. I'd bet that most players make decision of self-ousting mostly from personal preferences. > >> > At > >> >large tournaments you may meet a lot of new players: how can you > >> >predict their behaviour? Even if you can, what you can do if your game > >> >interests require disabling these players? > >> > >> Adapt your gameplan or learn to live with the consequences. > >In other words, you have nothing to say :) > > In other words, you have no rebuttal . As usual. You should say something to rebute first :) "Adapt your gameplan" isn't such thing, as this isn't tied to the discussion. Imagine that there is a large pit on your street. You can "adapt your lifestyle" to avoid falling into the pit, or even enjoy falling there :) I simply prefer to get rid of the pit.

On May 11, 9:50 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Pascal wrote: > > On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > >> Any series of ingame actions whether it`s bleeding for 1 or > > >> transferring out is playing the game. > > >Playing *what* game? > > Vtes, what else? > > I refuse to call a game of revenge, a game of helping one's friends/ > hurting his enemies, or a game of "let me get out" VTES. You are confusing motives with mechanics. The issue is mechanics (self-ousting, for instance, or lunging or walling-up or any other choice of mechanisms provided by the game to choose when in a position where none of the choices gets you closer (or further) from the goals of the game). > Likewise, you > don't play chess when you throw chess pieces at your opponent. :) Again non-sequitur. The allowable movements of the pieces do not include throwing them.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:50:53 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > >Pascal wrote: >> On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> >> >> >> Any series of ingame actions whether it`s bleeding for 1 or >> >> transferring out is playing the game. >> >Playing *what* game? >> Vtes, what else? >I refuse to call a game of revenge, a game of helping one's friends/ >hurting his enemies, or a game of "let me get out" VTES. Likewise, you >don't play chess when you throw chess pieces at your opponent. :) Selfousting is actually part of the game and covered by the rules. Throwing stuff at your opponent is not. Here is my argument again: Playing the game mean performing a series of ingame actions. Selfousting is accomplished via ingame actions. Thus, selfousting is playing the game. >> >> >> >> >Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the >> >> >rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- >> >> >logical. >> >> Please outline your reasoning. >> >It was outlined several times before. When a player cannot get even a >> >single VP, he still should have some option of leaving the game >> >without self-ousting and other "crazy" behaviour. >> Why is selfousting any more "crazy" than not selfousting? >Because not being ousted is one of the major goals of each player, >while self-ousting is just a trick to avoid waiting until someone >ousts you. The goal is to play in a way that maximizes VP/ secures a gamewin. You complaining about people doing that by selfousting is no different that you complaining about people doing it by bleeding for 1. You just have a stronger emotional response to one of these things. >> >> No, what i would consider a psychological component would be >> predicting how other players will react to your ingame actions. >> For example, by assigning you krc damage, bleeding you with kindred >> spirits or self-ousting. >I just assume that all players are playing to win, and they aren't >stupid. Thus, they can understand what is good for them and what >isn't. That is a good base assumption. Thus you have answered your own question below about how to play with people you don`t know. During the course of the game you will likely learn specifics about each player. > I'd bet that most players make decision of self-ousting mostly >from personal preferences. I`d bet that people choose between equally valid options mostly based on personal preferences. Not just in vtes, but everywhere. >> >> > At >> >> >large tournaments you may meet a lot of new players: how can you >> >> >predict their behaviour? Even if you can, what you can do if your game >> >> >interests require disabling these players? >> >> >> >> Adapt your gameplan or learn to live with the consequences. >> >In other words, you have nothing to say :) >> >> In other words, you have no rebuttal . As usual. >You should say something to rebute first :) I have. These are the options you have in this situation. It is that simple. If you believe that disabling the player(s) will harm your chances of winning, don`t do it or do it in such a way that it minimizes harm for you. The reason you cannot rebut it is because i am correct. >"Adapt your gameplan" >isn't such thing, as this isn't tied to the discussion. >Imagine that there is a large pit on your street. You can "adapt your >lifestyle" to avoid falling into the pit, or even enjoy falling >there :) I simply prefer to get rid of the pit. So, how does this relate to this discussion? And what do you do if people point out the pit has a function you haven`t considered

On May 11, 8:36 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > There is clearly no way to prevent this *with the current rules*. > That's why I've suggested the change - please read the first post. > After changing the withdrawing rule and replacing the "desperate rule" > with the withdrawing option, Claire would just attempt to withdraw. If > the withdrawal succeeds, she will get 0.5 VP. This may even get her a > GW if she had 2 VPs before. Wait, are you actually saying that your proposed withdrawal rule does NOT include "you must be out of library cards"? If you must be out of cards, Claire is never, ever going to get to withdraw, because she's only able to discard one card a turn (and _maybe_ play a master card), so Alex will just bleed them both to death. If you do not have to be out of cards, players will be able to get game wins by virtue of declaring a withdrawal before a game is lost (For instance: Alex has 2 VP, Bob has zero, and an eliminated player has 1 VP. Alex and Bob both have fairly defendable positions. Alex wins if he withdraws, and it's a LOT easier to withdraw under your rules than it is to oust Bob; Alex just has to not have a minion go to torpor, basically.) -John Flournoy

On May 11, 7:12 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > For me, "play" is "play to win". Playing for 0 VPs isn't playing VTES > anymore - it's playing a childish game called "kill me please". This argument appears to be stemming from this line. You do not believe it to be part of VTES. A majority of others apparently do. A significant part of managing a winning game is make sure your opponent always has a chance (by not killing their last minion or other similar restraint) of winning, encouraging them to attempt to win rather than seeing their position as hopeless. > players don't care about earning more VPs - zero is always guaranteed. > They only care about some personal convenience: revenge, "fun" or > simply getting away as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason > of allowing such things to spoil the game for the other players. The other player put that player into the losing position before they are able to take advantage of it. Not the losing player's fault, its the (in this example) combat deck's shortcoming. > Thus, Bob and Claire cannot really play - but, unfortunately, the > rules still allow them to determine the outcome, which is counter- > logical. Its assumed in a multiplayer game where there is one winner and may losers that actions other than the eventual winner's will contribute in determining the outcome of the game. Its unavoidable, and its perfectly logical, but you do not see it. I do not know how to explain it to you any better than that. It is, and always will be (given the current direction), part of the game. > Your words "he did not play well" mean that you also think that each > player is responsible of "leaving some hope" to every other player he > interacts, except for his prey. This is a very weak position, since: > a). Nobody usually controls the whole table. Alex could leave Claire 1 > ready vampire, but Bob still could torporize it later. If your actions > + actions of other players make somebody's situation hopeless, who is > to blame? If Bob torporizes the last minon does he not deserve that VP? If Clair transfers out she's giving it to the predator that removed he "last hope". Seems reasonable to me. And if Alex and Bob split the duties and Clair still transfers out? She's conceding that Bob did enough to oust her. She gets the *Choice*. >The stupid "desperate > ruling" almost *always* causes a violent discussion at the table. No discussion. Call a judge. Judge's decision stands. Anyone raises their voice at a judge, warning, DQ, problem solved. Unless the judge permits it (ie its within his judgment of acceptable behavior). In casual games, who cares? Why are you even keeping score in a casual game, its meaningless. > Even if you can, what you can do if your game > interests require disabling these players? If your game plan involves totally destroying your predator, to the point that they transfer out, then you need a better game plan. This is not something that needs changing, its an important facet of the game. You need to not totally destroy your predator because you're fully aware that they may transfer out if you do. Or play rapid thought, because as long as you're the last person standing, you win. John P. Winnipeg

On May 11, 4:11 pm, "John P." <jtpatt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 7:12 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > For me, "play" is "play to win". Playing for 0 VPs isn't playing VTES > > anymore - it's playing a childish game called "kill me please". > > This argument appears to be stemming from this line. You do not > believe it to be part of VTES. A majority of others apparently do. A > significant part of managing a winning game is make sure your opponent > always has a chance (by not killing their last minion or other similar > restraint) of winning, encouraging them to attempt to win rather than > seeing their position as hopeless. "In surrounding the enemy, leave him an escape route; do not press a cornered enemy." - some VTES player from 2500 years ago

On May 11, 1:47 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > A few months ago, there was a very long thread discussing a similar > topic. In this thread LSJ confirmed to me that once you have no > chance of gaining additional VPs, you are free to play arbritrarily, > and it is technically sportsmanlike. That means that you can help > your friend and hurt your enemy based completely on your out-of-game > feelings for them as long as you have decided that you cannot gain any > more VPs. > > After learning this, I was really turned off by the game. LSJ has > steadfastly refused to give guidance on how to act in these "no-more > VPs" situations, and I have seen the posts of other top VTES players > who believe there should be no defined way to act in "hopeless" > situations. I've read things like "Self-ousting is just another way > to earn your maximum 0 VPs." and "Why punish a stealth-bleeder? That > is arbitrary." > > Like Martin I spent some "sleepless nights" thinking about this issue. > I tried to think of a way to act non-arbitrarily when I've reached a > hopeless situation in a game. In my opinion, and it is only an > opinion, arbitrary play comes down to "kingmaking" or "retaliation", > and it is unsportmanslike. > > My solution was to focus on tournament points when I can no longer > earn additional VPs. I know that tournament points are only for > tournaments, but I think that they could easily be part of the scoring > of casual games as well. To determine tournament points, you have to > rank the players in a game. If a player can no longer earn more VPs, > he can still act non-abitrarily to try to ensure that as few other > players are ranked above him as possible. > > It is an easy system of "ethics" for players in "hopeless" situations. > It's not necessarily pretty - for example, helping an aggressive > predator sweep the table might be the only way for a player to ensure > maximum tournament points. It is also easy to misjudge when things > are hopeless. > > If the official rules made tournament points part of the scoring for > casual games, and if the rules said you have to play to maximize your > tournament points after you have maximized your victory points, I > think it would make the game more enjoyable and clear up a lot of > questions about what constitutes sportmanslike play. Aaron, I have thought long and hard about transferring out as well. In the end the mechanics allow it, but players' ideas about sportsmanship end up deciding who will/will not do it. This thread has been a long read with people asserting the same ideas again and again. In the end, the rules allow self ousting for whatever reason the player who is self ousting chooses (even when it is not PTW since there is so much ambiguity there, assuming the player has a 1st grader's ability to lie). So arguing on both sides is really moot. There have been arguments that changing the rules to disallow self ousting will cause problems. I don't really see the problems. If you solely modify the rules to say "a Methuselah may not spend his/her last pool" then you still have the "self-ousting" mechanic in the game. It now would merely require your predator to actually take an action. Sure in a few instances your predator would not be able to bleed you/vote/etc you for 1, but I feel that this would be a rare occurrence. What do you really loose her in this modification? You do not loose the ability to pick up your cards and walk away (as anyone can just do this anytime they want and say to hell with the rules). You can easily transfer down to 1 pool and walk away stating your decision not to affect the game anymore. You still get the ability to punish your prey for betting you up or not giving you the chance to win. You still maintain the ability to choose to not play the game. You retain the ability to "give your predator a present". I am just curious what the real effects of a change like this would have on game play/player's fun. Are the majority of players really going to go, "I can't transfer out anymore!!!! OMG I'm not playing this CCG anymore" or are the majority of players going to go, "well this change does limit my options as a player some more, but I can live with the changes". I feel like this is the key question is here, not whether or not self-ousting is allowed/good, but whether players would be willing to accept its removal from the game. Jeff Poole

[ quoted text not captured ] > Jeff Poole- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Jeff, I would argue that self-ousting may be sportsmanlike in a tournament if it helps you maximize your tournament points. During the NAC 2009 First Chance Qualifier, John Flournoy was my predator in one game, and he self-ousted to Bill Troxel's very cruel allies rush/ weenie Auspex deck. This gave Bill the time to oust me as well. In this case, John knew he would be ousted, so he acted to try to make sure as few other players were ranked above him as possible, thus maximizing his tournament points. We both tied for last place, thus he got 6 more TP's than he otherwise would have. Of course, that might not be exactly what John was thinking. I'm just saying that self-ousting can be done out of calculation, not just out of spite, when you're playing for tournament points. That said, I don't like self-ousting because, personally, I think it stinks. I might completely go forward and give my predator every opportunity to oust me because I'll end up better if he has a table sweep, but darn it, he has to do the work. You never know when things might change and you can play for half a victory point instead of zero. I would not be opposed to a rule that says you can't spend your last pool. I don't see it happening while LSJ is the VTES designer, though.

[ quoted text not captured ] Aaron, I agree with your personal distaste for self ousting (although sometimes I get so hosed in a game all I want to do is self oust). To comment on your example though, this sort of self-ousting to maximize your predators tournament points in order to get a better chance at the finals blah blah blah thing would still be extremely easy with the proposed change. Just transfer to 1 pool and say, "hey come and get your VP and 6 pools, all it will take is 1 bleed of 1". In the end though, you're right, I don't see this rule ever being implemented. LSJ seems to think the current incarnation of the rules which allows a Meth. to spend his/her last pool increases the fun and appeal of the card game. I don't buy the idea that it makes it fair/a better game/ etc, because in the end, the rules exist to facilitate a fun game between players. LSJ, by allowing this aspect into the game, is saying (at least to me) that the game is better served with this rule inclusion. Jeff Poole

On May 11, 7:35 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I agree with your personal distaste for self ousting (although > sometimes I get so hosed in a game all I want to do is self oust). To > comment on your example though, this sort of self-ousting to maximize > your predators tournament points in order to get a better chance at > the finals blah blah blah thing would still be extremely easy with the > proposed change. Just transfer to 1 pool and say, "hey come and get > your VP and 6 pools, all it will take is 1 bleed of 1". In the end > though, you're right, I don't see this rule ever being implemented. > LSJ seems to think the current incarnation of the rules which allows a > Meth. to spend his/her last pool increases the fun and appeal of the > card game. I don't buy the idea that it makes it fair/a better game/ > etc, because in the end, the rules exist to facilitate a fun game > between players. LSJ, by allowing this aspect into the game, is > saying (at least to me) that the game is better served with this rule > inclusion. Note that it is not a rule inclusion. There is no "self-oust" rule. Self-ousting is simply one example of how the rules on transfers (or on paying card costs and/or effect costs) can affect the game. That is, self-ousting is a natural consequence of the basic rules of the game, and continues to exist because of the absence of a rule banning it. Fun factor aside, an(other) reason a rule prohibiting self-ousting has not been added to the game is because such a rule would either be unteneble or be so watered down as to have no impact (much like one of the reasons "no VP deals" has not been added to the ruleset). That is, coming up with a concrete, loophole-free, devious-Methuselah- proof statement of a "no self-ousting" rule isn't possible (or at least, no one has ever produced such a wording) except in emasculated forms like "cannot spend once's last pool on transfers which simultaneously go too far (prevent "legitimate" play as described in this thread already) and have next to no impact (by still allowing a myriad of easy-to-accomplish ways to self-oust).

It's not just LSJ. I think most of the people in our play group would be against making self-ousting illegal. I think for many people, it is part of the fun. I'm not trying to be judgmental, I'm just stating a fact. The thing is, LSJ and others have argued that transferring out is no ethically different than "poolsacking", poolsacking being complete inaction in a game. Transferring out helps your predator, poolsacking helps your prey. The question becomes, if I can't play for more VP's, how do I play? Who do I help? My personal answer is to look at tournament points and final standings in the game. Many would argue that transferring out directly contradicts Play to Win, since in a timed game you can earn 0.5 VPs if you survive until the end of the game. If you tranfer out, you choose to give up this chance. I think this is a strong argument why transferring out is worse than poolsacking.

On May 11, 5:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On May 11, 7:35 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I agree with your personal distaste for self ousting (although > > sometimes I get so hosed in a game all I want to do is self oust). To > > comment on your example though, this sort of self-ousting to maximize > > your predators tournament points in order to get a better chance at > > the finals blah blah blah thing would still be extremely easy with the > > proposed change. Just transfer to 1 pool and say, "hey come and get > > your VP and 6 pools, all it will take is 1 bleed of 1". In the end > > though, you're right, I don't see this rule ever being implemented. > > LSJ seems to think the current incarnation of the rules which allows a > > Meth. to spend his/her last pool increases the fun and appeal of the > > card game. I don't buy the idea that it makes it fair/a better game/ > > etc, because in the end, the rules exist to facilitate a fun game > > between players. LSJ, by allowing this aspect into the game, is > > saying (at least to me) that the game is better served with this rule > > inclusion. > > Note that it is not a rule inclusion. There is no "self-oust" rule. > Self-ousting is simply one example of how the rules on transfers (or > on paying card costs and/or effect costs) can affect the game. The minutia on inclusion/exclusion is not lost on me, although it is rather irrelevant to the discussion. > That is, self-ousting is a natural consequence of the basic rules of > the game, and continues to exist because of the absence of a rule > banning it. > > Fun factor aside, an(other) reason a rule prohibiting self-ousting has > not been added to the game is because such a rule would either be > unteneble or be so watered down as to have no impact (much like one of > the reasons "no VP deals" has not been added to the ruleset). > > That is, coming up with a concrete, loophole-free, devious-Methuselah- > proof statement of a "no self-ousting" rule isn't possible (or at > least, no one has ever produced such a wording) except in emasculated > forms like "cannot spend once's last pool on transfers which > simultaneously go too far (prevent "legitimate" play as described in > this thread already) and have next to no impact (by still allowing a > myriad of easy-to-accomplish ways to self-oust). And here is where the issue comes from. To me, the exclusion of a rule disallowing a Methuselah from spending/transferring his or her last pool, is more of an untendable, disruptive influence on the game than a rule that disallowed such behavior. Yes, clever Methuselahs could still call a KRC and place pool damage on themselves, rush an opponent with their Famed minion whilst at 1 pool and send themselves to torpor somehow, or any other ways of "self-ousting". The biggest issue with using transfers to oust ones self is that there is almost nothing other players can do about it. VtES is a multi-player game where almost every other aspect of the game can be influenced by other players (eagle sights, boons, etc). Short of having a life boon or two in your hand, there is next to nothing you can do to prevent a Methuselah from ousting himself. I would at least like to see Methuselahs have to transfer down to one pool and force another player to oust them, thus allowing time for other players to react (call a con boon for them, eagle sight, etc). To me a rule stating a Methuselah could not spend or transfer away their last pool is pretty solid. Solid as a rule such as no repeat action or not being able to play the same action modifier/reaction card more than once in an action per minion. The real problem is, as I stated in my previous post, whether or not the majority of players would think this is a good addition to the rules or not.

[ quoted text not captured ] > would think this is a good addition to the rules or not.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Jeff, your thinking here is accurate. I can see the validity of LSJ's comment that forbidding the last transfer is somewhat irrelevant, since doing so makes being ousted so easy. However, the table can do a lot to prevent a player with one pool from being ousted by his predator. There is only one corner case way to prevent a self-oust. I would say that this lack of options leads to a less-rich playing experience. As you say, it comes down to a question of preference.

Jeff Poole wrote: > On May 11, 1:47 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "a Methuselah may not spend his/her > last pool" then you still have the "self-ousting" mechanic in the > game. If I have 1 pool left and take a Vast Wealth action and come up .44 and only have .44's in the deck, did I break a rule? best - chris

On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:21:32 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Poole <Perr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > And here is where the issue comes from. To me, the exclusion of a > rule disallowing a Methuselah from spending/transferring his or her > last pool, is more of an untendable, disruptive influence on the game > than a rule that disallowed such behavior. Transferring one's last pool could be artificially prohibited but there would be no gain. The change would be minimal (so why bother adding a rule). The change would be mostly meaningless (as in the majority of cases self-ousting would still be uninhibited). The change wouldn't close the debate, because people will come up with additional small ways how to meaninglessly alter the game to suit their taste - e.g. by coming up with rules ideas like: "When setting the terms of a referendum, if the referendum has variable terms, and those terms can be set in a way that the controller of the acting minion is reduced below 1 pool, and also can be set in a way that the controller of the acting minion is not reduced below 1 pool, then the terms must be set in a way that the controller of the acting minion is not reduced below 1 pool." Of course, this would prevent gaining a GW every now and then, but I guess inhibiting play to win is a small sacrafice to make when one can get one step closer to eradicate a specific type of rare and usually impactless annoying behaviour. :) I'd suggest to just drop the topic. Self-ousting (in any form) is a symptom, fix the cause in play, and you won't encounter the effect. V:tES is a game. Everyone should have fun playing it. If you ensure that everyone has fun, even those who aren't winning, then the motivation to self-oust will be much less. If you go for decks that don't fully lock down the table, but tries to win while still allow people to play their decks, the motivation to self-oust will be even less. I think hindering self-ousting in any way would make the game less fun because of the above. Those people who think the game is only fun when they win should consider playing something else, e.g. 1D Tetris: http://www.tetris1d.org/ -- Regards, Daneel

On May 11, 8:21 pm, Jeff Poole <Perrin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > To me a rule stating a Methuselah could not spend or transfer away > their last pool is pretty solid. if I spend my last 4 pool to play The Eternals of Sirius, gaining me 5 pool instantly and keeping me in the game, have I broken the self- ousting rule? oops, disqualified! banned for cheating! and what about scenarios where you were going to lose that last pool anyway? let's say I'm at 3 pool, and I fail to prevent a bleed of 4. Nobody uses eagle's sight. I have an Archon Investigation in hand, though. would such a rule prevent me from burning that minion out of spite? or how about being at 1 pool, Tension in the Ranks is in play, and my vampire is stuck in a bad combat and definitely going to torpor. can I spend my last pool to play Direct Intervention on my opponent's Soak card? just to make him take one last point of damage, out of spite. Oh wait, there's an arbitrary rule telling me that I'm free to spend/ squander my first 29 pool as I see fit, but that last point of vampiric influence is off limits, even to make a "noble" sacrifice. nuts.

[ quoted text not captured ] Changing a goal of playing is enough to make the game totally different. Imagine you're playing chess and follow all the rules, but your goal isn't to checkmate the opponent, but to promote one of your pawns. This would NOT be chess anymore. Likewise, playing for 0 VP is NOT a VTES anymore, since playing VTES normally means having a goal of getting GW or maximum VPs.

[ quoted text not captured ] You definitely not to have be out of cards, since withdrawal should be available to every player in desperate situation. Thanks a lot for your note about getting easy GWs! Let's just add clause "You cannot attempt to withdraw if you have more VPs than all players at that table (including ousted players)". This would be logical: the currently winning Methuselah is very unlikely to withdraw, even if he has no reasonable chances of getting more VPs. Self-ousting should still be prohibited, though. What should Claire do if she had 2 VPs? Naturally, play for the 0,5 VPs she could gain after the time ends. As long as she potentially could get GW, playing for 0 VP would be even more silly than usual.

[ quoted text not captured ] Surely, it's impossible to prohibit "0VP behaviour" once it's obvious that the player has no chances of getting even 0.5 VP. That is the reason of my withdrawal rule. Give the players a way of getting 0.5 VPs, even in a desperate situation, and then you can force them to play for these 0.5. Let me summarize the pros and cons of the current situation compared to proposed rules changing (in my point of view, of course): 1). The "0VP behaviour" enables even almost-cheating thinks like attacking crosstable players (even players completely not responsible for the desperate situation) just to help somebody's friends. And the rules don't prohibit this, which is obviously bad for the game. 2). The "0VP behaviour" drastically differs from the usual behaviour of VTES players, as all VTES players are trying to get more VPs than they currently have, and they're trying to avoid being ousted. Having one player pursuing different goals from the goals of other players is definitely bad for the game. 3). The announcement of "desperate situation" can be made at any time which makes it completely sudden and doesn't allow other players to react. For instance, if my last action was blocked and my acting vampire got into torpor, I may decide that my situation became desperate and immediately self-oust. My withdrawal suggestion at least gives the other players a turn, which is obviously better. 4). The proposed withdrawal can be interrupted by the other players, the self-ousting cannot. No chance of interaction is always bad for the game, you know. 5). The "desperate announcement" causes violent debates almost every time - each player has his own point of view on whether the situation is really desperate. Due to the abovementioned reasons, the withdrawal announcement is much less likely to cause debates and/or these debates aren't going to be as violent. 6). Prohibiting self-ousting will make the decks that relying on disabling predator's minions (i.e. rush decks) more attractive, which is definitely good for the game, as this will increase the variety of winning strategies. For me, these 6 things are more than enough to accept the suggested rules change. And I really don't see any "contra" arguments, besides the keeping status quo.

On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:29:34 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >Let me summarize the pros and cons of the current situation compared >to proposed rules changing (in my point of view, of course): > >1). The "0VP behaviour" enables even almost-cheating thinks like >attacking crosstable players (even players completely not responsible >for the desperate situation) just to help somebody's friends. And the >rules don't prohibit this, which is obviously bad for the game. a) There are many ways to affect crosstable players. b) The actual interaction of the selfoust is not with a crosstable player but with your current predator. >2). The "0VP behaviour" drastically differs from the usual behaviour >of VTES players, as all VTES players are trying to get more VPs than >they currently have, and they're trying to avoid being ousted. Having >one player pursuing different goals from the goals of other players is >definitely bad for the game. This is wrong, as shown several times throughout this thread. And, just as an aside, the players are allways going have different goals from each other. They are, after all, each playing to win. >3). The announcement of "desperate situation" can be made at any time >which makes it completely sudden and doesn't allow other players to >react. For instance, if my last action was blocked and my acting >vampire got into torpor, I may decide that my situation became >desperate and immediately self-oust. My withdrawal suggestion at least >gives the other players a turn, which is obviously better. So what? A desperate lunge or a surprise oust can similiarly be announced at any time. Any sort of behavior can. There is no "fair warning" clause in the rules. >4). The proposed withdrawal can be interrupted by the other players, >the self-ousting cannot. No chance of interaction is always bad for >the game, you know. See above. the interaction is there it is just with the current predator.You have no claim to crosstable VPs. >5). The "desperate announcement" causes violent debates almost every >time - each player has his own point of view on whether the situation >is really desperate. Due to the abovementioned reasons, the withdrawal >announcement is much less likely to cause debates and/or these debates >aren't going to be as violent. Anything in the game has the potential to cause debates and ultimatly it is the judges call. This is quite common for issues relating to the play to win rule. >6). Prohibiting self-ousting will make the decks that relying on >disabling predator's minions (i.e. rush decks) more attractive, which >is definitely good for the game, as this will increase the variety of >winning strategies. No Offense, but excessive puppetmastering and decks which play against the entire table are both bad for the game. These Things undermine the predator-prey relationship which is central to the game. In fact, I`d say those archetypes being strengthend would actually lessen deck diversity. > >For me, these 6 things are more than enough to accept the suggested >rules change. And I really don't see any "contra" arguments, besides >the keeping status quo. Since each of your arguments has been fundamentally flawed, no real counterarguments were necessary. Your entire position is simply based on an emotional response to the possibility of selfoust, stemming from the misguided notion that crippling a player crosstable/ your predator somehow gives you a claim on that persons VP. It does not, in the same way actually ousting someone crosstable/ backousting them does not. During the course of this debate you have so far mostly been interested in Hyperbole, increasingly moronic examples, insuating that selfousting is somehow cheating and those defending are themselves cheaters, as well as pimping your proposed change to the withdrawal rules instead of actually adressing the underlying arguments and issues. Get out.

Pascal wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 01:29:34 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > >Let me summarize the pros and cons of the current situation compared > >to proposed rules changing (in my point of view, of course): > > > >1). The "0VP behaviour" enables even almost-cheating thinks like > >attacking crosstable players (even players completely not responsible > >for the desperate situation) just to help somebody's friends. And the > >rules don't prohibit this, which is obviously bad for the game. > a) There are many ways to affect crosstable players. > b) The actual interaction of the selfoust is not with a crosstable > player but with your current predator. a). In normal circumstances players are bound to PTW. After declaring themselves helpless, they are free to do anything (check the rulings if you don't believe me). b). We're talking not only about self-ousting, but about the "desperate rulings" as a whole. The "desperate" player CAN attack other players crosstable and to everything he wants. > >2). The "0VP behaviour" drastically differs from the usual behaviour > >of VTES players, as all VTES players are trying to get more VPs than > >they currently have, and they're trying to avoid being ousted. Having > >one player pursuing different goals from the goals of other players is > >definitely bad for the game. > This is wrong, as shown several times throughout this thread. > And, just as an aside, the players are allways going have different > goals from each other. They are, after all, each playing to win. All normal players have similar goals: get GW or maximizing VPs. Rules *prohibit* pursuing other goals. The only case when player can legally break that rule is the "desperate situation". > > >3). The announcement of "desperate situation" can be made at any time > >which makes it completely sudden and doesn't allow other players to > >react. For instance, if my last action was blocked and my acting > >vampire got into torpor, I may decide that my situation became > >desperate and immediately self-oust. My withdrawal suggestion at least > >gives the other players a turn, which is obviously better. > So what? A desperate lunge or a surprise oust can similiarly be > announced at any time. Any sort of behavior can. > There is no "fair warning" clause in the rules. Lack of interaction between players (i.e. "I do this and nobody can stop me") is always bad for the game. You'd know that if you'd try to design at least one game :) > >4). The proposed withdrawal can be interrupted by the other players, > >the self-ousting cannot. No chance of interaction is always bad for > >the game, you know. > See above. the interaction is there it is just with the current > predator.You have no claim to crosstable VPs. See above yourself about players' interaction. > > >5). The "desperate announcement" causes violent debates almost every > >time - each player has his own point of view on whether the situation > >is really desperate. Due to the abovementioned reasons, the withdrawal > >announcement is much less likely to cause debates and/or these debates > >aren't going to be as violent. > Anything in the game has the potential to cause debates and ultimatly > it is the judges call. This is quite common for issues relating to the > play to win rule. Still, the rules that are less likely to generate debates are better than the rules that are more likely. Isn't that obvious? > >6). Prohibiting self-ousting will make the decks that relying on > >disabling predator's minions (i.e. rush decks) more attractive, which > >is definitely good for the game, as this will increase the variety of > >winning strategies. > No Offense, but excessive puppetmastering and decks which play against > the entire table are both bad for the game. > These Things undermine the predator-prey relationship which is central > to the game. > In fact, I`d say those archetypes being strengthend would actually > lessen deck diversity. This is just the empty words. Disabling other player's minions isn't easy and never going to be easy, so such decks are never going to "play against the whole tables" or "undermine predator-prey relationships". > > > >For me, these 6 things are more than enough to accept the suggested > >rules change. And I really don't see any "contra" arguments, besides > >the keeping status quo. > > Since each of your arguments has been fundamentally flawed, no real > counterarguments were necessary. > Your entire position is simply based on an emotional response to the > possibility of selfoust, stemming from the misguided notion that > crippling a player crosstable/ your predator somehow gives you a claim > on that persons VP. > It does not, in the same way actually ousting someone crosstable/ > backousting them does not. > > During the course of this debate you have so far mostly been > interested in Hyperbole, increasingly moronic examples, insuating that > selfousting is somehow cheating and those defending are themselves > cheaters, as well as pimping your proposed change to the withdrawal > rules instead of actually adressing the underlying arguments and > issues. > > Get out. Since you're deliberately refuse to think about the things I'm saying, you repeatingly present moronic babbling instead of arguments, and your tone is far more aggressive that is allowed in the civilized discussion, YOU are the person who should "get out". I'm the thread starter, after all. Please don't write here anymore.

On May 12, 5:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > a). In normal circumstances players are bound to PTW. After declaring > themselves helpless, they are free to do anything (check the rulings > if you don't believe me). In all circumstances players are bound to PTW. The players' own declarations of helplessness carry zero weight and have no bearing whatsoever (check the rulings if you don't believe me). As stated too many times in this thread alone (not to mention the large body of statements elsewhere), when the best you can do is 0 VP, then self-ousting is PTW, just as futile lunging is and futile walling up is and every other activity or inactivity (all of which are futile) are. > All normal players have similar goals: get GW or maximizing VPs. Rules > *prohibit* pursuing other goals. > The only case when player can legally break that rule is the > "desperate situation". The player can never legally break the rule. > Lack of interaction between players (i.e. "I do this and nobody can > stop me") is always bad for the game. You'd know that if you'd try to > design at least one game :) "I do this and nobody can stop me" does not equal "lack of interaction". See also moving a pawn. Or choosing Craftsman in Puerto Rico. Etc. And you seem to be ignoring Life Boon, too boot. > > Get out. > > Since you're deliberately refuse to think about the things I'm saying, > you repeatingly present moronic babbling instead of arguments, and > your tone is far more aggressive that is allowed in the civilized > discussion, YOU are the person who should "get out". I'm the thread > starter, after all. Please don't write here anymore. Good point about civility. (Also good advice about thinking about things that are said.)

[ quoted text not captured ] Flawed analogy. Noone PLAYS for 0VP. If forced into an untenable situation, just like Chess, you can resign from the match. And just like Chess, there are certain rules that you must adhere to. VTES has slightly more complicated rules, due to it being a multiplayer game. Morgan Vening

LSJ wrote: > On May 12, 5:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > a). In normal circumstances players are bound to PTW. After declaring > > themselves helpless, they are free to do anything (check the rulings > > if you don't believe me). > > In all circumstances players are bound to PTW. Technically, yes. Actually, being bound to play for 0VP is no bound at all. You know better than me that if the judge confirmed that some player is really desperate, that player may do *everything*. Including acting crosstable just because he doesn't like that crosstable player. > The players' own declarations of helplessness carry zero weight and > have no bearing whatsoever (check the rulings if you don't believe > me). OK. Let's talk about the situations where player's declaration is approved by the judge. This changes nothing in our discussion. > As stated too many times in this thread alone (not to mention the > large body of statements elsewhere), when the best you can do is 0 VP, > then self-ousting is PTW, just as futile lunging is and futile walling > up is and every other activity or inactivity (all of which are futile) > are. Yes, I know the rule, though I hate it with passion. But we aren't talking about passions here, aren't we? > > All normal players have similar goals: get GW or maximizing VPs. Rules > > *prohibit* pursuing other goals. > > The only case when player can legally break that rule is the > > "desperate situation". > > The player can never legally break the rule. If the word "maximizing" means what it usually means in mathematics, then he can. Because every player has some above-zero chance of getting 0.5 VP if there is time limit (which is present at most tournaments). Thus, his expected outcome from the game is above zero. Thus, self-ousting is playing AGAINST maximizing the expected number of VPs. I completely understand the reasons of introducing the "reasonable chances" rulings and even the "desperate rulings". Just wanted to point out that the suggested changes would make the rules better even from mathematical point of view :) > > Lack of interaction between players (i.e. "I do this and nobody can > > stop me") is always bad for the game. You'd know that if you'd try to > > design at least one game :) > > "I do this and nobody can stop me" does not equal "lack of > interaction". > See also moving a pawn. Or choosing Craftsman in Puerto Rico. Etc. Moving a pawn is a turn. In chess, interaction normally happens by making turns. Should somebody invent a house rule allowing a player to make 3 turns in a row, that would lead to the lack of interaction. In VTES, there are many different layers of interaction. Each card may be canceled, each action may be blocked, voting may be thwarted or Delayed, and bleed may be bounced. Transferring out, however, can be prevented only by Life Boon, which obviously is a lack of interaction, considering the impact of self- ousting on the game. And even Life Boon is quite a weak solution, as you spend a lot of resources (a master card and some pool), while nothing prevents that Methuselah from self-ousting on the next turn. > > > Get out. > > > > Since you're deliberately refuse to think about the things I'm saying, > > you repeatingly present moronic babbling instead of arguments, and > > your tone is far more aggressive that is allowed in the civilized > > discussion, YOU are the person who should "get out". I'm the thread > > starter, after all. Please don't write here anymore. > > Good point about civility. > > (Also good advice about thinking about things that are said.) Thanks a lot! I really hope to learn something even if I fail to convince you :)

[ quoted text not captured ] The analogy was only about the goals of the game, so it isn't flawed. No game should allow playing without a goal at all, as happens now in VTES after the player was declared "desperate". Obviously, resigning is the best solution for desperate situations, but in VTES it's inappropriate, since the game doesn't end after the player resigns, and the resign would inevitably provide too much of advantage for some players while the other players would be hosed. That's why we need to invent other mechanics.

On May 12, 6:54 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > On May 12, 5:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > a). In normal circumstances players are bound to PTW. After declaring > > > themselves helpless, they are free to do anything (check the rulings > > > if you don't believe me). > > > In all circumstances players are bound to PTW. > > Technically, yes. Actually, being bound to play for 0VP is no bound at > all. You know better than me that if the judge confirmed that some > player is really desperate, that player may do *everything*. Including > acting crosstable just because he doesn't like that crosstable player. Sure. Just as the player who can only reasonably get 1VP is free to get 1VP in *any* way xe likes. Including acting crosstable just because he doesn't like that crosstable player. That is, when choosing between options that are equal from an in-game stance, then the only thing left to make the decision is out-of-game, by definition. You propose adding an artificial rule to change that (albeit only a little bit): namely, that one of the many options which are current equal in-game is to be arbitrarily prohibited (in-game). But the player is still allowed to futilely lunge (just because he doesn't like his prey) or futilely wall up (just because he doesn't like his predator) or futilely act cross-table (just because he doesn't like the crosstable player). The proposed rule change does nothing to alter or even address this. > > The players' own declarations of helplessness carry zero weight and > > have no bearing whatsoever (check the rulings if you don't believe > > me). > > OK. Let's talk about the situations where player's declaration is > approved by the judge. This changes nothing in our discussion. Well, it removes spurious propaganda from the discussion. You'll find that, for purposes of effecting change (vis a vis the PTO issue you've cited), it isn't a matter of "if we recruit enough people" or of propaganda. On the other hand, using language that shows an understanding of the facts of the issue and then building logically sound arguments on those facts is a much more promising path. > > As stated too many times in this thread alone (not to mention the > > large body of statements elsewhere), when the best you can do is 0 VP, > > then self-ousting is PTW, just as futile lunging is and futile walling > > up is and every other activity or inactivity (all of which are futile) > > are. > > Yes, I know the rule, though I hate it with passion. But we aren't > talking about passions here, aren't we? One of us isn't. > > > All normal players have similar goals: get GW or maximizing VPs. Rules > > > *prohibit* pursuing other goals. > > > The only case when player can legally break that rule is the > > > "desperate situation". > > > The player can never legally break the rule. > > If the word "maximizing" means what it usually means in mathematics, > then he can. No, he can't. > Because every player has some above-zero chance of > getting 0.5 VP if there is time limit (which is present at most > tournaments). Thus, his expected outcome from the game is above zero. > Thus, self-ousting is playing AGAINST maximizing the expected number > of VPs. No. Since you've opening the "any chance, reasonable or not" avenue, then that means we can play all sorts of games with the "mathematics" of the situation. The most common such game is Life Boon. Even self-ousting has some above-zero chance of getting a full VP (maybe even the GW) if you want to chase that rabbit. But, in actuality, where the exact percentages cannot be exactly known, the rules here (as elsewhere: US courts of law, etc.) use "reasonable". Reasonably. > I completely understand the reasons of introducing the "reasonable > chances" rulings and even the "desperate rulings". Just wanted to > point out that the suggested changes would make the rules better even > from mathematical point of view :) I also completely understand it, as we've been over so many times already. Just wanted to point out that the rule works just as well (and permits self-ousting) whether you use "reasonable" or not (as I've pointed out so many times in these discussions already). > > > Lack of interaction between players (i.e. "I do this and nobody can > > > stop me") is always bad for the game. You'd know that if you'd try to > > > design at least one game :) > > > "I do this and nobody can stop me" does not equal "lack of > > interaction". > > See also moving a pawn. Or choosing Craftsman in Puerto Rico. Etc. > > Moving a pawn is a turn. Right. Compare that to the spending of one transfer. > In chess, interaction normally happens by > making turns. Of course. The parallel is obvious (and, obviously, why I chose it). > Should somebody invent a house rule allowing a player to > make 3 turns in a row, that would lead to the lack of interaction. No. Indeed, one well-known variant involves white making the first move, followed by black making two moves, then white making two, and so on. http://www.chessvariants.org/multimove.dir/marseill.html This does not lead to a lack of interaction. And see also the 1, 2, 3, 4... move variant: http://www.chessvariants.org/multimove.dir/progressive.html (Both of these variants are "recognized" variants selected by the chessvariants.org editors http://www.chessvariants.com/rindex.html) > In VTES, there are many different layers of interaction. Each card may > be canceled, No. Some are not cancelable. e.g., crypt cards, convictions, cards played in alternate ways. > each action may be blocked, Some are not blockable. > voting may be thwarted or Some referendums may be passed automatically. > Delayed, and bleed may be bounced. Some bleeds cannot be bounced. > Transferring out, however, can be prevented only by Life Boon, which Yes, it can be prevented. Exactly. How many copies of Life Boon are there? > obviously is a lack of interaction, considering the impact of self- It is obviously interaction. > ousting on the game. It has no impact (none beyond say what lunging or walling would have). That is, it impacts the game only in the way that any game activity impacts the game. > And even Life Boon is quite a weak solution, as > you spend a lot of resources (a master card and some pool), while > nothing prevents that Methuselah from self-ousting on the next turn. That's just a matter of gray lines.

On May 12, 5:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > a). In normal circumstances players are bound to PTW. After declaring > themselves helpless, they are free to do anything (check the rulings > if you don't believe me). > b). We're talking not only about self-ousting, but about the > "desperate rulings" as a whole. The "desperate" player CAN attack > other players crosstable and to everything he wants. You seem to misunderstand what being in a "lost" position means--if someone can meaningfully interact with the table (i.e. call votes and pass them, attack people across table, do "everything he wants"), then they aren't in a "lost" position, and are bound by PTW. -Peter

On May 12, 6:54 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Technically, yes. Actually, being bound to play for 0VP is no bound at > all. You know better than me that if the judge confirmed that some > player is really desperate, that player may do *everything*. Including > acting crosstable just because he doesn't like that crosstable player. If a player can meaningfully interact with someone crosstable, they likely aren't in a "lost" position. And thus can't do what you seem to want to prevent them from doing. -Peter

On May 12, 7:09 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > The analogy was only about the goals of the game, so it isn't flawed. > No game should allow playing without a goal at all, as happens now in > VTES after the player was declared "desperate". Again, you seem to misunderstand what puts someone in a "lost" position. Being in a "lost" position does not mean being in a "desperate" position. Being in a "lost" position means you have no reasonable chance at getting a VP. Which generally means having no working minions, or being at 1 pool, no hope of defending yourself, and imminent death looming. When someone is in a truly lost position (not an imagined lost position where someone is in a lost position, "desperate", and can jump cross table and oust someone out of spite or something...), the only options people tend to have are: A) Sit there and wait to die. or B) Make themselves die. Which is roughly equivalent to resigning in chess (which is a possibility, just like self ousting is a possibility). -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] On the contrary, the proposed rule change does a lot to alter this. Firstly, every player gets a chance of getting 0.5 VPs in one turn. If he tries to withdraw (and he should try if there are no other options of getting VPs), he cannot self-oust and cannot act crosstable pursuing "out-of-game goals", since that would lessen his chances of getting these 0.5. Moreover, if a player tries to withdraw using my rule, his minions cannot perform directed actions at all! Did you actially read my initial proposal? I suggest not just prohibiting self-ousting, but providing the desperate players a way to play normally. > > > The players' own declarations of helplessness carry zero weight and > > > have no bearing whatsoever (check the rulings if you don't believe > > > me). > > > > OK. Let's talk about the situations where player's declaration is > > approved by the judge. This changes nothing in our discussion. > > Well, it removes spurious propaganda from the discussion. I must note that judges are people too, and if the judge didn't participate in the game and didn't observe the game for a long time, he is likely to know LESS about the game situation than the players. > You'll find that, for purposes of effecting change (vis a vis the PTO > issue you've cited), it isn't a matter of "if we recruit enough > people" or of propaganda. On the other hand, using language that shows > an understanding of the facts of the issue and then building logically > sound arguments on those facts is a much more promising path. I also think so, but people's support never hurts, right? > > > > All normal players have similar goals: get GW or maximizing VPs. Rules > > > > *prohibit* pursuing other goals. > > > > The only case when player can legally break that rule is the > > > > "desperate situation". > > > > > The player can never legally break the rule. > > > > If the word "maximizing" means what it usually means in mathematics, > > then he can. > > No, he can't. You just confirm that in this case VTES rules contradict mathematics and logic. Which simply cannot be good. > > Because every player has some above-zero chance of > > getting 0.5 VP if there is time limit (which is present at most > > tournaments). Thus, his expected outcome from the game is above zero. > > Thus, self-ousting is playing AGAINST maximizing the expected number > > of VPs. > > No. Since you've opening the "any chance, reasonable or not" avenue, > then that means we can play all sorts of games with the "mathematics" > of the situation. The most common such game is Life Boon. > > Even self-ousting has some above-zero chance of getting a full VP > (maybe even the GW) if you want to chase that rabbit. > > But, in actuality, where the exact percentages cannot be exactly > known, the rules here (as elsewhere: US courts of law, etc.) use > "reasonable". Reasonably. While the exact percentage cannot be exactly known, it's constantly evaluated, at least roughly, by the players and judges. I've always considered PTW as a requirement of maximizing the "average expected outcome" from the game. If we assume that GW "costs" something like 10VPs, then a player should prefer 50% of getting 2 VPs (and 50% chance of getting zero) to 5% chance of getting GW and 95% chance of getting zero. The average expected outcome is 1 VP in the first case and only 0.5 in the second. Even this oversimplistic model clearly shows that playing for 0VPs is *lowering* the expected outcome to zero and thereby should be illegal. Though self-ousting has some over-zero chance of getting Life Boon and winning, that chance is so small (AFAIK, Life Boons aren't extremely popular) that we can simply ignore it. Of course, in the real game the player can ask for Life Boon and try to self-oust if somebody promised to play it. > > Just wanted to point out that the rule works just as well (and permits > self-ousting) whether you use "reasonable" or not (as I've pointed out > so many times in these discussions already). If this is an argument like "don't change things that work", I have to repeat why I think that the proposed change is going to make the game better: 1). The "0VP behaviour" enables even almost-cheating thinks like attacking crosstable players (even players completely not responsible for the desperate situation) just to help somebody's friends. And the rules don't prohibit this, which is obviously bad for the game. 2). The "0VP behaviour" drastically differs from the usual behaviour of VTES players, as all VTES players are trying to get more VPs than they currently have, and they're trying to avoid being ousted. Having one player pursuing different goals from the goals of other players is definitely bad for the game. 3). The announcement of "desperate situation" can be made at any time which makes it completely sudden and doesn't allow other players to react. For instance, if my last action was blocked and my acting vampire got into torpor, I may decide that my situation became desperate and immediately self-oust. My withdrawal suggestion at least gives the other players a turn, which is obviously better. 4). The proposed withdrawal can be interrupted by the other players, the self-ousting cannot. No chance of interaction is always bad for the game, you know. 5). The "desperate announcement" causes violent debates almost every time - each player has his own point of view on whether the situation is really desperate. Due to the abovementioned reasons, the withdrawal announcement is much less likely to cause debates and/or these debates aren't going to be as violent. 6). Prohibiting self-ousting will make the decks that relying on disabling predator's minions (i.e. rush decks) more attractive, which is definitely good for the game, as this will increase the variety of winning strategies. With all respect, you didn't present any serious arguments to prove that current rulings are better than my suggestions. Yes, the current rulings work, but looks like my variant is going to work BETTER. > > > > Lack of interaction between players (i.e. "I do this and nobody can > > > > stop me") is always bad for the game. You'd know that if you'd try to > > > > design at least one game :) > > > > > "I do this and nobody can stop me" does not equal "lack of > > > interaction". > > > See also moving a pawn. Or choosing Craftsman in Puerto Rico. Etc. > > > > Moving a pawn is a turn. > > Right. Compare that to the spending of one transfer. I will do that happily :) If the desperate player could transfer only 1 pool, then in most situations he would need several turns to transfer out. That would give other players time to oust him, for instance. Following your analogy, transferring 4 pool per turn is like making 4 chess turns in a row :) Such game would obviously lack interaction! > > Should somebody invent a house rule allowing a player to > > make 3 turns in a row, that would lead to the lack of interaction. > > No. > > Indeed, one well-known variant involves white making the first move, > followed by black making two moves, then white making two, and so on. > > http://www.chessvariants.org/multimove.dir/marseill.html > > This does not lead to a lack of interaction. > > And see also the 1, 2, 3, 4... move variant: > http://www.chessvariants.org/multimove.dir/progressive.html > > (Both of these variants are "recognized" variants selected by the > chessvariants.org editors http://www.chessvariants.com/rindex.html) Guess why these variants are far less popular than the "normal" chess and even than some other chess variants? One of the main reasons is the lack of interaction. > > In VTES, there are many different layers of interaction. Each card may > > be canceled, > > No. Some are not cancelable. e.g., crypt cards, convictions, cards > played in alternate ways. > > > each action may be blocked, > > Some are not blockable. > > > voting may be thwarted or > > Some referendums may be passed automatically. > > > Delayed, and bleed may be bounced. > > Some bleeds cannot be bounced. Well, at least ALMOST all actions can be blocked or at least DIed, most referendums don't pass automatically, and so on. This provides the needed interaction. Actually, interaction is the game itself: a deck that could oust its preys with unblockable actions that couldn't be bounced or thwarted would be a broken deck. Having some interaction is good, having no chances to interrupt the important things is always bad for the game. I bet you know this even better than myself :) > > Transferring out, however, can be prevented only by Life Boon, which > > Yes, it can be prevented. Exactly. How many copies of Life Boon are > there? How many copies are actually played? I've found ONE deck with Life Boons in TWDA for the last year, and that deck won a 10-players tournament :) If the card isn't good enough to win tournaments, you may consider it nonexistant at all. > > obviously is a lack of interaction, considering the impact of self- > > It is obviously interaction. What is interaction? Having to pack Life Boons and keep them in hand until somebody gets ousted just to demonstrate that you can prevent it? You know better that myself that in 99.9% cases other players can't "interact". > > ousting on the game. > > It has no impact (none beyond say what lunging or walling would have). > That is, it impacts the game only in the way that any game activity > impacts the game. Far from it. Even if the player does nothing to protect his pool, somebody should spend some actions to oust him, which seriously differs from being granted a VP without any actions. Plus, most actions of his predator can be blocked, DIed, or thwarted by the other players, while almost nothing can stop self-ousting. Thus, every self- oust has serious impact on the game. Will we finally stop discussing minor things like interaction and return to the suggested rules changes?

On May 12, 9:59 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > You propose adding an artificial rule to change that (albeit only a > > little bit): namely, that one of the many options which are current > > equal in-game is to be arbitrarily prohibited (in-game). > > > But the player is still allowed to futilely lunge (just because he > > doesn't like his prey) or futilely wall up (just because he doesn't > > like his predator) or futilely act cross-table (just because he > > doesn't like the crosstable player). > > > The proposed rule change does nothing to alter or even address this. > > On the contrary, the proposed rule change does a lot to alter this. > Firstly, every player gets a chance of getting 0.5 VPs in one turn. If > he tries to withdraw (and he should try if there are no other options > of getting VPs), he cannot self-oust and cannot act crosstable > pursuing "out-of-game goals", since that would lessen his chances of > getting these 0.5. Moreover, if a player tries to withdraw using my > rule, his minions cannot perform directed actions at all! > > Did you actially read my initial proposal? I suggest not just > prohibiting self-ousting, but providing the desperate players a way to > play normally. Yes, I read it. And I notice that it does not make it so that a player can never be in a lost position. Just as the prospect of 0.5 VP for going to time doesn't mean that under the current rules a player can never be in a lost position. It is easy to be in a position where the player cannot hope to meet the conditions in your rule for successful withdrawal before that player is ousted. Your rule has the player forced to hunt with every minion, making it even easier (needing just a block rather than a rush to get a new vampire into torpor). > > > > > All normal players have similar goals: get GW or maximizing VPs. Rules > > > > > *prohibit* pursuing other goals. > > > > > The only case when player can legally break that rule is the > > > > > "desperate situation". > > > > > The player can never legally break the rule. > > > > If the word "maximizing" means what it usually means in mathematics, > > > then he can. > > > No, he can't. > > You just confirm that in this case VTES rules contradict mathematics > and logic. Which simply cannot be good. No, I just confirmed that in this case the VTES rules conform to the math and logic. And it's just fine that way. > > Just wanted to point out that the rule works just as well (and permits > > self-ousting) whether you use "reasonable" or not (as I've pointed out > > so many times in these discussions already). > > If this is an argument like "don't change things that work", It isn't. > With all respect, you didn't present any serious arguments to prove > that current rulings are better than my suggestions. Yes, the current > rulings work, but looks like my variant is going to work BETTER. With all due respect, you haven't presented any serious arguments to prove that your suggestions are any better than the current rules. Sure, they could work, but looks like the current rules work BETTER. > > Right. Compare that to the spending of one transfer. > > I will do that happily :) If the desperate player could transfer only > 1 pool, then in most situations he would need several turns to > transfer out. That would give other players time to oust him, for > instance. ? He can spend only one pool per transfer. > Following your analogy, transferring 4 pool per turn is like making 4 > chess turns in a row :) Such game would obviously lack interaction! ? No, it isn't. No more than moving rook from A1 to A8 is like making 7 chess turns in a row. Really, it's the spurious smoke and mirrors that you keep knocking in the path that is the biggest impediment to discussing your points. > Guess why these variants are far less popular than the "normal" chess > and even than some other chess variants? One of the main reasons is > the lack of interaction. [citation needed] Know why the obviously-better-than chess variants are far less popular than chess? There's a huge body of organization, highly-trained and practices players, a reference literature for chess.

[ quoted text not captured ] Unfortunately, you are wrong. Having "no reasonable chances of getting VPs" isn't the same as "cannot interact with someone". There were many situations when a player had 5-6 ready minions, some of them could rush, but it was obvious that his grandpredator is going to oust his predator and himself on the next turn. > Again, you seem to misunderstand what puts someone in a "lost" > position. Being in a "lost" position does not mean being in a > "desperate" position. Being in a "lost" position means you have no > reasonable chance at getting a VP. Which generally means having no > working minions, or being at 1 pool, no hope of defending yourself, > and imminent death looming. I would be happy if LSJ confirmed your words about the definition of "no reasonable chances of getting VPs". Our players tend to consider a lot of situations where a player has several ready vampires "the lost positions" just because they don't see the ways of getting the VPs.

[ quoted text not captured ] Confirmed: Being in a lost position means you have no reasonable chance at getting a VP, not even a half a VP, or indeed anything more than 0 VP, for the remainder of the game. Being in a truly lost position is rare (except just before you're ousted, of course). http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ea9aa7de2349889a http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e8eeaae08d5d5ac1 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/980daea3e1e918ee

On May 12, 10:25 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Unfortunately, you are wrong. Having "no reasonable chances of getting > VPs" isn't the same as "cannot interact with someone". Whether or not you are in a truly "lost" position is something that requires judgement. Which conveniently, there are judges for. But if someone can meaningfully interact with the table, as a judge, it is unlikely that I would agree with them being in a truly "lost" position. > There were many > situations when a player had 5-6 ready minions, some of them could > rush, but it was obvious that his grandpredator is going to oust his > predator and himself on the next turn. And yet I would be hard pressed to judge someone in such a position to be in a truly "lost" position--his grand predator could get hamstrung. His predator could have ways to live. Someone has to be in *really* bad shape to be arguably in a truly "lost" position, such that they are enabled to oust themselves. Someone with 5-6 ready minions? Not likely in a truly "lost" position, even if the table looks like it will fall that way. See, your whole argument here seems to be based on you imagining that someone in a truly "lost" position has a lot more room to move than they should. Which makes a lot of the argument not work. I certainly can see your argument about someone with zero ready minions and 1 pool, and how you don't think it is ok that they can transfer themselves out. Such a person is probably in a truly "lost" position, and I can see how someone might want to invent rules to prevent someone in that situation from transferring out. I don't necessarily agree with that idea, but at least I see where it is coming from. On the other hand, your example of "someone has 5-6 ready minions and can rush across table and affect the game, but is in a "lost" position, so they can act crazy!" holds not at all much water. Why is someone with 5-6 ready minions in a truly lost position? And if they can rush cross table and affect the game, why are they acting crazy, rather than rushing the grand predator who is about to oust them (as per your example)? This could suddenly turn their bad position into a good one (and rushing the grand predator who is about to kill everyone cross table is, arguably, playing to win...). If someone can meaningfully interact with the table and affect the game with actions? They are probably not in a "lost" position. > I would be happy if LSJ confirmed your words about the definition of > "no reasonable chances of getting VPs". So confirmed. -Peter

On 12 май, 17:21, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > With all due respect, you haven't presented any serious arguments to > prove that your suggestions are any better than the current rules. > Sure, they could work, but looks like the current rules work BETTER. Well, at last we have a serious theme to discuss! First of all, let me present the final version of the new withdrawing rule and thank all people who helped me to fix it: ---------------------------------------------- 9.2. Withdrawing from the game To withdraw from the game, you must announce your intent to withdraw during your untap phase. If you do, all ready vampires you control must hunt during your next minion phase (even if they have some blood). Your minions cannot perform any actions directed at other Methuselahs or cards under their control until your next turn. At end of your turn, burn all vampires in torpor you control. You cannot attempt to withdraw from the game if you have 2 or more victory points. This means you're too close for the victory to withdraw! For the withdrawal to succeed, none of your minions should leave the ready region from the withdrawal announcement till your next turn. If you successfully withdraw, you receive 0.5 victory points to add to any victory points you have already gained. Your predator gets 0.5 victory points and 3 pool for your withdrawal. ----------------------------------------------- Now let's see whether my arguments to prove that the new rules would be better for the game are serious or not. I'd also like to see your arguments to prove that the current rules are better, if you have them :) 1). The current rules make Cheating: Collusion much easier and almost impossible to punish. Problem: When the player's "desperate" status is approved by a judge, that player can legally harm crosstable players and perform any actions, including actions to help his friends/relatives to get better results. This can be Cheating: Collusion, but no judge has any reasons of accusing such players, and DQing a player without a prove is very unlikely. Solution: The proposed rules never allows players to do everything they want. If a player tries to perform a suspicious action, he should always explain to the judge how his behavior is supposed to help him to get GW or more VPs. Conclusion: The proposed version is obviously better. 2). The current rules provide too low (by VTES standards) level of interaction between the leaving player and the other players. Problem: In many cases, self-ousting happens suddenly, and the other players have no way of preventing it except for Life Boon. Solution: The proposed withdrawal rule gives the other players a turn to react to the withdrawal attempt, if they want to. It also allows other players to prevent the leaving player from withdrawing using the standard VTES mechanics that don't require narrow-usage cards. Almost every deck archetype can try to prevent the withdrawal using its primary strategy: rush decks can torporize some vampires, intercept decks can block the hunt and torporize, voting decks can play Banishment. Still, the withdrawal is quite possible, especially if the player has enough Combat Ends. Conclusion: Unlike the current rules, the proposed version provides the level of interaction that is going to appeal most VTES players, and thus is better. 3). The current rules are much more likely to generate the unproductive debates. Problem: Different people (even different judges) have different meaning on whether the player's situation is really "desperate" or not. As long as this decision often leads to radical changes in the game flow (see 1), and the insuffucient level of interaction during self-ousting (see 2), players feel that the debating is their only chance to do something. Solution: As long as the proposed withdrawing rule deals with problems 1 and 2, the debates are much less likely. Conclusion: Debates are always bad for the game, so reducing chance of their appearance and their level is definitely good. 4). The current rules hoses the decks relying on disabling predator's minions. Problem: Any deck that tries to disable its predator's minions instead of defending from their actions finds it very difficult to win, since every player with the disabled minions can self-oust, forcing it to deal with the new predator. Solution: Under the new rules, players with disabled minions can withdraw, but at least the disabling deck will get one extra turn of safety. It also gets a chance to prevent withdrawal if the leaving player has at least one ready minion. Conclusion: As long as the disabling decks aren't very popular compared to other deck types, increasing their chances is good for the game since it increases the variety of "good decks".

[ quoted text not captured ] > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ea9a...http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e8ee...http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/980d... Thanks for the confirmation, but, unfortunately, all I've got from the links is "judge's to decide" :( As long as there are no "judges' guide" or recommendations, I will just use an example. Three players are currently in the game. I'm playing the powerful multi-action vote/bleed, my prey has 2 pool and only one ready vampire, and my predator has 4 ready vampires and 4 pool. As long as I have 17 pool, it's absolutely obvious that my predator isn't going to oust me before I oust my prey and himself. Thus, he self-ousted and I've lost GW. Would YOU allow him to self oust in such situation - with 4 vampires and 4 pool - or not? If you would, then Peter's words about "no working minions and 1 pool" are false. If not, please explain where do you see the border between the "lost" and "not lost" situations?

On May 12, 5:16 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Problem: When the player's "desperate" status is approved by a judge, > that player can legally harm crosstable players and perform any > actions, including actions to help his friends/relatives to get better > results. And again, I'll point out that when someone is in a truly "lost" position, their ability to effect the table is likely incredibly minimal. If them ousting themselves gives their buddy a VP, that isn't any more or less of a problem than them ousting themselves just to spite you for back rushing them, for example. > 4). The current rules hoses the decks relying on disabling predator's > minions. No, the current rules disincentivize circumventing the normal predator- prey relationship. If you want to back rush your predator and destroy them, go nuts if you think it will help you win. Just realize that it might result in them getting ousted before you get to them, either by their own hand, or someone else's. > Problem: Any deck that tries to disable its predator's minions instead > of defending from their actions finds it very difficult to win, since > every player with the disabled minions can self-oust, forcing it to > deal with the new predator. That is only going to happen if you completely destroy them. Otherwise, they are mandated by the PTW rules to try and live. If you completely demolish them, they are probably going to be ousted by their predator anyway. Most of the time, you back rush to stay alive as needed, and they either survive and oust you anyway *or* they get whacked by their predator (as you helped them die). Rarely, they will get demolished by you and their predator will be unable to kill them, in which case, they might oust themselves out of spite. That happens. There isn't a need for a new rule to prevent that. -Peter

On May 12, 5:18 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > As long as there are no "judges' guide" or recommendations, I will > just use an example. > > Three players are currently in the game. I'm playing the powerful > multi-action vote/bleed, my prey has 2 pool and only one ready > vampire, and my predator has 4 ready vampires and 4 pool. As long as I > have 17 pool, it's absolutely obvious that my predator isn't going to > oust me before I oust my prey and himself. Thus, he self-ousted and > I've lost GW. > Would YOU allow him to self oust in such situation - with 4 vampires > and 4 pool - or not? From the set-up given: your predator absolutely cannot oust you. With this in hand, the rest of the set-up is just fluff. This is the definition of a lost position. Similar "example": My predator has 30 pool and 6 Inner Circle members. But as long as I have 17 pool, it's absolutely obvious that he won't oust me and I'll be the last Methuselah standing. Is he in a "truly lost" position? Answer: yes. As given, he cannot gain any more VPs (it's stated explicitly in the set-up). > If you would, then Peter's words about "no > working minions and 1 pool" are false. No, they're not. This is just word play, like "Can The Omnipotent make a triangle with 4 sides?" The definition of "triangle" precludes "4 sides", so it isn't a matter of what degree of potency is required to make it. Similarly, setting up an example that doesn't agree with the definition of "lost position" while also labeling it a "lost position" is simply a self-contradictory question that has no answer, not an illustration of the falsehood of the definition. > If not, please explain where do > you see the border between the "lost" and "not lost" situations? It's a wide gray line somewhere between ousted and getting a VP. As every case is different, there are no simplistic parameters to give. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eb78e223d69c134a

On May 12, 5:16 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] So to sum up: Withdrawal: Scope: untap-to-untap. Restriction: < 2VP Your ready vampires must hunt Your minions can't take (D) actions At the end of the turn, your vampires in torpor are burned. Your minions can't leave the ready region. Changes: No need to exhaust the library. Combat OK. Losing blood OK. VP (and pool gain) split* between you and predator. And, notably, no change to the Sportsmanship/PTW/self-oust rule. * I assume the pool gain is just "half" rather than "3" -- cf Political Flux > Now let's see whether my arguments to prove that the new rules would > be better for the game are serious or not. I'd also like to see your > arguments to prove that the current rules are better, if you have > them :) > > 1). The current rules make Cheating: Collusion much easier and almost > impossible to punish. False. (besides the "much easier" part being a comparative with nothing to compare to). > Problem: When the player's "desperate" status is approved by a judge, > that player can legally harm crosstable players and perform any > actions, including actions to help his friends/relatives to get better > results. This can be Cheating: Collusion, but no judge has any reasons > of accusing such players, and DQing a player without a prove is very > unlikely. > Solution: The proposed rules never allows players to do everything > they want. If a player tries to perform a suspicious action, he should > always explain to the judge how his behavior is supposed to help him > to get GW or more VPs. > Conclusion: The proposed version is obviously better. The proposed rule doesn't address being in a lost position at all, which is still possible under the proposed system, as I've already covered. So no gain there. > 2). The current rules provide too low (by VTES standards) level of > interaction between the leaving player and the other players. False. (And, axiomatically, the current rules *are* the VTES standards). > Problem: In many cases, self-ousting happens suddenly, [citation needed] > and the other > players have no way of preventing it except for Life Boon. > Solution: The proposed withdrawal rule gives the other players a turn > to react to the withdrawal attempt, if they want to. It also allows > other players to prevent the leaving player from withdrawing using the > standard VTES mechanics that don't require narrow-usage cards. Almost > every deck archetype can try to prevent the withdrawal using its > primary strategy: rush decks can torporize some vampires, intercept > decks can block the hunt and torporize, voting decks can play > Banishment. Still, the withdrawal is quite possible, especially if the > player has enough Combat Ends. > Conclusion: Unlike the current rules, the proposed version provides > the level of interaction that is going to appeal most VTES players, > and thus is better. The current rules *on withdrawing* offer a whole turn, too. The current and proposed rules *on self-ousting* are identical, so have the same pros and cons as each other. So no gain. > 3). The current rules are much more likely to generate the > unproductive debates. False. > Problem: Different people (even different judges) have different > meaning on whether the player's situation is really "desperate" or > not. As long as this decision often leads to radical changes in the > game flow (see 1), and the insuffucient level of interaction during > self-ousting (see 2), players feel that the debating is their only > chance to do something. > Solution: As long as the proposed withdrawing rule deals with problems > 1 and 2, the debates are much less likely. > Conclusion: Debates are always bad for the game, so reducing chance of > their appearance and their level is definitely good. But the proposal doesn't address lost positions and self-ousting, so no gain. > 4). The current rules hoses the decks relying on disabling predator's > minions. > > Problem: Any deck that tries to disable its predator's minions instead > of defending from their actions finds it very difficult to win, since > every player with the disabled minions can self-oust, forcing it to > deal with the new predator. > Solution: Under the new rules, players with disabled minions can > withdraw, but at least the disabling deck will get one extra turn of > safety. It also gets a chance to prevent withdrawal if the leaving > player has at least one ready minion. > Conclusion: As long as the disabling decks aren't very popular > compared to other deck types, increasing their chances is good for the > game since it increases the variety of "good decks". Again no gain.

On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:03:55 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >So to sum up: > >Withdrawal: >Scope: untap-to-untap. >Restriction: < 2VP >Your ready vampires must hunt >Your minions can't take (D) actions >At the end of the turn, your vampires in torpor are burned. >Your minions can't leave the ready region. > >Changes: >No need to exhaust the library. >Combat OK. >Losing blood OK. >VP (and pool gain) split* between you and predator. > Just as an aside, since I think no one has brought this up before: Under these rules, a Methusalah with no ready minions is virtually guaranteed a successful withdrawal. He untaps, announces his withdrawal attempt, hunts with his 0 ready minions, then all his vampires in torpor are burnt. leaving him with no minions at all. From this point on there are 2 possible outcomes (barring courier shenenigans): 1) He is ousted before his untap. 2) He succesfully withdraws. This seems to run counter to the stated goals of a) "increased interactivity" and b) empowering minion control strategies, especially rush combat decks. In fact, rush combat would likely suffer tremendously since as soon as your prey has no ready minions left, he`ll just withdraw leaving you with 0,5 VP. Dunk your predators minions, and he`ll take his guaranteed 0,5 over being ousted. The only possible upside would be that once every blue moon, if you dunk all other minions on the table and everyone agrees to withdraw in an orderly fashion you get 0,5 vp per withdrawal. Half a much as you would have gotten if they had just transferred out in the same order. But good help you if your grandprey start the withdrawal chain. So, even if we were to assume that a change is needed, we would still have to add yet another arbitary clause to the this proposal to maybe make it work as intended.

LSJ wrote: > That is, coming up with a concrete, loophole-free, devious- > Methuselah-proof statement of a "no self-ousting" rule isn't > possible (or at least, no one has ever produced such a wording) > except in emasculated forms like "cannot spend once's last pool > on transfers which simultaneously go too far (prevent "legitimate" > play as described in this thread already) and have next to no > impact (by still allowing a myriad of easy-to-accomplish ways > to self-oust). "A Methuselah may not play a card or use a game mechanic where the immediate result would be the Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the immediate result would be to gain a Victory Point or Game Win for that Methuselah." This would stop a player from self-ousting in order to maximize their TPs when the game state has been reduced to only them with 0vp and their predator with 3vp, but as my experience with such games is almost always either that the game ends at that point due to time or the last player gets slaughtered almost immediately, I'm willing to accept that tiny loss to the game for the far greater game good. While it is possible that such a rule is, as you say, impossible to word appropriately (see also: Return to Innocence, the 'seat- switchers'), self-ousting is such an awful, disgusting mark on this impressive game that it seems worth a try. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On May 13, 4:48 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > That is, coming up with a concrete, loophole-free, devious- > > Methuselah-proof statement of a "no self-ousting" rule isn't > > possible (or at least, no one has ever produced such a wording) > > except in emasculated forms like "cannot spend once's last pool > > on transfers which simultaneously go too far (prevent "legitimate" > > play as described in this thread already) and have next to no > > impact (by still allowing a myriad of easy-to-accomplish ways > > to self-oust). > > "A Methuselah may not play a card or use a game mechanic where > the immediate result would be the Methuselah reducing herself > to zero or less pool, unless the immediate result would be > to gain a Victory Point or Game Win for that Methuselah." > > This would stop a player from self-ousting in order to maximize their > TPs when the game state has been reduced to only them with 0vp and > their predator with 3vp, but as my experience with such games is > almost always either that the game ends at that point due to time or > the last player gets slaughtered almost immediately, I'm willing > to accept that tiny loss to the game for the far greater game good. You'd have to specify what exactly is an "immediate" effect and what is not. (regarding subsequent mandatory effects to be applied in the same timing window). And, as before, (even after such further buttressing) moves the line only minutely. > While it is possible that such a rule is, as you say, impossible > to word appropriately (see also: Return to Innocence, the 'seat- > switchers'), self-ousting is such an awful, disgusting mark on this > impressive game that it seems worth a try. That premise is flawed. Self-ousting (from a truly lost position) is not even slightly awful or disgusting. Similarly, futile lunging from a truly lost position is equally awful and disgusting. Self-ousting from a truly lost position is so benign and rarely of any undue consequence that torturing the ruleset to hem it slightly doesn't seem warranted, and could even make this game worse.

[ quoted text not captured ] My initial suggestion included competely prohibiting the "desperate rulings", and I'd like to change this too. But let's discuss the new withdrawal rule first. > * I assume the pool gain is just "half" rather than "3" -- cf > Political Flux You're probably right. But I guess that even leaving 3 isn't going to be much of difference. > > Now let's see whether my arguments to prove that the new rules would > > be better for the game are serious or not. I'd also like to see your > > arguments to prove that the current rules are better, if you have > > them :) > > > > 1). The current rules make Cheating: Collusion much easier and almost > > impossible to punish. > > False. (besides the "much easier" part being a comparative with > nothing to compare to). True. Compare the difficulty of convincing the judge that your cheating actions are really PTW (for each such action) to the difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable chances of getting VPs. A cheater can even build a deck that *never* has chances and hand the deck to some pawn! > > Problem: When the player's "desperate" status is approved by a judge, > > that player can legally harm crosstable players and perform any > > actions, including actions to help his friends/relatives to get better > > results. This can be Cheating: Collusion, but no judge has any reasons > > of accusing such players, and DQing a player without a prove is very > > unlikely. > > Solution: The proposed rules never allows players to do everything > > they want. If a player tries to perform a suspicious action, he should > > always explain to the judge how his behavior is supposed to help him > > to get GW or more VPs. > > Conclusion: The proposed version is obviously better. > > The proposed rule doesn't address being in a lost position at all, > which is still possible under the proposed system, as I've already > covered. > So no gain there. 1). I didn't say that the "lost position" rule should remain - I just compiled the fixed version of the withdrawal rule. The "lost position" rule should definitely be prohibited. 2). The new withdrawal rule makes withdrawal possible in every situation, even without ready minions at all. Thus, according to PTW, a player in a "lost position" should attempt to withdraw, even if the "lost position" rule would remain. Withdrawal is impossible for players with 2+ VPs, but I guess such players are very unlikely to serve as a pawns for some cheater :) So, there is huge gain here. > > 2). The current rules provide too low (by VTES standards) level of > > interaction between the leaving player and the other players. > > False. (And, axiomatically, the current rules *are* the VTES > standards). True. When somebody is going to get a VP, other players always have a lot of different ways of preventing it. Most actions can be blocked, most cards can be canceled, including master cards like Antediluvian Awakening. And self-ousting is the ONLY situation where somebody is going to get a VP, and the only way the other players can prevent it is Life Boon - which is far prom being popular anyway. > > Problem: In many cases, self-ousting happens suddenly, > > [citation needed] > > > and the other > > players have no way of preventing it except for Life Boon. > > Solution: The proposed withdrawal rule gives the other players a turn > > to react to the withdrawal attempt, if they want to. It also allows > > other players to prevent the leaving player from withdrawing using the > > standard VTES mechanics that don't require narrow-usage cards. Almost > > every deck archetype can try to prevent the withdrawal using its > > primary strategy: rush decks can torporize some vampires, intercept > > decks can block the hunt and torporize, voting decks can play > > Banishment. Still, the withdrawal is quite possible, especially if the > > player has enough Combat Ends. > > Conclusion: Unlike the current rules, the proposed version provides > > the level of interaction that is going to appeal most VTES players, > > and thus is better. > > The current rules *on withdrawing* offer a whole turn, too. > > The current and proposed rules *on self-ousting* are identical, so > have the same pros and cons as each other. > > So no gain. Nobody's talking about the current rules on withdrawing here, and you know this. The current rules on withdrawing are almost never used. Even if the "self-ousting rules" would remain, PTW would frequently force players to withdraw instead of self-ousting, and you know this too - that's why I'm suggesting the change. LSJ, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, you aren't forced to. But trying to hide besides such futile "arguments" doesn't look very honorable of you :( > > 3). The current rules are much more likely to generate the > > unproductive debates. > > False. > > > Problem: Different people (even different judges) have different > > meaning on whether the player's situation is really "desperate" or > > not. As long as this decision often leads to radical changes in the > > game flow (see 1), and the insuffucient level of interaction during > > self-ousting (see 2), players feel that the debating is their only > > chance to do something. > > Solution: As long as the proposed withdrawing rule deals with problems > > 1 and 2, the debates are much less likely. > > Conclusion: Debates are always bad for the game, so reducing chance of > > their appearance and their level is definitely good. > > But the proposal doesn't address lost positions and self-ousting, so > no gain. See above. It's absolutely the same. 1). The self-ousting should be prohibited. I've never said it shouldn't. 2). Even if it wouldn't be prohibited, the new withdrawal rule is going to make its usage less frequent. So, there definitely IS a gain. > > 4). The current rules hoses the decks relying on disabling predator's > > minions. > > > > Problem: Any deck that tries to disable its predator's minions instead > > of defending from their actions finds it very difficult to win, since > > every player with the disabled minions can self-oust, forcing it to > > deal with the new predator. > > Solution: Under the new rules, players with disabled minions can > > withdraw, but at least the disabling deck will get one extra turn of > > safety. It also gets a chance to prevent withdrawal if the leaving > > player has at least one ready minion. > > Conclusion: As long as the disabling decks aren't very popular > > compared to other deck types, increasing their chances is good for the > > game since it increases the variety of "good decks". > > Again no gain. On the contrary, again a lot of gain!

[ quoted text not captured ] You are completely right, and that was my intention. A player with 0 ready minions is *really* helpless - compare this to the mentioned "helpless" situations where a player had a lot of minions. This rule has two distinct advantages compared to the current rules: a). Everyone can easily evaluate the player's chances of withdrawing, and everybody knows that killing the last minion would make withdrawing very easy. This at least allow them to plan their behaviour ahead. Such planning is currently very difficult, since it's very difficult to predict whether someone's situation is really lost (especially if you don't know that player and his deck). b). Each time somebody torporizes the vampire to prevent withdrawing, this makes the next withdrawing easier :) > > This seems to run counter to the stated goals of > a) "increased interactivity" and b) empowering minion control > strategies, especially rush combat decks. No, it doesn't counter the increased interactivity and empowering minion control strategies. It just tries to keep balance between solid chances of withdrawal (there is really no need to force desperate players to play) and solid chances of preventing the withdrawal. Both are needed for the good game. Rush decks are gaining a lot. Even if the withdrawing player has no minions, the withdrawal will take the whole turn while self-ousting could happen immediately. This provides some chances of ousting your prey and then getting the 0.5 from the withdrawal. Note that every deck will initially have some minions, so you can leave your predator one minion and have two turns: on the first turn, your predator attempts to withdraw, but you kill his last minion, and the second attempt will finally succeed - if nobody would oust that player, of course. What could the rush deck get now? Not even a single turn. Interactivity also obviously increases, except for the zero-minions situations. I guess you aren't packing tons of Life Boons, so you generally can do NOTHING to prevent self-ousting. But you can do a lot of things to prevent self-ousting if the player has ready minions. Losing all ready minions doesn't happen at once, and all players are going to be aware of the consequences. At least nobody can suddenly self-oust having several ready minions. > In fact, rush combat would likely suffer tremendously since as soon as > your prey has no ready minions left, he`ll just withdraw leaving you > with 0,5 VP. Dunk your predators minions, and he`ll take his > guaranteed 0,5 over being ousted. I don't think you're right here. Remember, the rush player decides when he should torporize and when he shouldn't. Thus, he can leave his predator just one minion to torporize it if the predator would try to withdraw. He can also leave his prey one minion for the same purpose. Then, one vampire will rush it, while the other will bleed. Also note that torporizing a vampire and then resquing it still prevents the withdrawal :)

On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> >> This seems to run counter to the stated goals of >> a) "increased interactivity" and b) empowering minion control >> strategies, especially rush combat decks. >No, it doesn't counter the increased interactivity and empowering >minion control strategies. It just tries to keep balance between solid >chances of withdrawal (there is really no need to force desperate >players to play) and solid chances of preventing the withdrawal. Both >are needed for the good game. >Rush decks are gaining a lot. Even if the withdrawing player has no >minions, the withdrawal will take the whole turn while self-ousting >could happen immediately. Could, but most of the time it won`t. And the problem with your followup arguments is that, if the rushdeck focuses on minion control, as rush decks usually do, pool totals around the table will usually be still high. Especially if he always has to rescue random vampires to prevent withdrawals. >This provides some chances of ousting your >prey and then getting the 0.5 from the withdrawal. If the deck can easily torpor several of minions and do a ton of pool damage quickly, why does it need to be strengthened? >But you can do a lot >of things to prevent self-ousting if the player has ready minions. And nothing if he has none. Or if several players announce successive attempts. Which was my point. It`s also very possible for a player to withdraw from the game without bringing out a single vampire. >Losing all ready minions doesn't happen at once, and all players are >going to be aware of the consequences. Same goes for the lost position required for a legal selfoust. >> In fact, rush combat would likely suffer tremendously since as soon as >> your prey has no ready minions left, he`ll just withdraw leaving you >> with 0,5 VP. Dunk your predators minions, and he`ll take his >> guaranteed 0,5 over being ousted. >I don't think you're right here. Remember, the rush player decides >when he should torporize and when he shouldn't. Thus, he can leave his >predator just one minion to torporize it if the predator would try to >withdraw. He can also leave his prey one minion for the same purpose. >Then, one vampire will rush it, while the other will bleed. >Also note that torporizing a vampire and then resquing it still >prevents the withdrawal :) He must have blood and actions to burn. Is he going to do that for every other methusalah on the table, if necessary? What if he just runs out of rushes or jams on combat cards? What if predator or prey stop bringing out vampires after the first one, or refuse to bring out vampires, waiting for an opening, and withdrawing when they see it`ll never come. What if his grandprey does it afer a vain attempt by the rush player to balance the table by rushing crosstable? When people have the option for a guarantted 05. Vp, the will take that possiblity into account from the beginning of the game. Not to mention the fact that dunking a vampire, then rescuing him and leaving him ready to possibly act again seems to be a bad plan in general.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. I've already responded to that, and included that bit as part of the body of your suggestion when commenting on your suggestion. > But let's discuss the new > withdrawal rule first. > > > * I assume the pool gain is just "half" rather than "3" -- cf > > Political Flux > > You're probably right. But I guess that even leaving 3 isn't going to > be much of difference. Political Flux doesn't make much of a difference in the current game scene (slightly less than self-ousting), yeah. > > > Now let's see whether my arguments to prove that the new rules would > > > be better for the game are serious or not. I'd also like to see your > > > arguments to prove that the current rules are better, if you have > > > them :) > > > > 1). The current rules make Cheating: Collusion much easier and almost > > > impossible to punish. > > > False. (besides the "much easier" part being a comparative with > > nothing to compare to). > > True. Compare the difficulty of convincing the judge that your > cheating actions are really PTW (for each such action) to the > difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable chances > of getting VPs. A cheater can even build a deck that *never* has > chances and hand the deck to some pawn! ? You want to compare * the difficulty of convincing the judge that your cheating actions are really PTW (for each such action) to * the difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable chances of getting VPs. To what end? Under current rules, as under your proposal, the would-be cheater would have to convince the judge that the "cheating" actions are really PTW (and therefore not cheating) for each such action. > > > Problem: When the player's "desperate" status is approved by a judge, > > > that player can legally harm crosstable players and perform any > > > actions, including actions to help his friends/relatives to get better > > > results. This can be Cheating: Collusion, but no judge has any reasons > > > of accusing such players, and DQing a player without a prove is very > > > unlikely. > > > Solution: The proposed rules never allows players to do everything > > > they want. If a player tries to perform a suspicious action, he should > > > always explain to the judge how his behavior is supposed to help him > > > to get GW or more VPs. > > > Conclusion: The proposed version is obviously better. > > > The proposed rule doesn't address being in a lost position at all, > > which is still possible under the proposed system, as I've already > > covered. > > So no gain there. > > 1). I didn't say that the "lost position" rule should remain - I just > compiled the fixed version of the withdrawal rule. The "lost position" > rule should definitely be prohibited. Then please provide an suggestion for how to prohibit players from taking certain futile activities while allowing other futile activities. (To say nothing of providing a reason why to restrict some activity but not others -- that is, a reason why the rules should arbitrarily force the player to favor a certain other player (or restrict the player's choice of whom to favor to some arbitrary subset of the other players). > 2). The new withdrawal rule makes withdrawal possible in every > situation, even without ready minions at all. Thus, according to PTW, > a player in a "lost position" should attempt to withdraw, even if the > "lost position" rule would remain. Withdrawal is impossible for > players with 2+ VPs, but I guess such players are very unlikely to > serve as a pawns for some cheater :) > So, there is huge gain here. As I've already said, your current proposal ("2. Change the PTW philosophy") doesn't address this at all. It starts with the false assertion that "As long as each player now has the option to withdraw from the game, there is always a chance of getting 0.5 VP even without the time limit, and the chance is greater than zero." Even with your suggested modified withrawal rule, players can still find themselves in lost positions almost as frequently (which is: rarely) as without the modification. > > > 2). The current rules provide too low (by VTES standards) level of > > > interaction between the leaving player and the other players. > > > False. (And, axiomatically, the current rules *are* the VTES > > standards). > > True. When somebody is going to get a VP, other players always have a > lot of different ways of preventing it. Most actions can be blocked, > most cards can be canceled, including master cards like Antediluvian > Awakening. And self-ousting is the ONLY situation where somebody is > going to get a VP, and the only way the other players can prevent it > is Life Boon - which is far prom being popular anyway. Even granting everything you say in that paragraph, the result is not that "player interaction in a game of VTES between a given player and the other players is too low". > > > Problem: In many cases, self-ousting happens suddenly, > > > [citation needed] > > > > and the other > > > players have no way of preventing it except for Life Boon. > > > Solution: The proposed withdrawal rule gives the other players a turn > > > to react to the withdrawal attempt, if they want to. It also allows > > > other players to prevent the leaving player from withdrawing using the > > > standard VTES mechanics that don't require narrow-usage cards. Almost > > > every deck archetype can try to prevent the withdrawal using its > > > primary strategy: rush decks can torporize some vampires, intercept > > > decks can block the hunt and torporize, voting decks can play > > > Banishment. Still, the withdrawal is quite possible, especially if the > > > player has enough Combat Ends. > > > Conclusion: Unlike the current rules, the proposed version provides > > > the level of interaction that is going to appeal most VTES players, > > > and thus is better. > > > The current rules *on withdrawing* offer a whole turn, too. > > > The current and proposed rules *on self-ousting* are identical, so > > have the same pros and cons as each other. > > > So no gain. > > Nobody's talking about the current rules on withdrawing here, and you > know this. Since that's the only modification you offer, then I guess that leaves us talking about nothing. I earnestly did think we were talking about your modification plan in comparison and contrast to the current rules. > The current rules on withdrawing are almost never used. > Even if the "self-ousting rules" would remain, PTW would frequently > force players to withdraw instead of self-ousting, and you know this > too - that's why I'm suggesting the change. No, they wouldn't, as has already been covered in previous posts. > LSJ, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, you aren't > forced to. But trying to hide besides such futile "arguments" doesn't > look very honorable of you :( Thanks for the tip, but the arguments are not spurious (If they are futile, it is not because of anything lacking in the arguments themselves), and presenting arguments is not hiding behind them. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, you aren't forced to. > > > 3). The current rules are much more likely to generate the > > > unproductive debates. > > > False. > > > > Problem: Different people (even different judges) have different > > > meaning on whether the player's situation is really "desperate" or > > > not. As long as this decision often leads to radical changes in the > > > game flow (see 1), and the insuffucient level of interaction during > > > self-ousting (see 2), players feel that the debating is their only > > > chance to do something. > > > Solution: As long as the proposed withdrawing rule deals with problems > > > 1 and 2, the debates are much less likely. > > > Conclusion: Debates are always bad for the game, so reducing chance of > > > their appearance and their level is definitely good. > > > But the proposal doesn't address lost positions and self-ousting, so > > no gain. > > See above. It's absolutely the same. > 1). The self-ousting should be prohibited. I've never said it > shouldn't. But you offer nothing to prohibit it. As addressed previously. > 2). Even if it wouldn't be prohibited, the new withdrawal rule is > going to make its usage less frequent. > So, there definitely IS a gain. Not by a noticeable amount, it seems. Even granting that, then you still have to demonstrate a reason to make self-outing less frequent (which means making other futile activities more frequent). And you'd have to weigh that small gain against the rest of the implications of the change (as addressed by others)

LSJ wrote: > On May 12, 6:54 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> On May 12, 5:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >>>> a). In normal circumstances players are bound to PTW. After >>>> declaring themselves helpless, they are free to do anything (check >>>> the rulings if you don't believe me). >> >>> In all circumstances players are bound to PTW. >> >> Technically, yes. Actually, being bound to play for 0VP is no bound >> at all. You know better than me that if the judge confirmed that some >> player is really desperate, that player may do *everything*. >> Including acting crosstable just because he doesn't like that >> crosstable player. > > Sure. Just as the player who can only reasonably get 1VP is free to > get 1VP in *any* way xe likes. Including acting crosstable just > because he doesn't like that crosstable player. That (attacking crosstable just out of personal dislikes) could be considered acting with out of ingame motivation/consideration, and therefore to be interpreted as unsportsmanlike behaviour/play. In a word, even under PTW rule here should be not chanche given to *any* player to act like that (ousting crosstable someone else we find more or less nice). More, self oust *is* a real problem when a player in typical no-longer-able-to-win condition use it to blackmail some other (usually grandpredator) at the table like: "let me live / give me 1 vp or i'll oust myself transferring out" and by this it should be ruled someway just my two cents Emiliano, NC Italy www.italybynight.org

On May 13, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Sure. Just as the player who can only reasonably get 1VP is free to > > get 1VP in *any* way xe likes. Including acting crosstable just > > because he doesn't like that crosstable player. > > That (attacking crosstable just out of personal dislikes) > could be considered acting with out of ingame motivation/consideration, > and therefore to be interpreted as unsportsmanlike behaviour/play. Not in this case. Since, as far as in-game considerations go, all of the available options are equal, the only criteria left for deciding among those options is are out-of-game critera. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/37e533ad87c4fdac http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5b4387b6cf4305ec

LSJ wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> While it is possible that such a rule is, as you say, impossible >> to word appropriately (see also: Return to Innocence, the 'seat- >> switchers'), self-ousting is such an awful, disgusting mark on this >> impressive game that it seems worth a try. > > That premise is flawed. Self-ousting (from a truly lost position) is > not even slightly awful or disgusting. Similarly, futile lunging from > a truly lost position is equally awful and disgusting. I guess since I see quitting the game and playing the game as two different values, and you see them as the same, we will never agree, and the discussion is best left alone. Too bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 13, 3:39 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> While it is possible that such a rule is, as you say, impossible > >> to word appropriately (see also: Return to Innocence, the 'seat- > >> switchers'), self-ousting is such an awful, disgusting mark on this > >> impressive game that it seems worth a try. > > > That premise is flawed. Self-ousting (from a truly lost position) is > > not even slightly awful or disgusting. Similarly, futile lunging from > > a truly lost position is equally awful and disgusting. > > I guess since I see quitting the game and playing the game as > two different values, and you see them as the same, we will > never agree, and the discussion is best left alone. Too bad. Non-sequitur, since neither is "quitting the game". Just as being ousted by a bleed of 6 is not "quitting the game".

LSJ wrote: > On May 13, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Sure. Just as the player who can only reasonably get 1VP is free to >>> get 1VP in *any* way xe likes. Including acting crosstable just >>> because he doesn't like that crosstable player. >> >> That (attacking crosstable just out of personal dislikes) >> could be considered acting with out of ingame >> motivation/consideration, and therefore to be interpreted as >> unsportsmanlike behaviour/play. > > Not in this case. > > Since, as far as in-game considerations go, all of the available > options are equal, the only criteria left for deciding among those > options is are out-of-game critera. You stated that in front 1 vp-only perspective a player could be free of crosstable attacking to gain 1 vp, just out of personal dislikes. Even giving equal option or not (providing that a would be crosstable attack to different targets would grant 1 vp just the same) acting out of personal dislikes IMHO would be not an in-game consideration, and therefore should be considered unsportsmanlike play. A player should motivate always his play by selecting the most reasonable option of being *succesful* with any of his action and always by PTW perspective, and not by the *who i hate most* at the table (crosstable or not). I think that a judge should never consider players' personal dislikes as a valid motivation of doing something at a table, under any circumstance. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/37e533ad87c4fdac > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5b4387b6cf4305ec

On May 13, 4:05 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Since, as far as in-game considerations go, all of the available > > options are equal, the only criteria left for deciding among those > > options is are out-of-game critera. > > You stated that in front 1 vp-only perspective a player > could be free of crosstable attacking to gain 1 vp, > just out of personal dislikes. > > Even giving equal option or not (providing that a would be crosstable attack > to > different targets would grant 1 vp just the same) acting out of personal > dislikes IMHO > would be not an in-game consideration, and therefore should be considered > unsportsmanlike play. If you follow that to its conclusion, then you prohibit the player from choosing any action (or inaction) at all, effectively halting the game at an impasse forever. That is, the player can make no choice (not even "pass") since every choice would be out of <reason X> which is not an in-game consideration (since all in-game considerations "tie" for purposes of making this choice). See the links provided. > A player should motivate always his play by selecting the most reasonable > option of > being *succesful* with any of his action and always by PTW perspective, > and not by the *who i hate most* at the table (crosstable or not). All choices are equally successful in this case, so that criterion offers no discernment here. See the links provided. > I think that a judge should never consider players' personal dislikes as a > valid motivation of > doing something at a table, under any circumstance. Indeed, the judge need not consider these. The judge merely notes that the chosen action is PTW (that is, there is no better choice, just equally-losing ones). > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/37e5... > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5b43...

LSJ wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> "Kevin M." wrote: >>>> While it is possible that such a rule is, as you say, impossible >>>> to word appropriately (see also: Return to Innocence, the 'seat- >>>> switchers'), self-ousting is such an awful, disgusting mark on this >>>> impressive game that it seems worth a try. >> >>> That premise is flawed. Self-ousting (from a truly lost position) is >>> not even slightly awful or disgusting. Similarly, futile lunging >>> from a truly lost position is equally awful and disgusting. >> >> I guess since I see quitting the game and playing the game as >> two different values, and you see them as the same, we will >> never agree, and the discussion is best left alone. Too bad. > > Non-sequitur, since neither is "quitting the game". Quite correct. My mistake. The effect generated by and the game-positivity of their "playing the game" is what I take issue with. One game mechanic, however futile or random, causes the player to continue to be within the game and interacting with its participants. The other causes the player not to be within the game anymore. This begs the question: would I rather have someone acting like a crazy Malkavian in-game rather than have a serious player be sefl-ousting? The answer is a resounding YES, since it is possible to teach a crazy Malkavian how it benefits her to act one way or another. It isn't possible to teach a serious player how it benefits her not to self-oust, since self-ousters act on a formula for self-ousting which, to them, is immutable. But I'm sure you'll debate that as well, so I'll just yield to you here. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ, as the lead VTES designer and rules arbiter, what is your advice to a player who can no longer gain VPs? How should they conduct their game? If all your choices in a game are equally losing, what is your suggestion as to how to go about making choices?

On May 13, 4:33 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > It isn't possible to teach a serious player how it benefits her > not to self-oust, ... since if it does they're not in a position where they could self- oust. - D.J.

On May 13, 4:38 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > LSJ, as the lead VTES designer and rules arbiter, what is your advice > to a player who can no longer gain VPs? How should they conduct their > game? By the rules. > If all your choices in a game are equally losing, what is your > suggestion as to how to go about making choices? See most of my responses in this and the myriad of other "lost position" threads.

[ quoted text not captured ] It looks like you answered it in this thread: [ quoted text not captured ]

Pascal wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > >> > >> This seems to run counter to the stated goals of > >> a) "increased interactivity" and b) empowering minion control > >> strategies, especially rush combat decks. > >No, it doesn't counter the increased interactivity and empowering > >minion control strategies. It just tries to keep balance between solid > >chances of withdrawal (there is really no need to force desperate > >players to play) and solid chances of preventing the withdrawal. Both > >are needed for the good game. > >Rush decks are gaining a lot. Even if the withdrawing player has no > >minions, the withdrawal will take the whole turn while self-ousting > >could happen immediately. > Could, but most of the time it won`t. > And the problem with your followup arguments is that, if the rushdeck > focuses on minion control, as rush decks usually do, pool totals > around the table will usually be still high. Especially if he always > has to rescue random vampires to prevent withdrawals. But rush decks have their own ways of burning pool, you know. Fame, Dragonbound, Tensions in the Ranks, Hell-for-Leather, Codex of Edenic Groundskeepers. They just need some more time :) > >This provides some chances of ousting your > >prey and then getting the 0.5 from the withdrawal. > If the deck can easily torpor several of minions and do a ton of pool > damage quickly, why does it need to be strengthened? Why do you always seem to exaggerate? I didn't say that they do "a ton of pool damage". Does you prey always have a ton of pool? In many, many cases you just need 1-2 more turns, even if each of your minions is bleeding for 1. > >But you can do a lot > >of things to prevent self-ousting if the player has ready minions. > And nothing if he has none. Or if several players announce successive > attempts. Which was my point. > It`s also very possible for a player to withdraw from the game without > bringing out a single vampire. Yes, but PTW means he should have a pretty good reason for this. According to the rules, he should play to win, and winning without minions is nearly impossible. > > >Losing all ready minions doesn't happen at once, and all players are > >going to be aware of the consequences. > Same goes for the lost position required for a legal selfoust. You seem to miss some of my words. Nobody knows whether the player's position is lost or not except for himself and the judge. You don't get to look at his hand or his library. But everybody knows how much ready minions he has. Thus, it's far from being "the same". > > >> In fact, rush combat would likely suffer tremendously since as soon as > >> your prey has no ready minions left, he`ll just withdraw leaving you > >> with 0,5 VP. Dunk your predators minions, and he`ll take his > >> guaranteed 0,5 over being ousted. > >I don't think you're right here. Remember, the rush player decides > >when he should torporize and when he shouldn't. Thus, he can leave his > >predator just one minion to torporize it if the predator would try to > >withdraw. He can also leave his prey one minion for the same purpose. > >Then, one vampire will rush it, while the other will bleed. > >Also note that torporizing a vampire and then resquing it still > >prevents the withdrawal :) > He must have blood and actions to burn. That's the game. You have to spend some resources to gain something, and you decide whether that "something" is worth the resources or not. And the other players can thwart your plans. > Is he going to do that for every other methusalah on the table, if > necessary? He decides. That's the game. > What if he just runs out of rushes or jams on combat cards? What if any deck just runs out of the needed cards? That's the game. Nothing is granted. > What if predator or prey stop bringing out vampires after the first > one, or refuse to bring out vampires, waiting for an opening, and > withdrawing when they see it`ll never come. All this can happen even without my changes. While the player still has some chances to get VPs, he cannot withdraw. Once he doesn't have them, he can be ousted. > What if his grandprey does it afer a vain attempt by the rush player > to balance the table by rushing crosstable? Who's to blame, then? > When people have the option for a guarantted 05. Vp, the will take > that possiblity into account from the beginning of the game. The withdrawal is far from guaranteed. Sometimes even very far (depends on the game situation, of course). > Not to mention the fact that dunking a vampire, then rescuing him and > leaving him ready to possibly act again seems to be a bad plan in > general. Nobody has to do it - it's a player's choice. That's the game. Let me point at one important thing. Without the self-ousting, the player in lost position would have to wait until somebody oust him, which is bad. With self-ousting, he can leave the game, which is better. But with my suggestion, he can PLAY the game of withdrawal, which is far more interesting than just bringing some chaos and leaving. I'm completely sure that most players would choose to withdraw instead of self-ousting.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, but your last answer doesn't seem to demonstrate this. You've answered as though you didn't really understand my suggestions. Though I'm pretty sure that you understand it now. > > But let's discuss the new > > withdrawal rule first. > > > > > * I assume the pool gain is just "half" rather than "3" -- cf > > > Political Flux > > > > You're probably right. But I guess that even leaving 3 isn't going to > > be much of difference. > > Political Flux doesn't make much of a difference in the current game > scene (slightly less than self-ousting), yeah. You cannot even imagine the frequence of self-ousting here. It (or at least its threat) appears approximately in 20-30% of our games. > > > > Now let's see whether my arguments to prove that the new rules would > > > > be better for the game are serious or not. I'd also like to see your > > > > arguments to prove that the current rules are better, if you have > > > > them :) > > > > > > 1). The current rules make Cheating: Collusion much easier and almost > > > > impossible to punish. > > > > > False. (besides the "much easier" part being a comparative with > > > nothing to compare to). > > > > True. Compare the difficulty of convincing the judge that your > > cheating actions are really PTW (for each such action) to the > > difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable chances > > of getting VPs. A cheater can even build a deck that *never* has > > chances and hand the deck to some pawn! > > ? > > You want to compare > > * the difficulty of convincing the judge that your cheating actions > are really PTW (for each such action) > > to > > * the difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable > chances of getting VPs. > > To what end? > > Under current rules, as under your proposal, the would-be cheater > would have to convince the judge that the "cheating" actions are > really PTW (and therefore not cheating) for each such action. AFAIK, under the current rules the would-be (or actual) cheater has to convince the judge in his "lost position" ONCE, and after that he would be able to legally do everything. Without explaining his reasons anymore. Am I right? [ quoted text not captured ] Keeping yourself alive is *not* "futile" - at least it preserves your chances of getting 0.5 from time limit. Withdrawing under the new withdrawal rule is not futile, as it also has some chances of getting 0.5. Only self-ousting *is* really futile, as it always provides zero. > > 2). The new withdrawal rule makes withdrawal possible in every > > situation, even without ready minions at all. Thus, according to PTW, > > a player in a "lost position" should attempt to withdraw, even if the > > "lost position" rule would remain. Withdrawal is impossible for > > players with 2+ VPs, but I guess such players are very unlikely to > > serve as a pawns for some cheater :) > > So, there is huge gain here. > > As I've already said, your current proposal ("2. Change the PTW > philosophy") doesn't address this at all. > > It starts with the false assertion that "As long as each player now > has the option to withdraw from the game, there is always a chance of > getting 0.5 VP even without the time limit, and the chance is greater > than zero." > > Even with your suggested modified withrawal rule, players can still > find themselves in lost positions almost as frequently (which is: > rarely) as without the modification. The rarity of "lost positions" depends on the players and their decks. If you imagine a playgroup with some good players, constantly playing good decks, and some bad players, always playing bad decks, it should be obvious that the bad players should get into the "lost positions" almost every time. If you'd define the "lost position" as "the player is going to die on the next turn", then, probably, the new withdrawal rule wouldn't change the frequency of "lost positions". Unfortunately, your definition is "no reasonable chance of getting VPs", which enables "lost positions" even if the player isn't going to die on the next turn. If a bad player bleeds his prey for 3 pool per turn, and the prey gains at least 4 per turn, it's pretty obvious that the player isn't going to oust his prey at all. Every judge would confirm this, looking at his hand or his deck if necessary. In such situation withdrawal would be much more attractive than self-ousting. > > > > 2). The current rules provide too low (by VTES standards) level of > > > > interaction between the leaving player and the other players. > > > > > False. (And, axiomatically, the current rules *are* the VTES > > > standards). > > > > True. When somebody is going to get a VP, other players always have a > > lot of different ways of preventing it. Most actions can be blocked, > > most cards can be canceled, including master cards like Antediluvian > > Awakening. And self-ousting is the ONLY situation where somebody is > > going to get a VP, and the only way the other players can prevent it > > is Life Boon - which is far prom being popular anyway. > > Even granting everything you say in that paragraph, the result is not > that "player interaction in a game of VTES between a given player and > the other players is too low". I've never said this about VTES as a whole, just about self-ousting. As a whole, VTES offers great level of interaction - and this makes situations where interaction is lacking (like self-ousting) even more ugly. [ quoted text not captured ] The thread is called "Let's end the "desperate madness"", and it's all about making self-ousting (and other behaviour typical to "lost positions") illegal and *not needed*. > > The current rules on withdrawing are almost never used. > > Even if the "self-ousting rules" would remain, PTW would frequently > > force players to withdraw instead of self-ousting, and you know this > > too - that's why I'm suggesting the change. > > No, they wouldn't, as has already been covered in previous posts. My vision on this is completely different, and I've also covered the reasons above (in this post). But I'll try to explain in details. All "lost situations", as defined by "no reasonable chance of getting VPs" can be either "immediately lost", when the player will inevitably (or almost inevitably) die till his next turn - for instance, he has 1 pool, and his predator has Army of Rats, and "obviously lost in few turns". The "immediately lost" situations don't require self-ousting rule: the player has to wait just for a few minutes! In the rest situations, the new withdrawal rule takes place of the self-ousting rule: trying to withdraw is much more interesting (and, potentially, more beneficional) than just leaving. > > LSJ, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, you aren't > > forced to. But trying to hide besides such futile "arguments" doesn't > > look very honorable of you :( > > Thanks for the tip, but the arguments are not spurious (If they are > futile, it is not because of anything lacking in the arguments > themselves), and presenting arguments is not hiding behind them. > > If you don't want to participate in the discussion, you aren't forced > to. Sorry for losing my temper. Communication can be difficult, and I'm not good at it. > > > > 3). The current rules are much more likely to generate the > > > > unproductive debates. > > > > > False. > > > > > > Problem: Different people (even different judges) have different > > > > meaning on whether the player's situation is really "desperate" or > > > > not. As long as this decision often leads to radical changes in the > > > > game flow (see 1), and the insuffucient level of interaction during > > > > self-ousting (see 2), players feel that the debating is their only > > > > chance to do something. > > > > Solution: As long as the proposed withdrawing rule deals with problems > > > > 1 and 2, the debates are much less likely. > > > > Conclusion: Debates are always bad for the game, so reducing chance of > > > > their appearance and their level is definitely good. > > > > > But the proposal doesn't address lost positions and self-ousting, so > > > no gain. > > > > See above. It's absolutely the same. > > 1). The self-ousting should be prohibited. I've never said it > > shouldn't. > > But you offer nothing to prohibit it. > > As addressed previously. My initial post had this: 2. Change the PTW philosophy to the following: As long as each player now has the option to withdraw from the game, there is always a chance of getting 0.5 VP even without the time limit, and the chance is greater than zero. Self-ousting, as well as insane behaviour leading to zero VPs, is thereby a clear violation of PTW, since the player deliberately decreases his "expected outcome" from the game. If some player feels that he has no reasonable chances of getting at least 1 VP, he should try to withdraw. Not "avenge the enemies", not "help his friends to win", just withdraw. > > 2). Even if it wouldn't be prohibited, the new withdrawal rule is > > going to make its usage less frequent. > > So, there definitely IS a gain. > > Not by a noticeable amount, it seems. > > Even granting that, then you still have to demonstrate a reason to > make self-outing less frequent (which means making other futile > activities more frequent). And you'd have to weigh that small gain > against the rest of the implications of the change (as addressed by > others) I strongly disagree with the amount (see above). It would be great if you would understand that the frequency of "lost situations" depends solely on the players and the judges, and this rule can be easily abused. Considering the fact there is no judge training program, the "lost situation" rulings can make the game completely different (and quite ugly). And I've already repeated my reasons to make self-ousting less frequent several times: making cheating more difficult, disabling the only situation where the level of interaction between players is too low, reducing frequence and violence of the debates, and so on.

On May 14, 8:07 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Political Flux doesn't make much of a difference in the current game > > scene (slightly less than self-ousting), yeah. > > You cannot even imagine the frequence of self-ousting here. It (or at > least its threat) appears approximately in 20-30% of our games. I understand. You've indicated that your players will attempt or earnestly threaten self-ousting even when not in a truly lost position, so it could very well be more common in that non-standard environment. > > You want to compare > > > * the difficulty of convincing the judge that your cheating actions > > are really PTW (for each such action) > > > to > > > * the difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable > > chances of getting VPs. > > > To what end? > > > Under current rules, as under your proposal, the would-be cheater > > would have to convince the judge that the "cheating" actions are > > really PTW (and therefore not cheating) for each such action. > > AFAIK, under the current rules the would-be (or actual) cheater has to > convince the judge in his "lost position" ONCE, and after that he > would be able to legally do everything. Without explaining his reasons > anymore. Am I right? No. If, due to some "unreasonble" turn of events, the player is now in a position to (reasonably) get more than 0VPs, then xe cannot play for 0VPs. > > (To say nothing of providing a reason why to restrict some activity > > but not others -- that is, a reason why the rules should arbitrarily > > force the player to favor a certain other player (or restrict the > > player's choice of whom to favor to some arbitrary subset of the other > > players). > > Keeping yourself alive is *not* "futile" It is if you're in a lost position, by definition. > - at least it preserves your > chances of getting 0.5 from time limit. We've been over this. If you have a chance of getting 0.5 from the time limit, then you are not in a lost position, by definition. One half is greater than zero. You cannot play for zero VPs if you can (reasonably) get 0.5. > Withdrawing under the new > withdrawal rule is not futile, as it also has some chances of getting > 0.5. Also true. With the same result. If you can reasonably get 0.5 from withdrawing, then you are not in a lost position, by definition. > Only self-ousting *is* really futile, as it always provides zero. In a lost position, by definition, all activities always (reasonably) provide zero.

LSJ wrote: > On May 14, 8:07 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Political Flux doesn't make much of a difference in the current game > > > scene (slightly less than self-ousting), yeah. > > > > You cannot even imagine the frequence of self-ousting here. It (or at > > least its threat) appears approximately in 20-30% of our games. > > I understand. You've indicated that your players will attempt or > earnestly threaten self-ousting even when not in a truly lost > position, so it could very well be more common in that non-standard > environment. Unfortunately, there is no clear definition what is "truly lost" position, and what isn't. As well as what "reasonable" really means. > > > You want to compare > > > > > * the difficulty of convincing the judge that your cheating actions > > > are really PTW (for each such action) > > > > > to > > > > > * the difficulty of convincing him once that you have no reasonable > > > chances of getting VPs. > > > > > To what end? > > > > > Under current rules, as under your proposal, the would-be cheater > > > would have to convince the judge that the "cheating" actions are > > > really PTW (and therefore not cheating) for each such action. > > > > AFAIK, under the current rules the would-be (or actual) cheater has to > > convince the judge in his "lost position" ONCE, and after that he > > would be able to legally do everything. Without explaining his reasons > > anymore. Am I right? > > No. > > If, due to some "unreasonble" turn of events, the player is now in a > position to (reasonably) get more than 0VPs, then xe cannot play for > 0VPs. But if he's going to play crosstable, this would rarely make his position better, right? :) And as long as the position is still "lost", no judge would ask him for his reasons. > > > (To say nothing of providing a reason why to restrict some activity > > > but not others -- that is, a reason why the rules should arbitrarily > > > force the player to favor a certain other player (or restrict the > > > player's choice of whom to favor to some arbitrary subset of the other > > > players). > > > > Keeping yourself alive is *not* "futile" > > It is if you're in a lost position, by definition. Having "no reasonable chances" is still not the same as "having no chances". In fact, nobody can evaluate the real chances, since nobody has the whole information! In many cases, some players would gladly offer the "lost player" a deal leading to some VPs, but they didn't want to reveal this until the time comes up. In VTES miracles really happen. > If you have a chance of getting 0.5 from the time limit, then you are > not in a lost position, by definition. You *always* have an above-zero chance of getting 0.5 from time limit, if the time limit is present. Sometimes this chance is really pretty high, but the player (and the judge) know nothing about it - see above. IMHO, this alone is enough to remove the "lost position" rule. > One half is greater than zero. You cannot play for zero VPs if you can > (reasonably) get 0.5. > > > Withdrawing under the new > > withdrawal rule is not futile, as it also has some chances of getting > > 0.5. > > Also true. > > With the same result. If you can reasonably get 0.5 from withdrawing, > then you are not in a lost position, by definition. So, you agree that the proposed withdrawing rule is going to make self- ousting less frequent, even if the "lost position" rule would remain, right? > > Only self-ousting *is* really futile, as it always provides zero. > > In a lost position, by definition, all activities always (reasonably) > provide zero. It would be so if the judge would be as omniponent as God himself. As long as the judges are mere mortals, they rarely can evaluate the real chances. Even without the deals. Both player and the judge may think that the predator is going to oust that player on the next turn, but the grandpredator may torporize all predator's vampires on his turn, for instance. Imagine the frustration of the grandpredator seeing his prey getting the "unhonest" VP just because somebody miscalculated the chances!

On May 14, 9:06 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > I understand. You've indicated that your players will attempt or > > earnestly threaten self-ousting even when not in a truly lost > > position, so it could very well be more common in that non-standard > > environment. > > Unfortunately, there is no clear definition what is "truly lost" > position, and what isn't. As well as what "reasonable" really means. The definition of "truly lost" has been given repeatedly. The definition of "reasonable" is either the dictionary definition or impossible, depending on what you're looking for. > > If, due to some "unreasonble" turn of events, the player is now in a > > position to (reasonably) get more than 0VPs, then xe cannot play for > > 0VPs. > > But if he's going to play crosstable, this would rarely make his > position better, right? :) Correct. Note that rarely != never. > And as long as the position is still "lost", no judge would ask him > for his reasons. ? Sure. With the desired result added to the assumptions, anything is possible. > > It is if you're in a lost position, by definition. > > Having "no reasonable chances" is still not the same as "having no > chances". In fact, nobody can evaluate the real chances, since nobody > has the whole information! In many cases, some players would gladly > offer the "lost player" a deal leading to some VPs, but they didn't > want to reveal this until the time comes up. In VTES miracles really > happen. It has already been stated that it is extremely difficult to be in a truly lost position, many times, yes. > > If you have a chance of getting 0.5 from the time limit, then you are > > not in a lost position, by definition. > > You *always* have an above-zero chance of getting 0.5 from time limit, Just as you *always* have an above-zero chance of getting Life Booned when you attempt to transfer out. Can we, please, stop running around this bush? > if the time limit is present. Sometimes this chance is really pretty > high, but the player (and the judge) know nothing about it - see > above. IMHO, this alone is enough to remove the "lost position" rule. This is enough to indicate that you're using different rules than the rest of us, yes. > > With the same result. If you can reasonably get 0.5 from withdrawing, > > then you are not in a lost position, by definition. > > So, you agree that the proposed withdrawing rule is going to make self- > ousting less frequent, even if the "lost position" rule would remain, > right? Slightly, yes. I already stated that explicitly. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/04d59a5de496dd1b? > > > Only self-ousting *is* really futile, as it always provides zero. > > > In a lost position, by definition, all activities always (reasonably) > > provide zero. > > It would be so if the judge would be as omniponent as God himself. As > long as the judges are mere mortals, they rarely can evaluate the real > chances. Even without the deals. Both player and the judge may think > that the predator is going to oust that player on the next turn, but > the grandpredator may torporize all predator's vampires on his turn, > for instance. Imagine the frustration of the grandpredator seeing his > prey getting the "unhonest" VP just because somebody miscalculated the > chances! See "reasonable".

On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > >Pascal wrote: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> >> >This provides some chances of ousting your >> >prey and then getting the 0.5 from the withdrawal. >> If the deck can easily torpor several of minions and do a ton of pool >> damage quickly, why does it need to be strengthened? >Why do you always seem to exaggerate? I didn't say that they do "a ton >of pool damage". Does you prey always have a ton of pool? In many, >many cases you just need 1-2 more turns, even if each of your minions >is bleeding for 1. The point is that rush deck specilize in minion control, not pool damage. Thus these situation will occurs and must be taken into account when seriously considering your proposal. No to forget that other players around the Table will feel compelled to help a players prey withdraw, as it will will usually make their own VPs more valuabe and leave the player in a worse position. >> >But you can do a lot >> >of things to prevent self-ousting if the player has ready minions. >> And nothing if he has none. Or if several players announce successive >> attempts. Which was my point. >> It`s also very possible for a player to withdraw from the game without >> bringing out a single vampire. >Yes, but PTW means he should have a pretty good reason for this. >According to the rules, he should play to win, and winning without >minions is nearly impossible. No, he should play to get the GW, or if that is not reasonably possible, maximize his VP. This will actually mean that they will be compelled to withdraw in quite a few situations. If you allow Players a scenario where 0.5 vp are guaranteed they will play the game taking into account ways to preserve their option to get into that scenario. They will even consider it when building their decks. >> >> >Losing all ready minions doesn't happen at once, and all players are >> >going to be aware of the consequences. >> Same goes for the lost position required for a legal selfoust. >You seem to miss some of my words. Nobody knows whether the player's >position is lost or not except for himself and the judge. You don't >get to look at his hand or his library. But everybody knows how much >ready minions he has. Thus, it's far from being "the same". Selfousting is really no different from any other situation in the game in this regard. But you are right that it`s not the same, as it is actually often easier to go from x ready minions to 0 ready minions than to go from a tenous position to a truly lost one. >> >> >> In fact, rush combat would likely suffer tremendously since as soon as >> >> your prey has no ready minions left, he`ll just withdraw leaving you >> >> with 0,5 VP. Dunk your predators minions, and he`ll take his >> >> guaranteed 0,5 over being ousted. >> >I don't think you're right here. Remember, the rush player decides >> >when he should torporize and when he shouldn't. Thus, he can leave his >> >predator just one minion to torporize it if the predator would try to >> >withdraw. He can also leave his prey one minion for the same purpose. >> >Then, one vampire will rush it, while the other will bleed. >> >Also note that torporizing a vampire and then resquing it still >> >prevents the withdrawal :) >> He must have blood and actions to burn. >That's the game. You have to spend some resources to gain something, >and you decide whether that "something" is worth the resources or not. >And the other players can thwart your plans. > Curious. See below >> Is he going to do that for every other methusalah on the table, if >> necessary? >He decides. That's the game. He doesn`t actually. Remember that he has to adhere to the PTW rules as well and a Game win requires at least 2VP. Which incidentially is a lot harder with 0, 5 VP vanishing all over the table. So I`d expect we`d see a decrease in GWs, with tables containing rush deck being especially affected by this rendering them less viable as a tournament strategy. Again running counter to your stated goals. >> What if he just runs out of rushes or jams on combat cards? >What if any deck just runs out of the needed cards? That's the game. >Nothing is granted. Courious. See below. >> What if predator or prey stop bringing out vampires after the first >> one, or refuse to bring out vampires, waiting for an opening, and >> withdrawing when they see it`ll never come. >All this can happen even without my changes. While the player still >has some chances to get VPs, he cannot withdraw. Once he doesn't have >them, he can be ousted. See above. >> What if his grandprey does it afer a vain attempt by the rush player >> to balance the table by rushing crosstable? >Who's to blame, then? Curious. See below. >> When people have the option for a guarantted 05. Vp, the will take >> that possiblity into account from the beginning of the game. >The withdrawal is far from guaranteed. Sometimes even very far >(depends on the game situation, of course). Curious. See below. >> Not to mention the fact that dunking a vampire, then rescuing him and >> leaving him ready to possibly act again seems to be a bad plan in >> general. >Nobody has to do it - it's a player's choice. That's the game. Curious. All you seem to offer in response to me pointing out holes in your proposal is how there are ways to prevent that situation, how there are cards that stop it, how it doesn`t always happern, how sometime it`s illegal under PTW, how sometimes it`s the result of bad play on ones part and finally how all of these things are the "the game". The same arguments can be made, and in fact have been made with regard to selfousting in response to your various posts in this thread and you seemed to dismiss them as invalid. Why are they more valid now than they were then? >Let me point at one important thing. Without the self-ousting, the >player in lost position would have to wait until somebody oust him, >which is bad. With self-ousting, he can leave the game, which is >better. But with my suggestion, he can PLAY the game of withdrawal, >which is far more interesting than just bringing some chaos and >leaving. I'm completely sure that most players would choose to >withdraw instead of self-ousting. Players will currently choose withdrawal over selfousting if posssible, if they adhere to the PTW rule and the withdrawal has a chance of succeding. A player that cannot successfuly withdraw under your rules still has to wait until somebody oust him, which you yourself admit is bad. Why is being forced into a narrow course of action more fun than having options in playing the game?

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry for not responding for a few days... That weekend was quite busy. IMHO, you and all players who want the "lost position" rulings to stay seem to literally worship the judges. :)Everyone state that the judge should somehow decide whether the position is "lost" or not, but nobody seem to instruct them how to do that. I used to be a judge for a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" or not. Moreover, such "worship" inevitably leads to the different games for different judges. AFAIK, if Judge A considers that there is always some chance of getting VPs (at least 0.5 VPs from time limit or from the new withdrawal rule), he can effectively prohibit self-ousting in his playgroup, right? On the other hand, the Judge B may think that every situation where a player is *very unlikely* to get VPs is a "lost" situation, and "his" game will turn to chaos. Am I right? > > if the time limit is present. Sometimes this chance is really pretty > > high, but the player (and the judge) know nothing about it - see > > above. IMHO, this alone is enough to remove the "lost position" rule. > > This is enough to indicate that you're using different rules than the > rest of us, yes. Does this surprise you? Actually, each judge has his own rules. > > > With the same result. If you can reasonably get 0.5 from withdrawing, > > > then you are not in a lost position, by definition. > > > > So, you agree that the proposed withdrawing rule is going to make self- > > ousting less frequent, even if the "lost position" rule would remain, > > right? > > Slightly, yes. I already stated that explicitly. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/04d59a5de496dd1b? Well, we finally made some progress :) I really hope you that you will change the withdrawal rules sometimes. I'd like to argue with "slightly". Since you didn't comment my words, I will repeat them: All "lost situations", as defined by "no reasonable chance of getting VPs" can be either "immediately lost", when the player will inevitably (or almost inevitably) die till his next turn - for instance, he has 1 pool, and his predator has Army of Rats, and "obviously lost in few turns". The "immediately lost" situations don't require self-ousting rule: the player has to wait just for a few minutes! In the rest situations, the new withdrawal rule takes place of the self-ousting rule: trying to withdraw is much more interesting (and, potentially, more beneficional) than just leaving. Thus, the influence of new withdrawal rule will strictly depend on the judge's approach to "lost positions". If the judge considers only "immediately lost" positions really "lost", then the new rule's importance will be minimal. But the more "not-immediately-lost" positions are considered "lost", the more important will be the new rule.

On May 17, 9:33 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > IMHO, you and all players who want the "lost position" rulings to stay > seem to literally worship the judges. :) Oh, Ector. > Everyone state that the judge > should somehow decide whether the position is "lost" or not, but > nobody seem to instruct them how to do that. Can the player in question have a reasonable chance of gaining more VPs than they have now, either by ousting their prey, surviving till the end of the game, or withdrawing? If yes, then they are not in a lost position. If no, then they are. Seems not that difficult to me. Keep in mind that in most situations that someone can trump up as "But in this situation, they can't win!" will result in someone being in a position where they can reasonably attempt to stay alive till the end of the game, and thereby gain .5VP for living, which is more than 0VP for being ousted. > I used to be a judge for > a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy > to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have > absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" > or not. Do they have a reasonable chance to gain more VPs than they have currently, one way or the other? Then they aren't in a lost position. > Moreover, such "worship" inevitably leads to the different games for > different judges. No one is worshiping anyone. -Peter

On May 17, 9:33 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > IMHO, [LSJ] and all players who want the "lost position" rulings to stay > seem to literally worship the judges. :) I don't "want" it to stay. Indeed it doesn't exist already. It is merely a consequence of the absence of any artificial arbitrary restriction on the choices a player may make. Until someone shows a reason to arbitrarily impose an artificial restriction on the choices, then no such arbitrary restriction will be added to the rules. > Everyone state that the judge > should somehow decide whether the position is "lost" or not, but > nobody seem to instruct them how to do that. The instruction is simple: use judgment. > I used to be a judge for > a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy > to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have > absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" > or not. You tell if someone's position is lost by examining the position to see if the player has any available choice that could lead to the player eventually getting more VPs, discounting any unreasonable scenarios. > > This is enough to indicate that you're using different rules than the > > rest of us, yes. > > Does this surprise you? Actually, each judge has his own rules. You're conflating judge's individuality with using different rules. Allowing violation of PTW from a clearly non-lost position is not a matter of judges' personalities. It's a matter of not following the rules. > > > So, you agree that the proposed withdrawing rule is going to make self- > > > ousting less frequent, even if the "lost position" rule would remain, > > > right? > > > Slightly, yes. I already stated that explicitly. > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/04d5... > > Well, we finally made some progress :) I really hope you that you will > change the withdrawal rules sometimes. > > I'd like to argue with "slightly". Since you didn't comment my words, > I will repeat them: > > All "lost situations", as defined by "no reasonable chance of getting > VPs" can be either "immediately lost", when the player will > inevitably > (or almost inevitably) die till his next turn - for instance, he has > 1 > pool, and his predator has Army of Rats, and "obviously lost in few > turns". The "immediately lost" situations don't require self-ousting > rule: the player has to wait just for a few minutes! In the rest > situations, the new withdrawal rule takes place of the self-ousting > rule: trying to withdraw is much more interesting (and, potentially, > more beneficional) than just leaving. False. If the player has no reasonable expectation of being able to meet the new withdrawal criteria, then the player has no reason to attempt the new withdrawal. (Just as with the current withdrawal rules). And that "if" condition will be met a great majority of the time.

Pascal wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > > > >Pascal wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 04:48:37 -0700 (PDT), Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >> > > > >> >This provides some chances of ousting your > >> >prey and then getting the 0.5 from the withdrawal. > >> If the deck can easily torpor several of minions and do a ton of pool > >> damage quickly, why does it need to be strengthened? > >Why do you always seem to exaggerate? I didn't say that they do "a ton > >of pool damage". Does you prey always have a ton of pool? In many, > >many cases you just need 1-2 more turns, even if each of your minions > >is bleeding for 1. > The point is that rush deck specilize in minion control, not pool > damage. Thus these situation will occurs and must be taken into > account when seriously considering your proposal. > No to forget that other players around the Table will feel compelled > to help a players prey withdraw, as it will will usually make their > own VPs more valuabe and leave the player in a worse position. Yes, rush deck specializes in minion control, but it still can do some pool damage. And, obviously, having some extra time to oust your prey is better than having nothing. And if the other players will try to help to withdraw, that would just lead to the more interesting game. > >> >But you can do a lot > >> >of things to prevent self-ousting if the player has ready minions. > >> And nothing if he has none. Or if several players announce successive > >> attempts. Which was my point. > >> It`s also very possible for a player to withdraw from the game without > >> bringing out a single vampire. > >Yes, but PTW means he should have a pretty good reason for this. > >According to the rules, he should play to win, and winning without > >minions is nearly impossible. > No, he should play to get the GW, or if that is not reasonably > possible, maximize his VP. This will actually mean that they will be > compelled to withdraw in quite a few situations. > > If you allow Players a scenario where 0.5 vp are guaranteed they will > play the game taking into account ways to preserve their option to get > into that scenario. They will even consider it when building their > decks. I don't see how this can be bad. Actually, it's much better than self- ousting. > >> > >> >Losing all ready minions doesn't happen at once, and all players are > >> >going to be aware of the consequences. > >> Same goes for the lost position required for a legal selfoust. > >You seem to miss some of my words. Nobody knows whether the player's > >position is lost or not except for himself and the judge. You don't > >get to look at his hand or his library. But everybody knows how much > >ready minions he has. Thus, it's far from being "the same". > Selfousting is really no different from any other situation in the > game in this regard. But you are right that it`s not the same, as it > is actually often easier to go from x ready minions to 0 ready minions > than to go from a tenous position to a truly lost one. If a player really plays to withdraw, then yes, going to 0 ready minions is easier. But a player can play to withdraw only if he cannot play for 1 VP or more. > >> Is he going to do that for every other methusalah on the table, if > >> necessary? > >He decides. That's the game. > He doesn`t actually. Remember that he has to adhere to the PTW rules > as well and a Game win requires at least 2VP. > Which incidentially is a lot harder with 0, 5 VP vanishing all over > the table. So I`d expect we`d see a decrease in GWs, with tables > containing rush deck being especially affected by this rendering them > less viable as a tournament strategy. Again running counter to your > stated goals. Very weak logic, for sure. Currently, self-ousting of your predator gives your grandpredator 1 VP and 6 pool. Withdrawal would give him just 0.5 VP and 3 pool, and one turn later. Which is better? :) If you recall my initial example with Alex, Bob and Claire, you'd see yourself that Claire's withdrawal can only be better for Alex: 1). If Bob had 2 VP, he would get GW, but with 2.5 VPs instead of 3. This can help Alex to get higher tournament rank. 2). If Bob and Claire had 1 VP each, then Alex gets GW. Great! 3). If Claire had 2 VP, she cannot withdraw. No difference from the current situation. > > >> Not to mention the fact that dunking a vampire, then rescuing him and > >> leaving him ready to possibly act again seems to be a bad plan in > >> general. > >Nobody has to do it - it's a player's choice. That's the game. > > Curious. All you seem to offer in response to me pointing out holes in > your proposal is how there are ways to prevent that situation, how > there are cards that stop it, how it doesn`t always happern, how > sometime it`s illegal under PTW, how sometimes it`s the result of bad > play on ones part and finally how all of these things are the "the > game". > The same arguments can be made, and in fact have been made with regard > to selfousting in response to your various posts in this thread and > you seemed to dismiss them as invalid. > Why are they more valid now than they were then? You're either playing words, or missing my words. We're talking about situation where a player cannot reasonably get more VPs, and that's the only common thing for both cases. Withdrawing is playing the game in the usual manner: actions can be undertaken and blocked, cards can be played and canceled. Self-ousting is playing the game in *unusual* manner: you spend your transfers not to get more vampires, but to leave the game. > > >Let me point at one important thing. Without the self-ousting, the > >player in lost position would have to wait until somebody oust him, > >which is bad. With self-ousting, he can leave the game, which is > >better. But with my suggestion, he can PLAY the game of withdrawal, > >which is far more interesting than just bringing some chaos and > >leaving. I'm completely sure that most players would choose to > >withdraw instead of self-ousting. > Players will currently choose withdrawal over selfousting if > posssible, if they adhere to the PTW rule and the withdrawal has a > chance of succeding. > > A player that cannot successfuly withdraw under your rules still has > to wait until somebody oust him, which you yourself admit is bad. > > Why is being forced into a narrow course of action more fun than > having options in playing the game? Withdrawing under my rules is definitely more fun than self-ousting - at least you're struggling for 0.5 VP instead of zero. This covers most "non-immediately-lost" situations (see my previous answer to LSJ). If a player cannot hope to withdraw ("immediately lost" situation), there isn't really much difference between self-ousting and waiting. Actually, the player may even get out of play faster if he refuses to perform various crazy actions. The only fun that's lost is the "fun" that brings chaos and personal matters into the game. This "fun" of one player ruins the fun of the normal game for the other players, and it should be removed from the game forever.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 17, 9:33 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > IMHO, you and all players who want the "lost position" rulings to stay > > seem to literally worship the judges. :) > > Oh, Ector. > > > Everyone state that the judge > > should somehow decide whether the position is "lost" or not, but > > nobody seem to instruct them how to do that. > > Can the player in question have a reasonable chance of gaining more > VPs than they have now, either by ousting their prey, surviving till > the end of the game, or withdrawing? If yes, then they are not in a > lost position. If no, then they are. > > Seems not that difficult to me. Keep in mind that in most situations > that someone can trump up as "But in this situation, they can't win!" > will result in someone being in a position where they can reasonably > attempt to stay alive till the end of the game, and thereby gain .5VP > for living, which is more than 0VP for being ousted. Seems not that difficult to you? How can you evaluate the chances of Claire having 1 pool and no way to block her predator, if her prey, Alex, is going to torporize the predator's minions? IMHO, if you're really trying to evaluate her chances, you should at least talk to each player privately, and only if nobody suggest real ways of saving her, she's really lost. > > I used to be a judge for > > a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy > > to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have > > absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" > > or not. > > Do they have a reasonable chance to gain more VPs than they have > currently, one way or the other? Then they aren't in a lost position. This is a very, very difficult question. Nobody can answer it, including the judge. > > Moreover, such "worship" inevitably leads to the different games for > > different judges. > > No one is worshiping anyone. Pretending that the judge has "absolute knowledge" is a form of worship.

On May 17, 4:33 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > IMHO, you and all players who want the "lost position" rulings to stay > seem to literally worship the judges. :)Everyone state that the judge > should somehow decide whether the position is "lost" or not, but > nobody seem to instruct them how to do that. I used to be a judge for > a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy > to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have > absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" > or not. While I'll skip the "worship judges" part, I'm with Ector on the rest of that: it's damn hard to figure out what's really a "lost position", without better and clearer guidelines. Sure, with friendly players you know it's no problem... but with those, you rarely need a judge anyway. The problem comes up with argumentative players who you *don't* know, who are claiming they are in a "lost position". Now, are they really? That depends immensely on the judge. If you go hardline about it, "reasonably able to get 0.5VP" will mean that you're practically never in a "lost position". You can take the stance that there is *always* the chance that the game will timeout, someone may give you pool/destroy your predator, whatever. On the other end of the spectrum, some judges can be a *lot* more lax about it, and say that someone who is merely in a bad position is "lost". Without better guidelines, both the above are valid.... which isn't good for the game. While there will always be some grey areas and need for pure judgement calls, I really think we need some clarification on this issue. The phrase "reasonable chances of at least 0.5VP" is much too vague, due to the "anything may happen" nature of the game -- the possibility of a game timeouting is a very real one, in most cases. -Petri

On May 17, 10:51 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Do they have a reasonable chance to gain more VPs than they have > > currently, one way or the other? Then they aren't in a lost position. > > This is a very, very difficult question. Nobody can answer it, > including the judge. The judge can answer it, by definition. > Pretending that the judge has "absolute knowledge" is a form of > worship. No one pretends this.

On May 17, 10:57 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: > If you go hardline about it, "reasonably able to get 0.5VP" will mean > that you're practically never in a "lost position". You can take the > stance that there is *always* the chance that the game will timeout, > someone may give you pool/destroy your predator, whatever. > > On the other end of the spectrum, some judges can be a *lot* more lax > about it, and say that someone who is merely in a bad position is > "lost". > > Without better guidelines, both the above are valid.... which isn't With the guideline: "reasonable", neither of the above are valid.

On May 17, 6:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > With the guideline: "reasonable", neither of the above are valid. I would argue that the word "reasonable" is quite vague and open to interpretation. And I've seen a lot of wildly different interpretations. Again, guidelines & examples on what's "reasonable" and what's not would help, here. -Petri

On May 11, 4:36 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > No, I'm saying that if you back oust your predator, expect that they > will remove themselves from play to spite you. Well, it depends. Sure, they may want to... but is it legal for them to do so? They still have the option of bringing out a new minion, telling the rush deck "don't rush me and I'll try to wall up and possibly get 0.5VP from a timeout" -- and in fact, aren't they *obliged* to do so by the rules? They can't just "self-oust out of spite", since they are not yet in a losing position. -Petri

On May 11, 4:02 pm, Pascal <Pasca...@nospam.com> wrote: > > Nothing *forces* Claire to self-oust. > > And nothing forces her to remain in the game. As long as there is a reasonable possibility of 0,5VP, the tournament rules do.

LSJ wrote: > On May 17, 9:33 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > IMHO, [LSJ] and all players who want the "lost position" rulings to stay > > seem to literally worship the judges. :) > > I don't "want" it to stay. Indeed it doesn't exist already. It is > merely a consequence of the absence of any artificial arbitrary > restriction on the choices a player may make. > > Until someone shows a reason to arbitrarily impose an artificial > restriction on the choices, then no such arbitrary restriction will be > added to the rules. I've shown you a lot of such reasons. You even admitted that some of them are really true - elsewhere you wouldn't suggest other variants of leaving the game. As for "an artificial restriction on the choices", PTW is also such restriction :) As long as we already have a strong restriction that affects the whole game, adding a minor restriction that would affect only rare situations isn't going to harm a lot. > > Everyone state that the judge > > should somehow decide whether the position is "lost" or not, but > > nobody seem to instruct them how to do that. > > The instruction is simple: use judgment. What should be the source of judgement? Divine inspiration, I guess? :) > > I used to be a judge for > > a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy > > to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have > > absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" > > or not. > > You tell if someone's position is lost by examining the position to > see if the player has any available choice that could lead to the > player eventually getting more VPs, discounting any unreasonable > scenarios. Now you are going around the same bush :) To tell which scenarious are reasonable and which aren't, a judge should carefully examine every player's permanents, hand, graveyard, probably even decks, and, the most importnanly, intentions. This isn't possible in most practical games. > > > This is enough to indicate that you're using different rules than the > > > rest of us, yes. > > > > Does this surprise you? Actually, each judge has his own rules. > > You're conflating judge's individuality with using different rules. > > Allowing violation of PTW from a clearly non-lost position is not a > matter of judges' personalities. It's a matter of not following the > rules. I didn't talk about violation of PTW from a *clearly non-lost* position. I meant declaring someone's *uncertain* position as "lost". [ quoted text not captured ] Again, the only cases when the player would have no reasonable expectation of withdrawal are "immediately lost" situations, where self-ousting isn't actually much needed, since the player is going to be ousted in a few minutes anyway.

On May 17, 11:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Until someone shows a reason to arbitrarily impose an artificial > > restriction on the choices, then no such arbitrary restriction will be > > added to the rules. > > I've shown you a lot of such reasons. Links, please. > You even admitted that some of > them are really true - elsewhere you wouldn't suggest other variants > of leaving the game. I think you missed some of the quote marks, smilie markup, and use of the word "perspective" in that other thread. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/72ded2ab553a3528 > As for "an artificial restriction on the choices", PTW is also such > restriction :) False. It is part and parcel with the "Object of the game" statement. And see also your omission of the word "arbitrary". > > The instruction is simple: use judgment. > > What should be the source of judgement? Divine inspiration, I > guess? :) The judge's mental faculties, whencesoever they come. If the judge is not up to performing the duties of a judge, then that may be a problem, but it is not a problem of the rules. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1f4ea2d485334fd0 > > > I used to be a judge for > > > a few years, and, as long as I knew my players, it was generally easy > > > to tell whether somebody was playing to win or not, but I have > > > absolutely no idea how to tell whether somebody's position is "lost" > > > or not. > > > You tell if someone's position is lost by examining the position to > > see if the player has any available choice that could lead to the > > player eventually getting more VPs, discounting any unreasonable > > scenarios. > > Now you are going around the same bush :) My job description, I'm afraid, includes answering queries here. You say you have no idea (despite having gone around the bush so many times already), so I reply with the idea you claim to be missing. > To tell which scenarious are > reasonable and which aren't, a judge should carefully examine every > player's permanents, hand, graveyard, probably even decks, and, Sure. Well, not the graveyard. :-). The judge should take all meaningful things of game state into consideration, of course. > the > most importnanly, intentions. False. You need only assume that each player is playing to win. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e7a14b3c6303e74 > This isn't possible in most practical > games. False. > > > > This is enough to indicate that you're using different rules than the > > > > rest of us, yes. > > > > Does this surprise you? Actually, each judge has his own rules. > > > You're conflating judge's individuality with using different rules. > > > Allowing violation of PTW from a clearly non-lost position is not a > > matter of judges' personalities. It's a matter of not following the > > rules. > > I didn't talk about violation of PTW from a *clearly non-lost* > position. I meant declaring someone's *uncertain* position as "lost". Right. The rest of us are using the rules for lost positions only in lost positions. Your group seems to be using them for merely bad positions. > > If the player has no reasonable expectation of being able to meet the > > new withdrawal criteria, then the player has no reason to attempt the > > new withdrawal. (Just as with the current withdrawal rules). > > > And that "if" condition will be met a great majority of the time. > > Again, the only cases when the player would have no reasonable > expectation of withdrawal are "immediately lost" situations, where > self-ousting isn't actually much needed, since the player is going to > be ousted in a few minutes anyway. ? Not meeting the criteria of your rules: "must be able to must avoid torpor when all vampires hunt" does not equate to your definition of "immediately lost".

Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: >On May 11, 4:36�pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> No, I'm saying that if you back oust your predator, expect that they >> will remove themselves from play to spite you. > >Well, it depends. Sure, they may want to... but is it legal for them >to do so? If they're in a lost position, sure. Like every other action they can take, it leads to them staying in their lost position. >They still have the option of bringing out a new minion, telling the >rush deck "don't rush me and I'll try to wall up and possibly get >0.5VP from a timeout" -- and in fact, aren't they *obliged* to do so >by the rules? They can't just "self-oust out of spite", since they are >not yet in a losing position. You're confusing "losing position" and "lost position". If the player still has options that will reasonably lead to them improving their position, they're not in a lost position, and should take one of those options. A number of rush decks, however, are known for just preventing a player doing anything at all. If I bring out my 6 cap vampire and you (my prey) back-rush me immediately and can thwart all my combat defence, it's just a bleed for 6. No improvement in my position. It would potentially be quite reasonable for me to think it's not worth it. This is the sort of thing Peter is talking about. A rush deck that just annihilates its predator without giving the player any chance to do anything at all shouldn't be altogether surprised when the player decides "fuck it, I can't do anything, I can't even cycle any cards at all to defend against my predator since I never have a vampire ready during his turn" and self-ousts. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: >On May 17, 6:01�pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> With the guideline: "reasonable", neither of the above are valid. > >I would argue that the word "reasonable" is quite vague and open to >interpretation. And I've seen a lot of wildly different >interpretations. It is, yes. So are things like intentional stalling vs slow play. So is the concept of cheating. Judges already handle these issues fairly routinely, using judgment based on the current context of the game and their wider understanding of what is reasonable behaviour on the part of the players. Do your judges not do this? If they do, you are already happy that judges can exercise their judgment to determine what is reasonable, even though that means that in one tournament I might receive a stiffer penalty for particular behaviour than if another judge was judging. >Again, guidelines & examples on what's "reasonable" and what's not >would help, here. Could you provide the written guidelines that your judges are using for all the other areas of the game where they have to use their judgment already? If they're coping without them there, why is this area so different? [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector wrote: > IMHO, you and all players who want the "lost position" rulings > to stay seem to literally worship the judges. :) That's not fair Ector, nor is it a reasonable position to take. No one 'worships' the judge, but you MUST have some kind of ultimate authority where rules exist. We have all accepted the fact that a judge exists and is empowered to rule thusly. If you chose not to accept this fact, that's a challenge for you to personally work through, I guess. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On May 17, 10:51 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Seems not that difficult to you? How can you evaluate the chances of > Claire having 1 pool and no way to block her predator, if her prey, > Alex, is going to torporize the predator's minions? You are getting *way* too caught up on specifics here. It is rare that someone is going to claim that they are in a truly lost position. And rare that when they do, that said position is not completely obvious one way or the other. In the very small number of ambiguous situations, there is a judge who can render judgement as necessary. Just assume that most of the time, if someone claims that they are in a truly lost position, but it isn't completely obvious that they are? They probably aren't. > This is a very, very difficult question. Nobody can answer it, > including the judge. The Judge can answer it by definition. The question of whether or not you are in a truly lost position is one that requires judgement. Which is why we have judges. The judge looks at the situation and decides. There you go. That is what judges are for. > Pretending that the judge has "absolute knowledge" is a form of > worship. No one is pretending that judges have "absolute knowledge". We are accepting that sometimes situations require judgement, which is why we have judges. Will the judge always be completely correct? Of course not. No judges are always completely correct (see: wrongfully convicted prisoners, questionable calls by line judges in sports, and demented Supreme Court rulings...). But they make judgements and we move on. As that is why we have them in the first place. -Peter

On May 17, 2:42 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > This is the sort of thing Peter is talking about. A rush deck that just > annihilates its predator without giving the player any chance to do > anything at all shouldn't be altogether surprised when the player > decides "fuck it, I can't do anything, I can't even cycle any cards at > all to defend against my predator since I never have a vampire ready > during his turn" and self-ousts. Spot on. -Peter

On May 17, 9:42 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >They still have the option of bringing out a new minion, telling the > >rush deck "don't rush me and I'll try to wall up and possibly get > >0.5VP from a timeout" -- and in fact, aren't they *obliged* to do so > >by the rules? They can't just "self-oust out of spite", since they are > >not yet in a losing position. > > You're confusing "losing position" and "lost position". > > If the player still has options that will reasonably lead to them > improving their position, they're not in a lost position, and should > take one of those options. > > A number of rush decks, however, are known for just preventing a player > doing anything at all. If I bring out my 6 cap vampire and you (my > prey) back-rush me immediately and can thwart all my combat defence, > it's just a bleed for 6. No improvement in my position. It would > potentially be quite reasonable for me to think it's not worth it. > > This is the sort of thing Peter is talking about. A rush deck that just > annihilates its predator without giving the player any chance to do > anything at all shouldn't be altogether surprised when the player > decides "fuck it, I can't do anything, I can't even cycle any cards at > all to defend against my predator since I never have a vampire ready > during his turn" and self-ousts. Ok, with that I agree. If a rush deck blindly kills every minion the predator brings out, with no negotiation or attempts at a deal, then yes, it's a lost position and the player has no real options. I was thinking more about a "smart rush deck" scenario, where you kill most of your predator's minions, but let him keep enough (maybe just one, maybe more) to defend himself. If you then tell him that you won't rush any more of his minions unless he brings out more or does a hostile action against you, that predator won't (in my opinion) have grounds for claiming he's in a lost position. He'll have a chance for 0,5VP, at the very least. (I started another thread on that subject a few hours ago, to clarify the issue). Assuming you agree with the above, I think we're on the same page on this one ;) Thing is, I've seen players claiming they are in a lost (not losing, but lost) position when left with just one minion, due to whatever reasons (rush, minion steal, ally burn, whatever). This happened last weekend at a miniqualifier I ran, and now in hindsight I think I should have stepped in on that (I didn't). There is still a lot of confusion about this issue both among the players and the judges (incl me, sadly enough). This thread is a help. What happened last weekend was something like this: - player A was playing an animalism earth meld wall deck, his predator B was a Kiasyd S+B which was putting on fairly heavy pressure - he had previously lost some minor minons, he was now down to a Gangrel (in pretty good shape) and Carlton - player X stole his Carlton, cross-table - pissed off at this, A did some hostile cross-table action towards X (don't remember what it was), claiming that he had now lost the game and could do whatever he wanted. In retrospect, I probably should have said "no" here. The action caused X to get ousted, indirectly. - pretty soon after that, A did get ousted by the Kiasyd I don't think A's action had any real effect on how the endgame played out, X would have gotten ousted anyway. A's position was bad, yes, but he *was* playing a wall deck with tons of Earth Melds and had a (small) theoretical chance at hanging on until timeout. It wasn't a clearcut thing, but in hindsight I guess that at that point of time, looking at the game state, I should have ruled his position as "losing", not "lost", regardless of A's own opinion. It wasn't a clearcut thing, though. Oh well. - Petri

James Coupe wrote: > Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: >> On May 11, 4:36 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> No, I'm saying that if you back oust your predator, expect that they >>> will remove themselves from play to spite you. >> Well, it depends. Sure, they may want to... but is it legal for them >> to do so? > > If they're in a lost position, sure. Like every other action they can > take, it leads to them staying in their lost position. > >> They still have the option of bringing out a new minion, telling the >> rush deck "don't rush me and I'll try to wall up and possibly get >> 0.5VP from a timeout" -- and in fact, aren't they *obliged* to do so >> by the rules? They can't just "self-oust out of spite", since they are >> not yet in a losing position. > > You're confusing "losing position" and "lost position". This is so key, and I think everyone needs to sit back and be sure they understand this difference. Right. Now. Before they continue to post to this thread. or not. best - chris

On May 17, 4:35 pm, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: > Assuming you agree with the above, I think we're on the same page on > this one ;) I'd agree with the page you are on. If you have some pool and a minion, and the Rush deck is letting you live in the name of possibly withdrawing or surviving to the end of the game, self ousting is likely illegal. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > On May 17, 11:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Until someone shows a reason to arbitrarily impose an artificial > > > restriction on the choices, then no such arbitrary restriction will be > > > added to the rules. > > > > I've shown you a lot of such reasons. > > Links, please. As you wish. Going around the same bush again, but still. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/tree/browse_frm/thread/cddf259ead492da4/afbf7d980d464b3e?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.games.trading-cards.jyhad%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fcddf259ead492da4%2Feac2f681fe951fcb%3Ftvc%3D1%26#doc_afbf7d980d464b3e These reasons are far from being the exhaustive list, there are more reasons. For instance, good rules should allow the minimal interference of judges into the game flow and NEVER allow judges to determine the outcome of the game (unless somebody gets Game Loss). The current rules *require* the judge every time somebody wants to declare himself in a "lost position", and every time the judge determines the outcome of the game, acting in favor of his predator (probiding him VP and 6 pool immediately, without even having to spend some actions to oust) or in favor of other players. This alone should be enough to prohibit the "lost position" rulings! > > You even admitted that some of > > them are really true - elsewhere you wouldn't suggest other variants > > of leaving the game. > > I think you missed some of the quote marks, smilie markup, and use of > the word "perspective" in that other thread. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/72ded2ab553a3528 Too bad. I don't like that idea, but I really liked that you seemed to acknowledge that something should be changed here. > > As for "an artificial restriction on the choices", PTW is also such > > restriction :) > > False. It is part and parcel with the "Object of the game" statement. > > And see also your omission of the word "arbitrary". I've seen many games with stated Object of the Game, but no restrictions on players' actions. Moreover, it was rather difficult to make our players understand what is PTW and why it's needed. So there is little point to pretend that it's "obvious". > > > The instruction is simple: use judgment. > > > > What should be the source of judgement? Divine inspiration, I > > guess? :) > > The judge's mental faculties, whencesoever they come. > > If the judge is not up to performing the duties of a judge, then that > may be a problem, but it is not a problem of the rules. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1f4ea2d485334fd0 I was a Level 2 Judge in Magic (which requires passing some serious exams), and I've judged our Nationals, never having serious problems. But I simply cannot perform such duties as evaluating "level of reasonability" of getting some VPs. That's too much for a mere mortal, especially not observing the game. I bet that most judges who pretend to be able of performing such "duties" use just a "fast judgement", which isn't going to be accurate. > > To tell which scenarious are > > reasonable and which aren't, a judge should carefully examine every > > player's permanents, hand, graveyard, probably even decks, and, > > Sure. > > Well, not the graveyard. :-). > > The judge should take all meaningful things of game state into > consideration, of course. Sorry, I've meant ash heap, not a graveyard :) Graveyard is a place where vampires live, not lie dead :) > > > the > > most importnanly, intentions. > > False. > > You need only assume that each player is playing to win. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e7a14b3c6303e74 How can this be false? If my grandprey has no ready minions and 1 pool, he can self-oust despite of my oath of resquing his vampires from torpor, giving him pool, giving him VPs? That's just ridiculous! Why the judge shouldn't take into account such things? On the other hand, I can *promise* everything :) > > This isn't possible in most practical > > games. > > False. Come on. How much time do you need to examine all players' permanents, hands and ash heaps? > > > > > This is enough to indicate that you're using different rules than the > > > > > rest of us, yes. > > > > > > Does this surprise you? Actually, each judge has his own rules. > > > > > You're conflating judge's individuality with using different rules. > > > > > Allowing violation of PTW from a clearly non-lost position is not a > > > matter of judges' personalities. It's a matter of not following the > > > rules. > > > > I didn't talk about violation of PTW from a *clearly non-lost* > > position. I meant declaring someone's *uncertain* position as "lost". > > Right. The rest of us are using the rules for lost positions only in > lost positions. > Your group seems to be using them for merely bad positions. There is no clear border between a "merely bad position" and a "lost position", and you know this. > > > If the player has no reasonable expectation of being able to meet the > > > new withdrawal criteria, then the player has no reason to attempt the > > > new withdrawal. (Just as with the current withdrawal rules). > > > > > And that "if" condition will be met a great majority of the time. > > > > Again, the only cases when the player would have no reasonable > > expectation of withdrawal are "immediately lost" situations, where > > self-ousting isn't actually much needed, since the player is going to > > be ousted in a few minutes anyway. > > ? > > Not meeting the criteria of your rules: "must be able to must avoid > torpor when all vampires hunt" does not equate to your definition of > "immediately lost". There are cases when a vampire cannot reasonably :))) hope to avoid torpor while hunting, but they are extremely rare. A player cannot even be sure that someone would block the hunt, and even if he would, he would spend resources to torporize. After all, the withdrawing player doesn't represent a threat, but combat is always dangerous.

[ quoted text not captured ] "Worshipping" was just a sarcasm, though quite bitter. I'm completely aware of all the details of judge's work, since I've been a judge in various games for more than 10 years, including Magic. A judge is supposed to know the rules, to maintain the order, to ensure that newbs aren't deceived or mistreated, etc. etc. But all games I know follow the two basic principles: 1). The judge should keep his interference minimal. If everything is OK, no interference is needed at all. 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except for the cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). Obviously, the current "lost position" rulings break both principles. Every time somebody tries to declare himself "lost", a judge interference is *required*. And every time the judge actually determines the outcome of the game. This is too much responsibility for a mere mortal, even a judge. Remember, the judge is not a Dungeon Master, and the whole game universe is not completely in his mind. The result of game has its own meaning, unlike the result of any combat in the RPG. A Dungeon Master can revive the dead PCs, a judge cannot reverse the result of a finished game, even if he would find out that his judgement was incorrect. If we look at the rules that makes the game so much more complicated, it's hard to refrain from asking: what for? What does the game get for such immense price? Just to let the players to get out of the game table a few minutes earlier???

[ quoted text not captured ] If it would be so easy to understand the difference, there wouldn't be any discussions. "Lost position" = "no reasonable chances of getting VPs", as defined by LSJ. "Losing position" = what? "Almost no reasonable chances"? There chances are reasonable enough to play for 0.5, but nor reasonable enough to play for 1? Or something else?

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 17, 10:51 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Seems not that difficult to you? How can you evaluate the chances of > > Claire having 1 pool and no way to block her predator, if her prey, > > Alex, is going to torporize the predator's minions? > > You are getting *way* too caught up on specifics here. It is rare that > someone is going to claim that they are in a truly lost position. And > rare that when they do, that said position is not completely obvious > one way or the other. In the very small number of ambiguous > situations, there is a judge who can render judgement as necessary. > > Just assume that most of the time, if someone claims that they are in > a truly lost position, but it isn't completely obvious that they are? > They probably aren't. This is the "fast judgement" I've said about. I cannot agree it's serious enough in such important matters as self-ousting. After all, this decision is almost always affects the game result. > > This is a very, very difficult question. Nobody can answer it, > > including the judge. > > The Judge can answer it by definition. The question of whether or not > you are in a truly lost position is one that requires judgement. Which > is why we have judges. The judge looks at the situation and decides. > There you go. That is what judges are for. Now that's funny. Such "argument" resembles the tribal opinion "shaman has to know this since he's a shaman" :) While the shaman usually knows more than most other tribesmen, there are things he doesn't know, but he pretends to know them to keep his authority. The judges are absolutely the same: they know more than most players, but they don't know everything. If they are supposed to make a decision on whether the position is lost or not, they never have enough information. So they just follow their feelings. > > Pretending that the judge has "absolute knowledge" is a form of > > worship. > > No one is pretending that judges have "absolute knowledge". We are > accepting that sometimes situations require judgement, which is why we > have judges. Will the judge always be completely correct? Of course > not. No judges are always completely correct (see: wrongfully > convicted prisoners, questionable calls by line judges in sports, and > demented Supreme Court rulings...). But they make judgements and we > move on. As that is why we have them in the first place. > Brilliant examples! Now recall how much time and effort is needed to judge a prisoner - his life is on the stake. To make a fair decision here, a judge should at least carefully examine the game state and talk to every player separately, which is going to take too much time and disrupt the tournament schedule. Yes, the game isn't as valuable as somebody's life, but our life is just several thousands of games :) What is the best solution here? Avoid the situations where a judge should make such important judgements at all. No self-ousting = no judge's interference into the game outcome. And if somebody would have to sit at the table few minutes more, that's no worse than having to wait for the same time until judge makes his decision :)

On May 18, 7:06 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > On May 17, 11:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > Until someone shows a reason to arbitrarily impose an artificial > > > > restriction on the choices, then no such arbitrary restriction will be > > > > added to the rules. > > > > I've shown you a lot of such reasons. > > > Links, please. > > As you wish. Going around the same bush again, but still. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/tree/bro... No, I mean "links where you've shown reasons to impose an artificial restriction on the choices." Not links where you indicate your personal preference. > These reasons are far from being the exhaustive list, there are more > reasons. For instance, good rules should allow the minimal > interference of judges into the game flow and NEVER allow judges to > determine the outcome of the game (unless somebody gets Game Loss). Judges should certainly sometimes influence the outcome of the game: that's exactly what happens EVERY time a judge interacts with a game (pausing the clock, adding time, rewinding game state, etc.). That influence will certainly sometimes determine the outcome of a game. > The current rules *require* the judge every time somebody wants to > declare himself in a "lost position", and every time the judge Yes, judges are required. Every time the clock runs out, or a card is misplayed (or accidentally shown or drawn), etc. > determines the outcome of the game, acting in favor of his predator > (probiding him VP and 6 pool immediately, without even having to spend > some actions to oust) or in favor of other players. Such judgments don't always determine the outcome of the game, obviously. > This alone should be enough to prohibit the "lost position" rulings! It is not. > > > As for "an artificial restriction on the choices", PTW is also such > > > restriction :) > > > False. It is part and parcel with the "Object of the game" statement. > > > And see also your omission of the word "arbitrary". > > I've seen many games with stated Object of the Game, but no > restrictions on players' actions. Moreover, it was rather difficult to > make our players understand what is PTW and why it's needed. So there > is little point to pretend that it's "obvious". Sorry, but it is obvious. > > > the > > > most importnanly, intentions. > > > False. > > > You need only assume that each player is playing to win. > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e7a... > > How can this be false? See the cited link. Game state is what is needed to be evaluated (under the premise that players will play in their own best interests -- i.e., will play to win). > If my grandprey has no ready minions and 1 pool, he can self-oust > despite of my oath of resquing his vampires from torpor, giving him > pool, giving him VPs? That's just ridiculous! Why the judge shouldn't > take into account such things? If your grand prey is in a lost position, he is free to lose howsoever he likes, yes. He is not required to trust player A or B or C or D (who could then simply all promise the lost player the moon, with no game effect to enforce the promises, returning the player to his own devices). > On the other hand, I can *promise* everything :) Exactly. This answers your query. > > > This isn't possible in most practical > > > games. > > > False. > > Come on. How much time do you need to examine all players' permanents, > hands and ash heaps? Exactly. Not very many times at all. > > Right. The rest of us are using the rules for lost positions only in > > lost positions. > > Your group seems to be using them for merely bad positions. > > There is no clear border between a "merely bad position" and a "lost > position", and you know this. Yes, I do. Nonetheless, the above stands.

On May 18, 7:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > This is the "fast judgement" I've said about. I cannot agree it's > serious enough in such important matters as self-ousting. After all, > this decision is almost always affects the game result. All judgements that judges make affect the outcome of a game in some way, and in all cases, the judge uses their judgement as quickly as they can. Someone misplays, and it is difficult to rewind? The judge makes a fast judgement and the outcome of the game is affected one way or the other. Someone cheats? The judge makes a fast judgement that affects the outcome of the game. This is what judges do. The judgement in question is no different. > Now that's funny. Such "argument" resembles the tribal opinion "shaman > has to know this since he's a shaman" :) While the shaman usually > knows more than most other tribesmen, there are things he doesn't > know, but he pretends to know them to keep his authority. Judges don't pretend to know things to keep authority. Judges have authority by defenition, and use it as needed. No one as pretending that they are all knowing or always right. But as their job is to make judgements, that is what they do. It seems as if you are sublimating some sort of issues you have with authority as a whole into the argument about judges in VTES. We have previously determined that you seem to think that all people are corrupt and want to cheat, and only don't due to harsh punishment for being caught which, as has been my experience, isn't actually the case with people playing VTES. It seems like you are making a similar point about judges. Again, in my experience, not the case. > Brilliant examples! Now recall how much time and effort is needed to > judge a prisoner - his life is on the stake. To make a fair decision > here, a judge should at least carefully examine the game state and > talk to every player separately, which is going to take too much time > and disrupt the tournament schedule. Yes, the game isn't as valuable > as somebody's life, but our life is just several thousands of games :) Luckily, decisions about a game state or a player following the rules or not isn't a life or death decision. So a quick judgement is all that is needed. Just like if someone accidentally plays a card illegally and it gets figured out a coupleturns later--it is difficult to rewind and fix it, but it needs fixing. So the judge quickly makes a judgement,and the game moves on. > What is the best solution here? Avoid the situations where a judge > should make such important judgements at all. No self-ousting = no > judge's interference into the game outcome. Self ousting only comes up very rarely. And assuming it is being done following the already existing rules, there is no need to do anything to prevent it. -Peter

On May 18, 7:38 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > "Losing position" = what? "Almost no reasonable chances"? There > chances are reasonable enough to play for 0.5, but nor reasonable > enough to play for 1? Or something else? No one bothers defining "losing position", since the definition is not utilized in (or useful to) any aspect of the game. But if you need a definition for it for whatever reason: "losing position" seems to be used by some players as "non-lost position that seems to have the player in question at a disadvantage, no matter how slight, but still with at least one course of action that might, without invoking any unreasonable scenarios, eventually lead to the player acquiring a (half of a) VP or more."

Ector wrote: > > 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except for the > cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). > > Judges (also known as referees or umpires) regularly effect the outcome of a game. Think: Tennis, football (american or otherwise), baseball, etc etc. Some games rely less on judges than others. But in most tournament level games, you need judges, and they do indeed determine the outcome of games. "Reasonableness" is a common and enforceable legal term here in the US. Who decides what is reasonable? Judges. best - chris

Ector wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Ector wrote: >>> IMHO, you and all players who want the "lost position" rulings >>> to stay seem to literally worship the judges. :) >> >> That's not fair Ector, nor is it a reasonable position to take. >> >> No one 'worships' the judge, but you MUST have some kind >> of ultimate authority where rules exist. We have all accepted >> the fact that a judge exists and is empowered to rule thusly. >> >> If you chose not to accept this fact, that's a challenge for you >> to personally work through, I guess. > > "Worshipping" was just a sarcasm, though quite bitter. > I'm completely aware of all the details of judge's work, since > I've been a judge in various games for more than 10 years, > including Magic. Saying "including Magic" doesn't seem to lend credence to anything judge-related anymore than if you said "including Shadowfist" or "including Babylon5", so I'm unsure why you added it. > A judge is supposed to know the rules, to maintain the order, > to ensure that newbs aren't deceived or mistreated, etc. etc. > But all games I know follow the two basic principles: > 1). The judge should keep his interference minimal. If everything > is OK, no interference is needed at all. > 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except > for the cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). Sounds reasonable. > Obviously, the current "lost position" rulings break both > principles. Every time somebody tries to declare himself "lost", > a judge interference is *required*. And every time the judge > actually determines the outcome of the game. This is too much > responsibility for a mere mortal, even a judge. You are using blinders on this particular issue to differentiate it from any other "when a judge is needed" issue. They are all the same. I'd suggest that if "everytime a judge is needed, a judge is needed" is too much for some players, then they shouldn't be judges. [snip irrelevant D&D reference] [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > On May 18, 7:06 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > On May 17, 11:28 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > Until someone shows a reason to arbitrarily impose an artificial > > > > > restriction on the choices, then no such arbitrary restriction will be > > > > > added to the rules. > > > > > > I've shown you a lot of such reasons. > > > > > Links, please. > > > > As you wish. Going around the same bush again, but still. > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/tree/bro... > > No, I mean "links where you've shown reasons to impose an artificial > restriction on the choices." > Not links where you indicate your personal preference. The provided link indicate serious reasons for rules changes, not "my personal preference". As for the "restriction of choices", it's just a matter of point of view on the rules. Prohibiting the prize-splitting in the finals is also a "restriction of choices". Nobody can prove that more choices is always better. Some choices *should* be restricted for the well-being of the game. Why do I think that the changes would be better for the game? Follow my link :) We've discussed this several times. > > These reasons are far from being the exhaustive list, there are more > > reasons. For instance, good rules should allow the minimal > > interference of judges into the game flow and NEVER allow judges to > > determine the outcome of the game (unless somebody gets Game Loss). > > Judges should certainly sometimes influence the outcome of the game: > that's exactly what happens EVERY time a judge interacts with a game > (pausing the clock, adding time, rewinding game state, etc.). That > influence will certainly sometimes determine the outcome of a game. Rewinding game state is needed extremely rarely, thanks God, and in most times judge just needs to return the game state to the previous state, as close as possible. Pausing the clock and adding time are trivial tasks that even a robot could easily perform. All these things are far less likely to change the result of the game than the wrong decision about someone's "lost position". > > The current rules *require* the judge every time somebody wants to > > declare himself in a "lost position", and every time the judge > > Yes, judges are required. Every time the clock runs out, or a card is > misplayed (or accidentally shown or drawn), etc. Please don't mix such things. Players can use the clock on the wall to determine when the clock runs out, and they can just shuffle deck when somebody accidentally shows or draws extra cards. All this can be done without calling a judge. > > determines the outcome of the game, acting in favor of his predator > > (probiding him VP and 6 pool immediately, without even having to spend > > some actions to oust) or in favor of other players. > > Such judgments don't always determine the outcome of the game, > obviously. It would be a disaster if it would. But the current situation is bad enough. > > This alone should be enough to prohibit the "lost position" rulings! > > It is not. It really is, but you somewhy refuse to admit that. If you exaluate what the game gains from the rulings and what price all players are paying for that, it would become obvious. > > > > As for "an artificial restriction on the choices", PTW is also such > > > > restriction :) > > > > > False. It is part and parcel with the "Object of the game" statement. > > > > > And see also your omission of the word "arbitrary". > > > > I've seen many games with stated Object of the Game, but no > > restrictions on players' actions. Moreover, it was rather difficult to > > make our players understand what is PTW and why it's needed. So there > > is little point to pretend that it's "obvious". > > Sorry, but it is obvious. Sorry, but it wasn't obvious to each of our novices, including myself a few years ago. > > > > the > > > > most importnanly, intentions. > > > > > False. > > > > > You need only assume that each player is playing to win. > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e7a... > > > > How can this be false? > > See the cited link. > > Game state is what is needed to be evaluated (under the premise that > players will play in their own best interests -- i.e., will play to > win). PTW doesn't dictate the behaviour, you know. No player always acts in the best possible way. And "the best possible way" is never obvious for the judge, either. That's why the judge's decision will always be more or less arbitrary. Just for analogy: a chess judge could say whether the player's position is lost or not if he had a powerful supercomputer able to scan all the possible variants. As long as VTES is much more complicated, that's simply impossible. > > If my grandprey has no ready minions and 1 pool, he can self-oust > > despite of my oath of resquing his vampires from torpor, giving him > > pool, giving him VPs? That's just ridiculous! Why the judge shouldn't > > take into account such things? > > If your grand prey is in a lost position, he is free to lose howsoever > he likes, yes. > He is not required to trust player A or B or C or D (who could then > simply all promise the lost player the moon, with no game effect to > enforce the promises, returning the player to his own devices). This just demonstrates that Cheating: Collusion is even more simple than I've thought. Because when a player is willing to self-oust despite somebody's clear intention to save him (or even the whole table's intention to save him), that's obviously not playing to win or even cheating. And it's perfectly legal now. > > On the other hand, I can *promise* everything :) > > Exactly. This answers your query. That just demonstrates how ridiculous are the "lost position" rulings. > > > > This isn't possible in most practical > > > > games. > > > > > False. > > > > Come on. How much time do you need to examine all players' permanents, > > hands and ash heaps? > > Exactly. Not very many times at all. I've asked about "time", not "times". This would take at least 15-30 minutes, if the judge really wants to get all the needed information. And even after that' he would have information only about the current game state.

On May 19, 7:54 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Rewinding game state is needed extremely rarely, thanks God, Rewinding the game state comes up far more often than anyone claiming they are in a lost position and self ousting. So given that rewinding the game state happens only extremely rarely, you see how often someone tries to self oust due to being in a lot position. > All these things are far less likely to change the result of the game > than the wrong decision about someone's "lost position". How can you make such a claim? Are you a judge with absolute knowledge? A shaman, perhaps? All judgements affect the result of a game. Rewinding the game state is just as likely (if not more likely) to affect the outcome of the game as someone self ousting. Especially given that the vast majority of the time that someone self ousts (which is in and of itself very rare), they aren't changing the outcome of the game. They are just speeding up the inevitable. > Just for analogy: a chess judge could say whether the player's > position is lost or not if he had a powerful supercomputer able to > scan all the possible variants. As long as VTES is much more > complicated, that's simply impossible. Again, getting caught up on specifics. You don't need a supercomputer to determine lost position or not. You just need a judge to determine if someone has a reasonable chance of improving their position. If there is a question (i.e. an ambigious situation)? They probably aren't in a lost position. Judgement made. Move on. > I've asked about "time", not "times". This would take at least 15-30 > minutes, if the judge really wants to get all the needed information. > And even after that' he would have information only about the current > game state. If someone has enough stuff that it takes 15-30 minutes to examine? They probably aren't in a lost position. Most of the time, a truly lost position will be completely obvious to everyone in the game, and the judge who wanders over. If someone is making a claim to be in a lost position, and it takes significant analysis? The judge is probably completely justified in calling it a not lost position. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 18, 7:57 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > This is the "fast judgement" I've said about. I cannot agree it's > > serious enough in such important matters as self-ousting. After all, > > this decision is almost always affects the game result. > > All judgements that judges make affect the outcome of a game in some > way, and in all cases, the judge uses their judgement as quickly as > they can. Someone misplays, and it is difficult to rewind? The judge > makes a fast judgement and the outcome of the game is affected one way > or the other. Someone cheats? The judge makes a fast judgement that > affects the outcome of the game. This is what judges do. The judgement > in question is no different. Cheating and misplaying are not the normal play, right? We can assume that if all players are honest and well-trained, such things will never happen. But self-ousting can happen even among the best players. > > Now that's funny. Such "argument" resembles the tribal opinion "shaman > > has to know this since he's a shaman" :) While the shaman usually > > knows more than most other tribesmen, there are things he doesn't > > know, but he pretends to know them to keep his authority. > > Judges don't pretend to know things to keep authority. Judges have > authority by defenition, and use it as needed. No one as pretending > that they are all knowing or always right. But as their job is to make > judgements, that is what they do. Well, you may say that shamen also have their authority by definition, and their job is talking with spirits and dealing with all supernatural matters. Thus, by definition, they have knowledge of everything supernatural :) > It seems as if you are sublimating some sort of issues you have with > authority as a whole into the argument about judges in VTES. We have > previously determined that you seem to think that all people are > corrupt and want to cheat, and only don't due to harsh punishment for > being caught which, as has been my experience, isn't actually the case > with people playing VTES. It seems like you are making a similar point > about judges. Again, in my experience, not the case. I don't think that all people are corrupt. But the normal behaviour for all guards of order is thinking like criminals and always suspecting possible crimes. The unsuspecting guard is like a blind guard. > > Brilliant examples! Now recall how much time and effort is needed to > > judge a prisoner - his life is on the stake. To make a fair decision > > here, a judge should at least carefully examine the game state and > > talk to every player separately, which is going to take too much time > > and disrupt the tournament schedule. Yes, the game isn't as valuable > > as somebody's life, but our life is just several thousands of games :) > > Luckily, decisions about a game state or a player following the rules > or not isn't a life or death decision. So a quick judgement is all > that is needed. Just like if someone accidentally plays a card > illegally and it gets figured out a coupleturns later--it is difficult > to rewind and fix it, but it needs fixing. So the judge quickly makes > a judgement,and the game moves on. Again, rewinds don't happen if everyone plays right. Self-oustings still do. > > What is the best solution here? Avoid the situations where a judge > > should make such important judgements at all. No self-ousting = no > > judge's interference into the game outcome. > > Self ousting only comes up very rarely. And assuming it is being done > following the already existing rules, there is no need to do anything > to prevent it. > > -Peter Self-ousting can be rare or very frequent - this depends on the judge and players' habits. This is just one more reason of prohibiting it.

librarian wrote: > Ector wrote: > > > > > 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except for the > > cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). > > > > > > Judges (also known as referees or umpires) regularly effect the outcome of > a game. Think: Tennis, football (american or otherwise), baseball, etc etc. In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's simple and could be done even by robots. Imagine that some football team would call for the judge to evaluate its chances of gaining more points :) Sounds crazy? Not more crazy than in VTES. > Some games rely less on judges than others. > > But in most tournament level games, you need judges, and they do indeed > determine the outcome of games. > > "Reasonableness" is a common and enforceable legal term here in the US. > Who decides what is reasonable? Judges. > > best - > > chris Please don't mix the judges of law with the VTES judges. The former are well-educated, trained, and well-paid;the latter are usually just the players who know the rules better than others.

Ector wrote: > > librarian wrote: >> Ector wrote: >>> 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except for the >>> cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). >>> >>> >> Judges (also known as referees or umpires) regularly effect the outcome of >> a game. Think: Tennis, football (american or otherwise), baseball, etc etc. > In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed > the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's > simple and could be done even by robots. Hmmm, so you want something that a robot can judge? I understand now. I don't think it applies here in this argument, see below. One thing about all professional sports games (that I can think of) - they are one on one contests. One side vs another. Even Magic is that way. VTES is different. What will benefit one person will harm another player, and visa versa. I'm going to stop there to see if you agree with that statement. I'll repeat it: Do you agree with this statement: "In VTES, what will benefit one person will harm another player, and visa versa." Yes or no? best - chris

On May 19, 12:03 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Ector wrote: > > > librarian wrote: > >> Ector wrote: > >>> 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except for the > >>> cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). > > >> Judges (also known as referees or umpires) regularly effect the outcome of > >> a game. Think: Tennis, football (american or otherwise), baseball, etc etc. > > In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed > > the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's > > simple and could be done even by robots. > > Hmmm, so you want something that a robot can judge? I understand now. I > don't think it applies here in this argument, see below. > > One thing about all professional sports games (that I can think of) - they > are one on one contests. Races are often multi-player, whether foot races, bikes, skates, cars, boats, etc. (Also, golf and similar tests of individual performance) > One side vs another. Even Magic is that way. > VTES is different. What will benefit one person will harm another player, > and visa versa. That's not a "difference" from 1-on-1 games. It's a similarity. Obviously what hurts white helps black in chess. Nonetheless, it's true in races, too. Crashes, drafting, blocking, obscuring, pacing, debris, otherwise adjusting the course (setting a line, heating up the pavement, etc.), etc.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed >the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's >simple and could be done even by robots. Erm, that's not the only thing the judge does in sports games. >Imagine that some football team would call for the judge to evaluate >its chances of gaining more points :) Sounds crazy? Not at all. You keep telling us how V:TES must become more like a sport, but apparently don't know much about sports. - In a wide variety of sports, a judge is required to ascertain whether someone is intentionally cheating in some fashion. For example, in a team game (soccer, rugby, American football etc.), the referee might choose a more serious penalty if he believes the particular infraction was intentional rather than unintentional. Can this mean the judge changes the results of the game, based on his judgment? Yes. In rugby, for example, being awarded a penalty (serious) vs a free kick (less serious) vs a scrum (not very serious) can have a profound effect on a game. How is it decided? Judgment. Is this subjective? All the time. Even impartial TV and radio commentary teams will disagree on whether a particular infraction deserved a particular penalty or not. This can go beyond the current game. If a particular player is punished with a high severity (such as yellow and red cards in soccer), this can prevent them playing in future games, which will affect the outcome there too. The threshold between a foul and a yellow card, and a yellow card and a red card, is often subjective. Certainly, the exact boundaries are murky. - In a number of one-on-one sports, it is absolutely the role of the referee to determine that both players are being aggressive. That is, that both players are trying to win in the spirit of the game. I've certainly seen a number of one-on-one combative sports where a referee is encouraged to intervene if one player is being excessively defensive and appears to only be playing for a draw. How do they determine that? Judgment. Can it affect the outcome of the match? Absolutely. - In some team-sports, judges are empowered to see if the team manager is playing to win. In football (soccer), for example, the rules of the Premier League state that clubs should "field a full strength team", and can't just decide to field their second team in a game to conserve energy and prevent injuries. (See <http://news.bbc.co.uk/spo rt1/hi/football/eng_prem/8408337.stm> as one example.) However, the threshold is subjective - a team might have several good players competing for a sport, and choosing the inexperienced newbie over the trusted oldbie every now and then is going to make sense for the team. Trying out new permutations will make sense, to see if you can improve your outcomes. So the threshold is subjective. Can this determine the outcome of a game? Usually, the investigation is retrospective, but the relevant governing bodies can have quite extensive powers. The role of judges in many sports is far beyond robotic decision. So, congratulations, V:TES is just like a real sport in this regard. Shouldn't you be happy? [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 19, 8:11 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Cheating and misplaying are not the normal play, right? We can assume > that if all players are honest and well-trained, such things will > never happen. Which is a bad assumption to make. Accidental mis-play has nothing to do with being "well-trained". It has to do with things happening by accident. Which happens. > But self-ousting can happen even among the best players. Sure. And when it happens, and it is legal, it is completely reasonable. And there is no reason to try and prevent it. > I don't think that all people are corrupt. But the normal behaviour > for all guards of order is thinking like criminals and always > suspecting possible crimes. The unsuspecting guard is like a blind > guard. So you envision yourself as a "guard of order"? > Again, rewinds don't happen if everyone plays right. Self-oustings > still do. Rewinds happen 'cause people make mistakes. Self oustings happen 'cause it is a reasonable response under the appropriate conditions. > Self-ousting can be rare or very frequent - this depends on the judge > and players' habits. This is just one more reason of prohibiting it. Are you imagining that there is some vast rash of people ousting themselves in the name of throwing games to friends? Do you really believe that self ousting is something that happens often enough to actually worry about it this much?

> > >No, that is not a "problem of perception". Playing for some VPs (even > > >for 0,5 VP) is the normal, sane play: you're trying to oust your prey > > >and prevent your predator from ousting you. Playing for 0 VPs is > > >"crazy" since it drastically differs from the normal style of play. > > >Self-ousting is the best example, as normal play assumes doing your > > >best to prevent being ousted. Normaly these situation happens whe u are playing against a deck wich his strategy is the exact opposite of yours. When you create a deck, even the worst one, you know that it has strong points and weak points. When you see yourself in a table that gets all your weak points, you've already knew that was possible and that represents exaclty wich strategy you chose. So either the assembling of your deck or the moves you made in these game placed you in the position you now rest. Wait until the end of the game and shufle back, start over. No there must not be a rule that gives you points when you play badly or when you choose a strategy that wasn't right for the table you sited. Not even 0,5. It takes the credit of a player tha chose the right deck and played right! So if there are players that are not ready to aknowledge that they played badly, we must not reinforce his actions with the rules. He will just have the right to play his cards as he chooses, and try to see if the table somehow changes before he is ousted!

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >On May 19, 8:11�am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> Cheating and misplaying are not the normal play, right? We can assume >> that if all players are honest and well-trained, such things will >> never happen. > >Which is a bad assumption to make. Accidental mis-play has nothing to >do with being "well-trained". It has to do with things happening by >accident. Which happens. Note also that V:TES encourages newbies to attend tournaments. Newbies will make mistakes because they're new - they will mis-interpret how a card works, they won't understand some nuance of card text and may take an action during their turn under a false impression of what someone else's card does, and they will forget things. (Oldbies do this too, but generally less.) This has nothing to do with being well-trained, and everything to do with V:TES being a complicated game with lots of cards and subtle card interactions. The judge should absolutely not be some order-obsessed guard of everything that is rigid and disciplined who has to jump on players and demand better training, because that's going to put the newbies off attending at all. If a judge intentionally wants to put newbies off attending an open, non-invitational tournament, he shouldn't be judging it. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Most major pro sports that I know of in America are actually trying to move more towards "robotic decision". It's usually seen as a bad thing when refs influence the game, and something to be avoided. Especially in recent years there's been a lot of movement in rules to make less judgment calls. I know you mentioned before that judges often have to guess intent, but that's something that in football for example has been being removed largely. A couple years ago they had two face mask penalties-5 and 15 yards depending on intent. Last year, they got rid of the 5 yard penalty all together. The guidelines for assessing personal fouls have also been expanded and more fully outlined. Also, in many cases examples are given showing what is and isn't a penalty. So I think a lot of what you're saying here is somewhat inaccurate. I think a problem many people have is that there is a lot of uncertainty with the "lost position" and PTW topics. Any discussion of a "lost position" seems to lead either to deliberately misinterpreting what is being asked (arguing about "losing position" when it's clear from context that "lost position" is what's being discussed and is being used interchangeably) or a "no true Scotsman" debate about lost positions. The card game itself has moved towards more clarity in rules (see wording changes from Jyhad to later editions of V:TES) to make everything more easy to understand, straightforward, and clear so that there's less misunderstanding, argument, and guesswork. So it's hard to understand why in this issue things are being left deliberately vague, especially since it largely only affects the area where straightforward and clear rulings are of the most importance (tournament play). The game is made up of rules-from cards and those in the rulebook/V:EKN rulings. People probably would be upset if White Wolf printed a card like this: "Arbitrary Decision" Political action Divide a reasonable amount of blood among a reasonable number of Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each chosen Methuselah burns that much pool. Yet it seems that we're supposed to accept that standard in the other portion of the rules of the game. And even if it's not possible to have the same level of clarity, why not work towards it, instead of trying to brush off the issue? I will say as someone who has only been to a couple small local tournaments, it's largely something that doesn't directly affect me now, and that I don't have the body of experience in tournament play that (I assume) many people here do. And the "problem" might be overblown here, or different depending on areas. But it does seem odd to me that any game would seem to champion vagueness in the rules.

smithson wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >> [snip James' lengthy, accurate post] > > Most major pro sports that I know of in America are actually trying > to move more towards "robotic decision". It's usually seen as a bad > thing when refs influence the game, and something to be avoided. > Especially in recent years there's been a lot of movement in rules > to make less judgment calls. I know you mentioned before that judges > often have to guess intent, but that's something that in football > for example has been being removed largely. A couple years ago they > had two face mask penalties-5 and 15 yards depending on intent. Last > year, they got rid of the 5 yard penalty all together. The > guidelines for assessing personal fouls have also been expanded and > more fully outlined. Also, in many cases examples are given showing > what is and isn't a penalty. So I think a lot of what you're saying > here is somewhat inaccurate. You're misdefining "fewer/combined penalties" as "robotic decision", and that is what's innacurate. The (USA) Football example you gave, where the 5-yard facemask penalty has been removed, still requires a referee to determine that the penalty has happened and to formally assess it. The is no level of 'roboticism' involved, nor in any American sport of which I'm aware. In Baseball, they can use a laser-system to show the "perfect" strike- zone for every given player, but it isn't used in any way to assess strike or balls -- that's done by the umpire. Basketball and Hockey are all referee-judged, other than when an instant replay is used, and even then it is a human making the decision. International Tennis certainly uses an "electric eye" to make the primary determination (that loud whistle that you hear on the court) as to whether the ball is touching an "in-play" part of the field, but there is an umpire there to make a final determination, if necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html If you mean to say that it's not self-enforced, then yes that's true. But there's no intent now, it's solely judged basis on contact with the facemask. Also, currently replay is involved in all the major sports, with various levels of camera/automation. And players/fans generally want more (and the leagues have been moving in that direction), it's largely outside factors which are slowing it. So I don't see where I was incorrect.

librarian wrote: > Ector wrote: > > > > librarian wrote: > >> Ector wrote: > >>> 2). The judge should NEVER determine the game outcome, except for the > >>> cases when some player is punished (Game Loss etc). > >>> > >>> > >> Judges (also known as referees or umpires) regularly effect the outcome of > >> a game. Think: Tennis, football (american or otherwise), baseball, etc etc. > > In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed > > the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's > > simple and could be done even by robots. > > > Hmmm, so you want something that a robot can judge? I understand now. I > don't think it applies here in this argument, see below. > > One thing about all professional sports games (that I can think of) - they > are one on one contests. One side vs another. Even Magic is that way. > VTES is different. What will benefit one person will harm another player, > and visa versa. This is nothing we can do with the multi-playerness. But we can > I'm going to stop there to see if you agree with that statement. I'll > repeat it: > > Do you agree with this statement: > > "In VTES, what will benefit one person will harm another player, and visa > versa." > > Yes or no? > > best - > > chris Yes, of course. But my point was: the judge's responsibility greatly exceeds the normal requirements for the judges, considering the importance of this decision and the information needed and present.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On May 19, 8:11 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Cheating and misplaying are not the normal play, right? We can assume > > that if all players are honest and well-trained, such things will > > never happen. > > Which is a bad assumption to make. Accidental mis-play has nothing to > do with being "well-trained". It has to do with things happening by > accident. Which happens. "Accidental", by definition, means "almost never happens". If it happens frequently, it isn't accidental anymore. > > But self-ousting can happen even among the best players. > > Sure. And when it happens, and it is legal, it is completely > reasonable. And there is no reason to try and prevent it. There are a lot of reasons, and the extra work and extra responsibility of judges, that we're discussing now, is only one of them. > > I don't think that all people are corrupt. But the normal behaviour > > for all guards of order is thinking like criminals and always > > suspecting possible crimes. The unsuspecting guard is like a blind > > guard. > > So you envision yourself as a "guard of order"? I'm not a judge anymore. But when I'm serving as a judge, yes, I'm a guard of order. > > Again, rewinds don't happen if everyone plays right. Self-oustings > > still do. > > Rewinds happen 'cause people make mistakes. Self oustings happen > 'cause it is a reasonable response under the appropriate conditions. No. Self-ousts happen 'cause somebody wants to leave the game in the most spectacular way. Which brings chaos and turns the game into a mess. And has nothing common with the VTES goals. > > Self-ousting can be rare or very frequent - this depends on the judge > > and players' habits. This is just one more reason of prohibiting it. > > Are you imagining that there is some vast rash of people ousting > themselves in the name of throwing games to friends? Do you really > believe that self ousting is something that happens often enough to > actually worry about it this much? I've already said that we enounter self-ousting (or at least threat of it) in 20-30% of our games. In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time limit prevented that :) If any law-maker creates a law, he should consider the possibility of misinterpretation. The "lost position" rulings is the most dangerous rule in that sense.

[ quoted text not captured ] Giving 0.5 to a player in "lost position" may be bad, but at least it doesn't disrupt the game so fast and so seriously as self-ousting. It's much better.

On May 21, 7:15 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Yes, of course. But my point was: the judge's responsibility greatly > exceeds the normal requirements for the judges, considering the > importance of this decision and the information needed and present. And yet really, it doesn't so much. As this only comes up very rarely (as the vast majority of the time, players are trying to actually do well in a game, as otherwise, there is little point in playing), and when it does come up, the vast majority of *those* times, that whether someone is in a lost position or not is incredibly obvious. And even *then*, that someone decides to self oust usually isn't actually changing the outcome of the game, it is just speeding up the inevitable. So in a very small number of cases of a very small number of cases of a very small number of cases, a Judge will need to make a judgement that will have an impact on the game. I'm ok with that. -Peter

On May 21, 7:32 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > "Accidental", by definition, means "almost never happens". If it > happens frequently, it isn't accidental anymore. I think you need to check your dictionary. You're redefining terms again. > Self-ousts happen 'cause somebody wants to leave the game in the > most spectacular way. If a self-oust is the "most spectacular exit" you can think of, your imagination is sorely limited. Self-ousts can, by the rules, only occur when there's absolutely nothing of a spectacle that player can create. > I've already said that we enounter self-ousting (or at least threat of > it) in 20-30% of our games. > In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two > ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time > limit prevented that :) That was pretty clearly illegal, then. The rules don't need to be changed to prevent that. Your players need to stop cheating, and start following the rules. That'll solve your perceived problem. - D.J. (I can't believe I'm getting back into this thread, but those ludicrous statements were too much to let go.)

On May 21, 7:32 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > "Accidental", by definition, means "almost never happens". Uh, no, that isn't remotely what "accidental" means. > I'm not a judge anymore. But when I'm serving as a judge, yes, I'm a > guard of order. Ok, man. Whatever works for you. > No. Self-ousts happen 'cause somebody wants to leave the game in the > most spectacular way. Uh, yeah, not so much. See, once again, I get the sense that you are imagining things that are happening that aren't actually happening. And then getting all het up about them happening, and wanting to stop them from happening. When they aren't actually happening in the first place. People don't self oust 'cause they want to "leave the game in the most spectactular way" (granted, I'm sure someone has had that exact motivation at least once, but it was probably illegal). They want to get out of a game that they have no more ability to impact. And possibly spite the person who put them in that situation, if self ousting spites them. If they can do anything "spectacular", they probably aren't in a lost position. > I've already said that we enounter self-ousting (or at least threat of > it) in 20-30% of our games. So the issue is not that people self oust. It is that you aren't enforcing the rules that already exist. > In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two > ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time > limit prevented that :) His self ousting attempt was then illegal. And not the result of self ousting being a problem, but the result of people not knowing the rules. > If any law-maker creates a law, he should consider the possibility of > misinterpretation. The "lost position" rulings is the most dangerous > rule in that sense. Not so much. -Peter

On May 21, 7:10 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two > > ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time > > limit prevented that :) > > His self ousting attempt was then illegal. And not the result of self > ousting being a problem, but the result of people not knowing the > rules. > He didn't actually tried. He has just ask the judge about his chances to self-oust.

On May 21, 12:20 pm, IC-Oddish <IC-Odd...@yandex.ru> wrote: > He didn't actually tried. He has just ask the judge about his chances > to self-oust. At which point, it isn't an issue--I can say all sorts of things while playing, even illegal things. But unless I actually attempt to do so, it is irrelevant. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It's really strange to encounter such antagonism against order. Who's going to "put newbies off"? According to my experience, I can tell that newbies always prefer order to chaos. In chaos, someone can deceive newbies or abuse their lack of game rules. Newbies enjoy the ability of calling the judge just to explain them something. As to the self-ousting rules, they are so innatural that newbies are going either to leave the game ("the rule is just stupid"), or *enjoy* the chance of affecting at least something in the game and begin to play deliberately to self-oust. It's hard to tell what's worse for the game, but there's nothing good for sure.

James Coupe wrote: > Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > >In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed > >the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's > >simple and could be done even by robots. > > Erm, that's not the only thing the judge does in sports games. I've never said that's the only thing. [ quoted text not captured ] So much wasted time and wasted text... You've just missed my point. Yes, judges regularly decide whether somebody violated the rules or not, but *rules violations* that directly dictate the outcome of the game (Game Loss, DQ, bullits in ice hockey etc.) happen extremely rarely. Yes, judges regularly decide whether the ball crossed the line etc. etc., and such cases frequently determine the game outcome, but there is no place to "judgement": all such cases can be solved by a computerized sensors. And self-ousting in VTES is the ONLY situation, where there is no rules violation, but the judge still has to determine the outcome of the game (as somebody's going to get VP), and the situation is often so complicated that no computer can help. My point was: this is too much responsibility for the judges, and good rules shouldn't require such things.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >It's really strange to encounter such antagonism against order. Who's >going to "put newbies off"? Amongst other things, people who say that accidental misplays only happen rarely, by definition. That's a really bad definition, by the way. Like, completely wrong. A tournament environment in which a judge approaches misplays as happening rarely 'by definition' is shockingly intolerant of newbies. Newbies will often make a number of accidental misplays, because they don't know the game very well. >According to my experience, I can tell that newbies always prefer >order to chaos. In chaos, someone can deceive newbies or abuse their >lack of game rules. Newbies enjoy the ability of calling the judge >just to explain them something. Sure. In that situation, a helpful judge can be a good way of explaining things. That requires a helpful judge who can respond in the moment, without hideously negative preconceptions about players being "well-trained" so misplays happen rarely. A hostile judge who views himself as Judge Dredd, fighting the minions of chaos, is precisely what a newbie in that situation doesn't want. V:TES is not a high-brow sport in which all players are world-class athletes. In *that* situation, a zero-tolerance, authoritarian judge may make sense. 99.9% of V:TES tournaments aren't even remotely close to that situation. [ quoted text not captured ]

Meej wrote: > On May 21, 7:32 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > "Accidental", by definition, means "almost never happens". If it > > happens frequently, it isn't accidental anymore. > > I think you need to check your dictionary. You're redefining terms > again. Sorry, English isn't my native language. The dictionary says "accidental" is "happens unintentionally". What do you think was not intentional? > > Self-ousts happen 'cause somebody wants to leave the game in the > > most spectacular way. > > If a self-oust is the "most spectacular exit" you can think of, your > imagination is sorely limited. Self-ousts can, by the rules, only > occur when there's absolutely nothing of a spectacle that player can > create. Now you're wrong. A player who "has no reasonable chances of getting VPs" may still have ready minions, able to do various actions. > > I've already said that we enounter self-ousting (or at least threat of > > it) in 20-30% of our games. > > In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two > > ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time > > limit prevented that :) > > That was pretty clearly illegal, then. The rules don't need to be > changed to prevent that. > > Your players need to stop cheating, and start following the rules. > That'll solve your perceived problem. How can you tell that was illegal if you don't know the situation of the other players? I didn't tell even how much pool that player had!

On May 25, 5:21 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Now you're wrong. A player who "has no reasonable chances of getting > VPs" may still have ready minions, able to do various actions. If they have ready minions and are able to do various actions? They probably aren't in a lost position. They probably still have a reasonable chance to survive till the end of the game (+.5VP) or withdraw (+.5VP). This seems to be a really important point that you keep missing. > How can you tell that was illegal if you don't know the situation of > the other players? I didn't tell even how much pool that player had! 'Cause it is mostly irrelevant. If someone can meaningfully interact with the table, they probably aren't in a lost position. Can they meaningfully interact with the table? If "no", they are possibly in a truly lost position. If "yes", they probably aren't. -Peter

On May 25, 5:21 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Meej wrote: > > On May 21, 7:32 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > "Accidental", by definition, means "almost never happens". If it > > > happens frequently, it isn't accidental anymore. > > > I think you need to check your dictionary. You're redefining terms > > again. > > Sorry, English isn't my native language. No worries - your command of English is actually quite good for a non- native speaker, except when you're redefining terms to make them mean things you want them to. > The dictionary says > "accidental" is "happens unintentionally". There you go. "Happens unintentionally" doesn't mean "almost never happens" at all. Glad to have helped clear that up. > Now you're wrong. A player who "has no reasonable chances of getting > VPs" may still have ready minions, able to do various actions. Peter covered this. But yes, you can still have ready minions, capable of various actions, although that's a very, very, vanishingly rare situation to be in. And if you're truly lost, but capable of doing things? Those things are going to be a more spectacular exit than a self-oust. > > > In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two > > > ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time > > > limit prevented that :) > > > That was pretty clearly illegal, then. The rules don't need to be > > changed to prevent that. > > How can you tell that was illegal if you don't know the situation of > the other players? I didn't tell even how much pool that player had! Doesn't much matter - he clearly had a reasonable chance to get more than zero VP's, given that he *did* get more than zero VPs. So trying to self-oust was clearly not legal, as he was clearly not in a lost position. (Let alone the fact that, really, with 2 ready vamps and a War Ghoul, it's hard to believe it could have even looked "maybe lost" - not that maybe lost is good enough.) - D.J.

On May 25, 10:01 am, Meej <djchag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 5:21 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Meej wrote: > > > On May 21, 7:32 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > In our last tournament, my predator tried to self-oust having two > > > > ready vampires and War Ghoul. After that, he almost took GW, only time > > > > limit prevented that :) > > > > That was pretty clearly illegal, then. The rules don't need to be > > > changed to prevent that. > > > How can you tell that was illegal if you don't know the situation of > > the other players? I didn't tell even how much pool that player had! > > Doesn't much matter - he clearly had a reasonable chance to get more > than zero VP's, given that he *did* get more than zero VPs. Um, no. See "reasonable". Just because he proved that he had clearly had some chance, vanishingly small or otherwise, to get the GW, that does not mean he had had a reasonable chance. See also the guy in a lost position who self-ousts, gets Life Boon'ed, and goes on to get the GW. > (Let alone the fact that, really, with 2 ready vamps and a > War Ghoul, it's hard to believe it could have even looked "maybe lost" > - not that maybe lost is good enough.) This is on-target, though.

On May 25, 10:08 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On May 25, 10:01 am, Meej <djchag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Doesn't much matter - he clearly had a reasonable chance to get more > > than zero VP's, given that he *did* get more than zero VPs. > > Um, no. > > See "reasonable". Fair enough. There's a slight possibility that a player with no reasonable chance to get more VP's could, in fact, do so. Based on the information presented, this appears not to be one of those cases. - D.J.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: >> >In all sports games the judge just decides whether the ball crossed >> >the line or not, or whether the player crossed a line etc. etc. That's >> >simple and could be done even by robots. >> >> Erm, that's not the only thing the judge does in sports games. >I've never said that's the only thing. Yes you did. "the judge just decides whether..." That "just" means that that's all the judge does. >And self-ousting in VTES is the ONLY situation, where there is no >rules violation, But there is a (potential) rules violation - a violation of the play-to- win rule, described in the Tournament Rules. [ quoted text not captured ]