Is revenge a valid reason of violating PTW?
Ector
just to make things clear for my playgroup.
Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
such behavior be legal?
Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
Thanks in advance,
Ector
Jay Kristoff
>If a legal deal was broken, can the "victim" violate
>PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would such
>behavior be legal?
I'm not sure what the answer to your question is.
However, your play group should know that the
ultimate way to avenge such treachery is to earn
the Game Win in spite of it.
Jay
Dragos
judge should punish the avenging player.
My personal opinion: break the neck of the F%$#ING traitor :)
Dragos
Fabio "Sooner"
I've asked something similar a few weeks before, with just a little
more emphasis on the dealbreaking and personal grudges issue.
As far as I understood from long-time judges and LSJ's responses in
that thread, 'revenge' alone is not an acceptable reason for violating
the PTW rule. The complications on the issue lay on determining what
is indeed playing to win in that particular case. Rushing a minion
cross-table is not a violation of the PTW rule per se as many players
believe - it's the table situation that matters. But most of the time
a player will have an acceptable reason for the rush other than mere
'revenge' - and judges can't legislate against stupid play (man, how I
like this motto ;-)
Even if the double-crossed player openly admits that he's going for
pure revenge, the circumstances of the broken deal could make the play
reasonable - like a PTO on a key vamp when leaving it alone was part
of the deal. How could torporizing the Inner Circle offender could NOT
be playing to win, even cross-table?
If the judge suspect there's more involved, like a personal grudge or
collusion, that's another matter. And a very difficult one to discern,
I must say. Ultimately, only table analysis can offer reliable
guidance in the issue - there's no "ideal formula" to sign on to.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Fabio "Sooner"
>The answer to your question: *BY THE RULES*, in this specific case, the
>judge should punish the avenging player.
>
>My personal opinion: break the neck of the F%$#ING traitor :)
>Dragos
Top-posting and schizophrenia: that's the Tzimisce way :-D
>Ector wrote:
>> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
>> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>>
>> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
>> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
>> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
>> such behavior be legal?
>> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
>> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
>> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
>> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
>> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ector
Stefan Ferenci
if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
and not try and win it.
if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
stefan
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
| Ector wrote:
|
|> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
|> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
|> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
|> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
|> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
|
| if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
| and not try and win it.
| if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
And if someone breaks a deal with you and still leaves room for you to
conduct any sort of effective "revenge" against them, then they made a
really stupid play by breaking the deal... cf. Machiavelli's _Prince_.
If you're going to kick people in the nuts, KICK, don't just wave your foot.
In the above situation, I'd (at least temporarily) disallow the action
and say "no,... play to win." Nothing like having the player outright
admit that he's violating the rules to make things simple for the judge.
~ =)
That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.
Sadly, the situation is never actually this cut-and-dried.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCnjvKtQZlu3o7QpERAuVdAKDeZvo9ynZ1h0mk8Iy58U6Y+pv6vQCdE5OK
6qJc5O0dsni3mvy4oTpOzTo=
=u1mG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
reyda
> That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
> ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
> justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
> vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
> to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.
I sens hatred i you ...
Ector
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
> and not try and win it.
> if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
>
> stefan
Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal. Really
dead situations aren't very frequent, and if you still can *avenge*
somebody, you're obviously not dead yet :)
What do you think about this?
Ector
reyda
>
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>
>>if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
>>and not try and win it.
>>if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
>>
>>stefan
>
>
> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
i doubt so :)
James Coupe
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes:
>Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
>tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal. Really
Take a pad. Make some notes. Go back over the situation afterwards,
and discuss what different people thought should happen.
Many players will not improve (as rapidly) if they're just putting decks
together and playing them. Having some sort of critical dialogue about
a situation, seeing what different people's views are, seeing why they
make the decisions they do, could be useful.
Be wary of teaching people that 1VP is a "good" outcome, though.
Typically, they should be playing for table-wins, not a single easy VP.
If you get into the mindset of "Wow, a VP!" it can be difficult to move
on. You can often build a deck which will be practically guaranteed one
VP, but which won't get any further, which can halt the learning curve
rather rapidly.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Ector a écrit :
>> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
>> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
>
>Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
>i doubt so :)
If your baseline is attacking for revenge and going out with zero VP,
then one VP is, at least, less stupid. Certainly, it could easily be
the tie-breaker that lifts you out of a mass of 0Vps into the 1, 2 or 3
VP (across multiple rounds) area that gets you into the final in a small
tournament.
Jeroen Rombouts
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht
news:sG94HUNd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <429e9c94$0$22368$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Ector a écrit :
>>> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
>>> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
>>
>>Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
>>i doubt so :)
>
> If your baseline is attacking for revenge and going out with zero VP,
> then one VP is, at least, less stupid. Certainly, it could easily be
> the tie-breaker that lifts you out of a mass of 0Vps into the 1, 2 or 3
> VP (across multiple rounds) area that gets you into the final in a small
> tournament.
>
tournement. Especially on a slow table, and sometimes tables can 'lock
down'. the 1-1 deal can both speed up the game and get the table out of
such a lock. It's also a good way of removing decks you can't handle by
yourself.
LSJ
> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>
> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not?
Not. (ob English: he would be avenging himself (or his honor), not the
traitor).
Would
> such behavior be legal?
Only if it conformed to the PTW rule.
> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
If the activity is illegal, the judge should prevent it (correct the
player and require the player to follow the rules).
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Johannes Walch
> Ector wrote:
>
>> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
>> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
>>
>> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
>> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
>> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not?
>
>
>
> Not. (ob English: he would be avenging himself (or his honor), not the
> traitor).
>
> Would
>
>> such behavior be legal?
>
>
> Only if it conformed to the PTW rule.
What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
allowed.
--
johannes walch
Ector
Johannes Walch wrote:
> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
> allowed.
>
> --
> johannes walch
Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
deal? And why do you think that you can "keep your part of the deal"
when it's already broken? BTW, do you really WANT to play a game where
each deal would have threats of both sides?
LSJ, if you are reading this, please provide a clear answer to Johannes
Walch, since the same suggestion was proposed in my playgroup.
Thanks in advance,
Ector
Emmit Svenson
Ector wrote:
> Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
> deal?
Making deals and making threats are both methods of playing to win.
Neither would be a good tool for influencing other players' decisions
if the play to win rule forbade following through on deals or threats.
LSJ
> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
> allowed.
No.
Charles Lechasseur
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
>Johannes Walch wrote:
>> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
>> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
>> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
>> allowed.
>
>No.
How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
Frederick Scott
"Charles Lechasseur" <da...@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message
news:danov-02060...@192.168.1.4...
I'm trying to figure out what you're asking, here. Are you trying to
figure out a way to violate play-to-win by violating it as the payback
for not being cowed by a threat? Obviously, that doesn't work or it would
become easy to skirt PTW: "If you don't launch yourself out of that chair
and touch the moon RIGHT NOW, I will rush and torporize your minion."
Can we back up a bit and figure out what the issue is? Violating play-to-
win is not like playing Jeopardy where you simply have to phrase your
violation in the form of question.
Fred
LSJ
>>torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
>>thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
>>always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?
>
>
> I'm trying to figure out what you're asking, here. Are you trying to
> figure out a way to violate play-to-win by violating it as the payback
> for not being cowed by a threat? Obviously, that doesn't work or it would
> become easy to skirt PTW: "If you don't launch yourself out of that chair
> and touch the moon RIGHT NOW, I will rush and torporize your minion."
>
> Can we back up a bit and figure out what the issue is? Violating play-to-
> win is not like playing Jeopardy where you simply have to phrase your
> violation in the form of question.
Correct.
Threats are not deals.
James Coupe
<da...@novideospamtron.ca> writes:
>How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
>torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
>thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks.
Possibly the most common example of this is someone talking to a stealth
bleed predator:
- Hold off bleeding me for the next two turns, and I won't rush you.
In both cases, the play could be seen as play-to-win for the rush deck.
Creating a deal which leads to you not being bled is likely to be a
strong deal for you. If they are bleeding you, rushing them to get rid
of them could also be seen as playing-to-win. (It may not be the best
possible move, since destroying your predator may gift an easy path to
your grand-predator. But the play-to-win rule in no way legislates
against tactically questionable way.)
x5m...@gmx.de
> Threats are not deals.
But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
real is also play to win.
Example: Randomly attacking your grand preadator, who has not done any
harm to you, who is not strong and will not easy win the game, would be
usually not playing to win. But if i threat him, that i will rush him,
if he will not instantly make pressure on my predator, that would make
the rush afterwards a play to win strategy even if it is counter
productive. Because if your play relies on threads, the worst case is,
that no one believes your thread. So even a absolutely senseless rush
will become play to win, if it shows that you make your threads real.
carl
<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1117790254.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
> > Threats are not deals.
>
> But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
> real is also play to win.
Not if following through on that threat would be suicidal.
A threat of punishment is one thing and a valid tactic.
Threatening charges that cripple both parties are just tossing a hissy fit
and childish tactics.
Think of the Meths as centuries old beings vying for power across cities and
even countries.
Are they really going to dump all their empire and probably lose their
centuries of unlife just because someone else won't do what they want?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>>Threats are not deals.
>
> But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
> real is also play to win.
If the activity is play-to-win in itself, then it is legal to do
(with regard to the ptw rule) whether you had threatened to do it
or not.
It's the non-ptw activity that is under question -- whether
threatening to do it suddenly grants it immunity from the ptw
rule. It doesn't.
> Example: Randomly attacking your grand preadator, who has not done any
> harm to you, who is not strong and will not easy win the game, would be
> usually not playing to win. But if i threat him, that i will rush him,
> if he will not instantly make pressure on my predator, that would make
> the rush afterwards a play to win strategy even if it is counter
> productive. Because if your play relies on threads, the worst case is,
> that no one believes your thread. So even a absolutely senseless rush
> will become play to win, if it shows that you make your threads real.
Showing that you are capable of violating the rules doesn't make
violating the rules legal.
You could threaten to cheat in other ways as well if he doesn't
do such-and-such. That doesn't grant you leave to do so (in the
eyes of the rule you'd be violating) if he doesn't do such-and-such.
So to ensure that your threats are real, only threaten to do
what would be legal to do.
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Hm? Not especially; I'm not part of the rabid PTO-Must-Die-At-All-Cost
crowd, although I think it's patently obvious that the effect is
disproportionate to the cost. It's more of a direct strategy thing...
1) I have vampires that can be burned with PTO.
2) I have seen that one deck contains PTOs.
(2.5) Possibly, one of those PTOs has already been used on me.)
3) As soon as I become a threat, the deck will PTO at least one of my
vamps.
4) I should pre-emptively remove the deck's ability to call PTO.
Often it's a question of timing. You don't, for example, want to nuke
your grandpredator's Arika the turn he brings her out. Go ahead and let
your predator get some whippin' near the start of the game. But don't
think that Arika isn't going to nuke your Goratrix before she actually
becomes your predator (so you can't easily block), either -- since you
know it's going to happen like that, you can take action at the
appropriate time. Or maybe you can't, in which case you're boned.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCoE6YtQZlu3o7QpERAtSyAJ9lHjK4OPpCJxPiVH82cLCKOwUcJACg1Iz7
fgo09skYSnjZkKBkPuGdTcM=
=gMNc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Johannes Walch
> Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
> deal?
If both parties agree on it, it is part of the deal whether it is a
THREAT or not.
> And why do you think that you can "keep your part of the deal"
> when it's already broken?
Because even if the other one is a measy little traitor I can still be a
player of great honor ;-)
> BTW, do you really WANT to play a game where
> each deal would have threats of both sides?
Please note that if I ask if something is possible it doesn´t
necessarily mean that I want to do it or I like it being possible. I
simply want to get the limits of behaviour clarified.
> LSJ, if you are reading this, please provide a clear answer to Johannes
> Walch, since the same suggestion was proposed in my playgroup.
Well, "No." was a clear answer. ;-)
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> LSJ wrote:
>
>>Threats are not deals.
>
>
> But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
> real is also play to win.
People seem to be confused about threat/thread recently. To make it clear:
Thread: A post on the newsgroup and the related answers.
Threat: Introducing the possiblity to do something bad to somebody if he
doesn´t meet a given condition.
the king of nitpickers ;-)
x5m...@gmx.de
> Showing that you are capable of violating the rules doesn't make
> violating the rules legal.
Isnt it a little bit more complicated?
The question is, is an action PTW if not the playing of the cards but
the psychological effect of the action is PTW?
Example: I threat a vote deck, if he votes against me, i will rush him.
He votes against me. Afterwards he looses his vote dominance to another
vote deck. I am sure, he is no longer able to vote against me. I still
rush him, because i want to show (especially to the other vote deck),
that if someone ignores my threats i will make my threats real. (Let us
assume, that i am not able to shut down the other vote deck with one
rush.) I think not the killing of the vampire but the psychological
effect, will help me win the game. Legal?
Another example (happened in a game): A rush deck is relative strong.
So one player always argues: He is the threat, we have to do something
against him. After a while, the rush player says: If you say something
against me one more time, i will rush you. After it happened again, he
rushes the (crosstable) player. Obviously the rusher tries to change
the mood on the table in his own interest. Is that play to win?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>>Showing that you are capable of violating the rules doesn't make
>>violating the rules legal.
>
>
>
> Isnt it a little bit more complicated?
No.
> The question is, is an action PTW if not the playing of the cards but
> the psychological effect of the action is PTW?
The answer is: no.
Similarly, it is not legal to grab extra pool from the blood bank,
even if doing so would have this-or-that psychological effect.
> Example: I threat a vote deck, if he votes against me, i will rush him.
If this is an empty threat, that is, you would have to violate the
rules in order to follow through, then it is interesting to "him" only
if you successfully bluff (i.e., he, thanks to information hidden from
him -- like your hand, etc., thinks that rushing him might be ptw).
> He votes against me. Afterwards he looses his vote dominance to another
> vote deck. I am sure, he is no longer able to vote against me. I still
> rush him, because i want to show (especially to the other vote deck),
> that if someone ignores my threats i will make my threats real. (Let us
> assume, that i am not able to shut down the other vote deck with one
> rush.) I think not the killing of the vampire but the psychological
> effect, will help me win the game. Legal?
No.
> Another example (happened in a game): A rush deck is relative strong.
> So one player always argues: He is the threat, we have to do something
> against him. After a while, the rush player says: If you say something
> against me one more time, i will rush you. After it happened again, he
> rushes the (crosstable) player. Obviously the rusher tries to change
> the mood on the table in his own interest. Is that play to win?
Unrelated to what he thinks of his actions on the ramifications on
the mood of the table, most probably yes. If the table is ganging
up on you, it is likely that most cross-table aggression would
be in-and-of itself ptw.
Wouter...@yahoo.com
"> The question is, is an action PTW if not the playing of the cards
but
> the psychological effect of the action is PTW?
The answer is: no.
Similarly, it is not legal to grab extra pool from the blood bank,
even if doing so would have this-or-that psychological effect. "
I find this answer a bit strange.
I can completely understand when by following up on your threat you are
giving the game away (or lower your chances of getting a GW) you
shouldnt be allowed to do so.
If however following up on your threat does not effect your chances of
a GW in a fast manner (in the worng direction) i think you should be
able to follow up on your threat if you wish to.
Once people know i follow up on my threats they will think twice before
saying "no" again. Perhaps they still dont listen, but perhaps they
will. In the last case following up on the earlier threat, even though
not directly playing to win, has increased my chances of winning. Hence
was playing to win. Right?
W
LSJ
> LSJ:
>
> "> The question is, is an action PTW if not the playing of the cards
> but
>
>>the psychological effect of the action is PTW?
>
>
>
> The answer is: no.
>
> Similarly, it is not legal to grab extra pool from the blood bank,
> even if doing so would have this-or-that psychological effect. "
>
> I find this answer a bit strange.
> I can completely understand when by following up on your threat you are
> giving the game away (or lower your chances of getting a GW) you
> shouldnt be allowed to do so.
Then you do not find the answer strange at all, as that is exactly
what the answer is.
> If however following up on your threat does not effect your chances of
> a GW in a fast manner (in the worng direction) i think you should be
> able to follow up on your threat if you wish to.
Of course. That is a different topic.
The current topic involves using the threat to circumvent the
requirement to play to win.
> Once people know i follow up on my threats they will think twice before
> saying "no" again. Perhaps they still dont listen, but perhaps they
> will. In the last case following up on the earlier threat, even though
> not directly playing to win, has increased my chances of winning. Hence
> was playing to win. Right?
If it is playing to win, even if "not directly" (meaning, it is one
of the myriad of possible choices that conform to play to win), then
it's play to win.
x5m...@gmx.de
try to bring it to the point.
LSJ wrote:
> If it is playing to win, even if "not directly" (meaning, it is one
> of the myriad of possible choices that conform to play to win), then
> it's play to win.
Is an action that in itself is not playing to win (because it obviously
gives me some disadvantages by wasting an action, wasting ressources
and not getting a material benefit by killing pool of my prey, killing
a bleeding or voting minion of my predator) play to win, if the action
will change the psychological situation at thze table in a form, that
it will give me a better chance to win (by showing i will make my
threats true).
Or i could ask: Can an action, that is not PTW in a
ilence-of-Death-tournament be play-to-win in a normal tournament?
If you say no: why is an action that will make my chances to win better
(in a psychological sense and VTES is a psychological game) not PTW?
James Coupe
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>Is an action that in itself is not playing to win (because it obviously
>gives me some disadvantages by wasting an action, wasting ressources
>and not getting a material benefit by killing pool of my prey, killing
>a bleeding or voting minion of my predator)
If the action is not playing to win, then it's not playing to win,
obviously.
However, your list of "obviously gives me some disadvantages" is quite
wrong. Playing to win is not restricted to material benefits against
your predator or prey.
For instance, if a cross-table deck is causing you trouble by having a
Ventrue HQ which is stalling your voting power, you would be quite
entitled to burn it (if you could) without any substantiated allegation
of violating the play-to-win rule.
Enumerating what qualifies as "play-to-win" always, always leaves out
the fact that you will have to rely on judgement - that is what judges
are for.
> play to win, if the action
>will change the psychological situation at thze table in a form, that
>it will give me a better chance to win (by showing i will make my
>threats true).
Consider the following:
"Hello table. I am now going to rush someone cross-table for
the hell of it. This will show you that I am not a man to be
fucked with."
This is not play-to-win.
Further, consider WHY deals allow you to circumvent play-to-win, in a
round-about fashion. When the deal is struck, both sides have to be
playing to win or to improve their outcome as much as possible.
For instance, I agree to rush so-and-so (who is killing you), so long as
you support my votes (which are being cancelled and voted down). A
fairly simple deal, and quite plausibly legally made at the time. For
both of us, it is a matter of play=to-win. If circumstances change,
either of us may choose to violate our deal or may choose to carry on
with it (because it was legally made).
What you are proposing is that this behaviour be extended to encompass
non-play-to-win actions. "You do X, I do Y. And if not, I do something
that isn't about playing to win." You can't do that and expect the deal
to suddenly make it all right. It's not PTW when the deal was made, so
it's not a legal part of a legal deal.
If, when the deal is broken, the action you wish to take is play-to-win,
you can do it anyway. If it's not, the fact that you discussed it
earlier doesn't transmogrify it into being play-to-win when it's not.
>Or i could ask: Can an action, that is not PTW in a
>ilence-of-Death-tournament be play-to-win in a normal tournament?
Assuming that in a Silence of Death tournament you are not allowed to
make deal in ANY fashion, clearly, some things in a normal tournament
will be part of playing to win based around and intertwined with deal
making.
Now, potentially, in a Silence of Death tournament, you could all pile
in and rush the Arika deck to get rid of it, say. If that's all fine,
be that as it may.
However, in a normal tournament, you may find yourself in a situation
where you CANNOT do something at all that you absolutely need to do.
Your opponent, from across the table, says "Oh, but I have this card in
my hand which will help. If you rush Queen Anne now, I'll play this
card when it comes round to my turn."
Since you cannot know this without the ability to speak and make deals,
your rushing Queen Anne would typically be considered an entirely random
action - or it could just be bad play on your part, of course. (You may
want to make whatever action you take more elaborate, such that you'd
have to pre-arrange it with someone, or you'd never, NEVER do it
yourself. But "rushing Queen Anne" can stand in for "Some action(s)
that doesn't benefit me in any fashion at all.")
However, with the capacity for speech and deal-making, you are playing
to win (in that your cross-table ally will hopefully do what you want!)
and he is playing to win (in that Queen Anne goes away, who is causing
him untold problems). Note that no-one can force either of you to
believe the other, so you can turn the deal down.
sand...@gmail.com
assembly + spawnage. I tell him that if he contest Arika (who hapens to
be integral to my deck) I can and will annihilate ALL his minions. He
brings out Arika (you could have guessed this was coming, right? :). My
prey is sufficiently weakened that culling my grandprey will not give
prey the win, then PTW is adhered to by wasting my grandprey.
However, Arika is not yet out. Tariq is out. My prey is fairly strong
at this point. Grandprey brings out Arika. I at this point (seemingly
without raeson) annihilate his minons. Is this still legit according to
PTW? Or would I have to weaken my own strategic position by stating
that the uncontrolled vamp with 6 blood on it is Arika, my pred having
previously memories fading glimpsed me?
quetzalcoatl
Here's a question ... could Tariq have annihilated your prey's minions?
It seems that he's capable of doing it across table, so perhaps he's
capable of doing it to his own prey.
This would free up cross-table Arika to put pressure on your predator
thus giving you a chance.
D
sand...@gmail.com
grand prey to the point he cannot afford to contest Arika, then bring
her out, then annihilate my prey. Makes sense?
J
> > What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
> > your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
> > after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
> > allowed.
>
> No.
Why not?
I can threaten and it can be entirely within the realms of play to win
if I then rush/bleed/vote or whatever if they don't do what I want.
This topic has brought up a lot of discussion on our yahoo group
especially considering there is a continental qualifier coming up this
weekend. As I said there;
"I see this as a very real "play to win" attitude. Part of the game
is obviously the interaction between players. This doesn't always
have to be mutually beneficial deals. If I can bully other players
to get the game win I will. It's not the kind of thing that I'd do
all the time, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.
Now, if I try to bully a player into doing what I want, and they
don't, then for the sake of playing to win, I really have no option
but to carry through the "or else". If I don't follow through with
it, then the table will see it as an empty threat, which means I have
very little chance of managing to bully the table in future. If I do
carry through with it, then conceivably the next time I say "Do this
or else" it's likely to be viewed more favourably from my
perspective. Sure, they may not do it, but they deinfately won't if
the last threat was hollow and had nothing to back it up."
In social play in our group I constantly try to back up my threats.
There are some players who play with empty threats and they aren't
taken seriously. I make it a point, that if I say I am going to do
something, that I am always able to carry it out, or at least try to.
Point in case (this happened in a game).
!Ventrue bleeding OBT/DOM bleed deck bleeding my AUS/pro wall deck.
I've been hammered early by my predators quick off the mark bleed, but
I think I can with a little bit more setup. My grand-predator is
playing a bit of bleed with dominate, but also has 2 guys out with
Pulses. I ask him not to bleed the OBT/DOM deck this round, coz I'm
low on wakes. He says sorry but that's what he wants to do. This is
going to potentially kill me not in his turn, but my predators turn
(depending upon his card draw). I then tell him in no uncertain turns
that if he does bleed me, I will have no option but to bin Lazverinus
and attempt to bin anyone else that tries to bleed me.
He calls my bluff. He bleeds with his 2 guys, I bin both of them. I
manage to survive the next round and get set up a little bit more. I
then ask him if he is going to do that again? He says he's got to go
for the oust, and I qualify it by asking if he is going to bleed
heavily again if I don't think I can survive bleeds from 2 players. He
says most likely. I diablerise one of his vampires with a weenie and
ask again. He says no.
I end up winning the game, because I was able to threaten my grand-pred
into doing what I wanted to do, and carrying through with my threats
when they weren't enough.
--> J
quetzalcoatl
you could afford the contest initially and then continue with the Tariq
embargo on Arika at that point?
David
quetzalcoatl
J wrote:
<snip>
> Point in case (this happened in a game).
>
> !Ventrue bleeding OBT/DOM bleed deck bleeding my AUS/pro wall deck.
> I've been hammered early by my predators quick off the mark bleed, but
> I think I can with a little bit more setup. My grand-predator is
> playing a bit of bleed with dominate, but also has 2 guys out with
> Pulses. I ask him not to bleed the OBT/DOM deck this round, coz I'm
> low on wakes. He says sorry but that's what he wants to do. This is
> going to potentially kill me not in his turn, but my predators turn
> (depending upon his card draw). I then tell him in no uncertain turns
> that if he does bleed me, I will have no option but to bin Lazverinus
> and attempt to bin anyone else that tries to bleed me.
>
However in this case you are not going out of your way to rush someone
for revenge or for no reason at all.
You have made it clear to them that you can't handle flicked bleeds.
You don't see yourself has having a chance at even a single VP if this
happens. You take an action to ensure your VP chances.
The main argument in this thread is regarding threats as part of deals,
and rushes (or other actions) as solely revenge.
For example last evening we had a guy who had lost most of his minions
(Golconda-ed himself) due to being continuously rushed. The rest of the
table wasn't doing anything to stop his predator. He wanted to go
"crazy" and take revenge out on everyone, "deciding" who got his VP.
When I walked over to the table, I looked at his hand, his situation (1
single vampire in torpor), and simply stated: have you considered
asking for a rescue and trying to pull yourself out of this?
He walked away from the game and I took over, in essence to show the
playgroup what this thread was about. Although I did not achieve any
whole VPs, the table did certainly time out because I ensured the
deck's survival AND the most VPs available (0.5) in this case.
What changed? Attitude. My attitude was play to win or at least
maximise my VPs, his attitude was stuff it I'm going to lose, I'll just
screw the lot of them.
David
reyda
Yes but was he playing to win if he hates mustache and his grandprey has
one ?
Johannes Walch
> 2) Killing Arika cross-table before she looks like a threat is not PTW.
> ~ Sorry. You can whiny-bitch it up all you want, but you're still just a
> chump lookin' for an excuse to satisfy a personal vendetta against Arika
> or the player -- NOT a person attempting to win the game. Worried about
> your predator Deflecting? Kill his guys with Dominate. Worried about
> getting a VP? Kill your prey. Looking way into the future about Arika?
> ~ Man, you got bigger things to worry about right now.
I prefer killing Arika (or any other IC) with my Enkidu x-xable before a
PTO kills my Enkidu x-table. Of course I will offer a deal before doing
so, e.g I don´t rush you, you don´t PTO me, but if he declines I have
allready warning sirens that he plans on doing so when time is suitable.
But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
that players in tournaments show up to win, if not why bother playing
tournaments anyway? It´s just too easy to get around the PTW rule when
you really want and the occasional judge decisions whether a deal is
legal or not are really pissing me off. We should get rid of the whole
PTW rule.
--
johannes walch
J
> for revenge or for no reason at all.
Yes, but what has made the discussions on our yahoo group is LSJ's
'definitive' "You can't say do X or i'll do Y to you" statement.
Now we have a prince saying that if Arika hits the table across table,
we can't take a D action against her because she hasn't done anything
to us yet.
'Scuse me, but wtf?
I think that revenge is poor form, and I've always told players so in
social games. But I feel that LSJ's comments are now being taken out
of context. He mentioned them I believe in relation to the subject,
which is fair enough, but why can't I use threats and back them up, or
even take pre-emptive cross table actions...?
I don't know. Sometimes I feel that people just don't understand what
play to win means. I feel that they are blinded by the predator-prey
relationship. I can play to win and go outside of that relationship.
--> J
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
J wrote:
|>However in this case you are not going out of your way to rush someone
|>for revenge or for no reason at all.
|
| Yes, but what has made the discussions on our yahoo group is LSJ's
| 'definitive' "You can't say do X or i'll do Y to you" statement.
|
| Now we have a prince saying that if Arika hits the table across table,
| we can't take a D action against her because she hasn't done anything
| to us yet.
1) Princes have no authority to make rulings. LSJ does. Judges at a
tournament have authority to reference LSJ's rulings and make their own
if necessary. But just being a Prince matters not a single shit in the
grand scheme of things. Princes are wrong just as much as everyone else
- -- and if you read the Conclave, you'd think "more".
2) Killing Arika cross-table before she looks like a threat is not PTW.
~ Sorry. You can whiny-bitch it up all you want, but you're still just a
chump lookin' for an excuse to satisfy a personal vendetta against Arika
or the player -- NOT a person attempting to win the game. Worried about
your predator Deflecting? Kill his guys with Dominate. Worried about
getting a VP? Kill your prey. Looking way into the future about Arika?
~ Man, you got bigger things to worry about right now.
| 'Scuse me, but wtf?
Yeah, that's what I say too. WTF? You aren't psychic; you have no idea
what Arika's going to do over there. Maybe she's going to get an
Assault Rifle and rush your predator.
| I think that revenge is poor form, and I've always told players so in
| social games. But I feel that LSJ's comments are now being taken out
| of context. He mentioned them I believe in relation to the subject,
| which is fair enough, but why can't I use threats and back them up, or
| even take pre-emptive cross table actions...?
You can make threats, but if carrying them out wouldn't be PTW, they're
empty threats by default.
You can make threats that ARE PTW -- for example, "I'm going to call a
vote this turn, and Arika can either vote with me or go to torpor where
she can't vote against me. Which is it?" But see how this has suddenly
become logical? The vote advances your game; you need to take certain
actions to help advance your game. It's still probably a bad play,
frankly, but at least you're off the "weak-player vendetta" bucket.
You can take logical pre-emptive actions. But killing Arika the turn
she's influenced by your grandprey is not one.
| I don't know. Sometimes I feel that people just don't understand what
| play to win means. I feel that they are blinded by the predator-prey
| relationship. I can play to win and go outside of that relationship.
In specific cases, that may be true. But the predator-prey relationship
is the foundation of the game, and what keeps it from turning into a
popularity contest/dogpile on the weakest/Diplomacy. Violating that
relationship should only be done for GOOD reasons; and your "empty
threat, pissy gamer" scenarios just don't cut it.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCpZjItQZlu3o7QpERArCTAJ49R/fJXD8Kp9c2PvdInizj5VWV5QCcDc7c
bElLwrjx1S8F82lMTFoumkQ=
=vFDx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Zopf
"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118145687.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here's a proper LSJ quote to bring to your group:
"If the activity is play-to-win in itself, then it is legal to do
(with regard to the ptw rule) whether you had threatened to do it
or not.
It's the non-ptw activity that is under question -- whether
threatening to do it suddenly grants it immunity from the ptw
rule. It doesn't."
That prince needs to learn _context_. There are reasons why rushing Arika
cross-table before any action is taken would be legitimate PTW (ie. you've
seen a PTO in the ash heap, and your're playing Fatima multi-rush). He
needs to quit with the blanket bans, and _listen_ to player's motivations
for doing what they choose to do. Make your judge be a judge.
Stupid sports analogy: PTW rules define a potential set of actions, much
like the rules for the strike zone in baseball. The written guidelines
don't account for all instances of play, and how the players are set up can
influence what is and is not PTW. All of us princes should be trying to get
comfortable with calling PTW and non-PTW (balls and stikes) on a
case-by-case basis. The more calls you make, the better you get at making
calls.
From the player's side, realize that you will get a bad call from time to
time. Be an adult, and understand that the ability to overcome occasional
bad calls is a part of any good player's repetiore (in _any_ game). Make
your case as best you can, and if the call doesn't go your way, play on.
Discuss PTW calls as a group with your judge after the game. Don't be
petty. A post-game discussion is not about who was right, its about
improving the accuracy of future calls.
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Fabio "Sooner"
wrote:
>| 'Scuse me, but wtf?
>
>Yeah, that's what I say too. WTF? You aren't psychic; you have no idea
>what Arika's going to do over there. Maybe she's going to get an
>Assault Rifle and rush your predator.
Or maybe Arika would be persecuted by other players at the table,
mainly her prey and predator, and they are able to take care of her
before you need to. That's not an unlikely scenario - I'd say even
very probable. I generally smile when I see my grandpredator
influencing out Arika; that means at least some turns of peace for me,
unless Arika is his third or fourth minion in a traditional Ventrue
vote deck or some one-trick-pony thing. Anyway, I'll need some turns
to figure it out, and that's good to have some peace from my predator
during these turns.
Y'know, Arika is not that good an example exactly because she's a big
target in all tables. Maybe if we were talking about a vampire that
affects only you cross-table, like Marianna when you're playing
Giovanni, that would mean something. No matter how threatening Arika
usually is, by herself she's only annoying to her prey.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
James Coupe
<johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
>people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
>that players in tournaments show up to win, if not why bother playing
>tournaments anyway?
As multiple newsgroup arguments have shown in the past, a number of
people believe that some others will throw away their chance to win in
order to get a friend into the final/qualifiers/championships/whatever.
There are ample discussions of this type archived on Google.
Some of this may be best handled as collusion. But collusion also shows
that not everyone PsTW.
Fabio "Sooner"
wrote:
>In message <d84cqn$d14$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
><johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>>But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
>>people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
>>that players in tournaments show up to win, if not why bother playing
>>tournaments anyway?
>
>As multiple newsgroup arguments have shown in the past, a number of
>people believe that some others will throw away their chance to win in
>order to get a friend into the final/qualifiers/championships/whatever.
>There are ample discussions of this type archived on Google.
>Some of this may be best handled as collusion. But collusion also shows
>that not everyone PsTW.
Worse yet, PTW is integral to keep the balance of the game as it was
designed to. Once a player does not care to PTW, the table just can't
function the same way it would if everyone was playing to win.
And as strange as it seems to some, people are prone to find any
reason to not PTW if they don't want to. It doesn't even need to be
prize- or friendship-related enough to configure collusion. I've seen
people doing stupid moves just because they couldn't care less to PTW
as long as they're having fun with that stupid move, and invoking the
PTW rule is the only countermeasure we can have (if it applies to that
stupid move).
Robert Goudie
> But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
> people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
> that players in tournaments show up to win
Ideally, there'd be no reason for such a rule. Yes, you would think
that playing to win is so obvious that no rule should be needed.
Experience tells us otherwise, however.
For starters, we've come across quite a few people who put "fun" above
winning. Unfortunately, some people think "fun" and "trying to win"
are opposite ends of the spectrum. It is not okay to roleplay a
Malkavian deck and attack somebody just because they control a vampire
that Anatole had bad dealings with in some WoD novel.
In addition, while collusion would cover some agreement or conspiracy
to throw the game to a friend, PTW covers one player from doing it
without the conspiracy element. For example, after having two bad
rounds, a player could throw the game to a friend who is on the cusp on
advancing to the finals (even without the friend being involved in
collusion).
>, if not why bother playing
> tournaments anyway?
I'm with ya. If you and I were the only ones playing in tournaments
then I'd be happy to just assume we're both going for the win.
> It´s just too easy to get around the PTW rule when
> you really want and the occasional judge decisions whether a deal is
> legal or not are really pissing me off. We should get rid of the whole
> PTW rule.
IMO, it is better to have the rule even though it can be difficult to
detect violations. There are lots of things that are illegal in the
real world, for example, that are difficult to detect. But having
rules tells people what is expected. Even if I could get around the PTW
rule with a good story, I'm not going to do it. Not having the rule
opens the door to even the honest players thinking that something is
allowed (since it isn't disallowed).
-Robert
Frederick Scott
"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:2hsba11qhqqhgi10l...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:49:17 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>In message <d84cqn$d14$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
>><johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>>>But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
>>>people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
>>>that players in tournaments show up to win, if not why bother playing
>>>tournaments anyway?
>>
>>As multiple newsgroup arguments have shown in the past, a number of
>>people believe that some others will throw away their chance to win in
>>order to get a friend into the final/qualifiers/championships/whatever.
>>There are ample discussions of this type archived on Google.
>>Some of this may be best handled as collusion. But collusion also shows
>>that not everyone PsTW.
>
> Worse yet, PTW is integral to keep the balance of the game as it was
> designed to. Once a player does not care to PTW, the table just can't
> function the same way it would if everyone was playing to win.
>
> And as strange as it seems to some, people are prone to find any
> reason to not PTW if they don't want to. It doesn't even need to be
> prize- or friendship-related enough to configure collusion. I've seen
> people doing stupid moves just because they couldn't care less to PTW
> as long as they're having fun with that stupid move, and invoking the
> PTW rule is the only countermeasure we can have (if it applies to that
> stupid move).
And yet another reason: people have widely varying play philosophies
about multi-player game in general. Some topics that never come up when
talking about two-player games but become highly controversial in multi-
player play are: playing for second place (or higher placement but not
first place), the relative value of winning vs. obtaining the highest
finish or score possible, making deals, breaking deals, revenge plays
and their lower profile but still relevant twin, gratitude plays,
metagaming plays of all sorts, and any number of myriad outside
motivations that are of little concern when you have only a single
opponent but become very relevant in an environment where one player's
choices can make far more of a difference to third parties chances of
winning than to that player's own chances. (For instance, in a Storyline
tournament, the desire to see a certain clan win the tournament, even if
not one's own version of a deck featuring that clan.)
To a large degree, that latitude of choice gives players delightful
opportunities to express their personality and philosophy that are
absent in two-player play and account for much of the appeal of multi-
player. And there are many who, by way of turnabout, hate the power
third parties have over their fate in multi-player and thus abhor it
for the same reasons. In any case, the latitude is large enough that
it has to be regulated in tournament play where it tends to prevent
players from having a fair chance before the start of the tournament.
If, for instance, opponents are "metagaming" whole tournament and have
sworn vengenance against a player for a previous action, then he might
not bother to play in a tournmanet (or stop playing tournaments
entirely) and that would be a loss for the collective Another example
would be the Storyline thing above.
Have enough people pointed out enough reasons for you, Johannes? PtW
is indeed a sucky irritating, subjective, judgement-based rule that is
an unfortunate necessity. But it is a necessity.
Fred
J
> empty threats by default.
>
> You can make threats that ARE PTW -- for example, "I'm going to call a
> vote this turn, and Arika can either vote with me or go to torpor where
> she can't vote against me. Which is it?" But see how this has suddenly
> become logical? The vote advances your game; you need to take certain
> actions to help advance your game. It's still probably a bad play,
> frankly, but at least you're off the "weak-player vendetta" bucket.
>
> You can take logical pre-emptive actions. But killing Arika the turn
> she's influenced by your grandprey is not one.
Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
table.
I agree 100% with the PTW threat v the non-PTW threat, and dispise
vengeance play as sour grapes. However, I disagree with you about
killing Arika across table. That can be a logical pre-emptive action.
Maybe the deck bloats like crazy. Maybe your deck calls votes. Maybe
you want to bring out Arika yourself. Maybe you believe that in a
couple turns you'll be the predator or prey of that deck and want to
get a dig in now, especially if you have the cards to do it in your
hand at the time. Maybe your predator says he won't bleed you for 2
turns if you kill his predators Arika. Maybe your low on pool and can
force through an Anathema on the 11 cap and then recoup on it. Maybe
you've seen what the deck does in a previous round, or in social play
and know that Arika once setup will dominate the table.
Saying with absolution that killing Arika across table the turn she is
influenced out is not a logical, pre-emptive action is a falsehood.
--> J
sand...@gmail.com
ritual of the bitter rose (I would assume i do not need to mention
rowan and amaranth, but hey, you never know...:)
So to me this means that if an IC hits the table, not just Arika, but
ANY IC, it dies. simply because that fat bastard not being under my
control is messing with my decks mechanics. No silly vindictiveness or
anything else that stupid, but straightforward PTW. however trying to
explain this to a judge when i have Leandro in play and 3 uncontrolleds
is sometimes a bit tough. Is there not some way of instituting
something along the lines of :"OK, that might very well seem non-PTW,
but if I cannot prove in THIS game that it IS ptw, then I get knocked
out of the tourney?"....
J
> target in all tables. Maybe if we were talking about a vampire that
> affects only you cross-table, like Marianna when you're playing
> Giovanni, that would mean something. No matter how threatening Arika
> usually is, by herself she's only annoying to her prey.
The actual vampire is not important. It could be Arika, Enkidu,
Hannibal, or even Frederick the Weak. If it hits the table, it should
be a valid target, (and potentially logical).
By the same premise. If an IC hits the table, and people say that I'm
not allowed to rush it, it in turn should not be able to vote I burn in
a bloodhunt. The principle is the same.
--> J
LSJ
> Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
> the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
> of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
> table.
I didn't say "you can't say do X or I'll do Y".
Blooded Sand
LSJ
> lol!
>
Remember to quote enough context to give your posts meaning.
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>J wrote:
>> Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
>> the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
>> of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
>> table.
>
>I didn't say "you can't say do X or I'll do Y".
I'm curious if a threat IS a permissible (and hence does allow
cross-table antics contrary to PTW) as part of a deal IF both sides
agree to it.
Most commentary has seemed to be "If you vote against me, I'll rush
you to death", and doesn't take the choice of the other party into
question. All they have to do is deny the threat/deal, and PTW is
enforced. If they accept the threat/deal, then it can be as binding as
any other deal.
Normally, a player won't accept a straight threat (thereby not
subverting PTW conditions), but as part of a regular deal, I don't see
why it wouldn't be part. As it stands, according to what's been said,
"You don't PTO my Enkidu, I won't rush you" is unenforcable, even
though it seems like a perfectly valid deal.
Morgan Vening
J
LSJ wrote:
> J wrote:
> > Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
> > the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
> > of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
> > table.
>
> I didn't say "you can't say do X or I'll do Y".
Not so much that you said it, but you said you can't do it;
I quote from an earlier post...
---
Johannes Walch wrote:
> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
> allowed.
No.
---
Granted, as I mentioned earlier, you have been taken out of context -
you were specifically dealing with ignorning the PTW rule. But some
people round here seem to have missed that and just assumed that you
can't now threaten in game.
meh!
--> J
quetzalcoatl
Morgan Vening wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:54:44 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
> >J wrote:
> >> Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
> >> the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
> >> of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
> >> table.
> >
> >I didn't say "you can't say do X or I'll do Y".
>
> I'm curious if a threat IS a permissible (and hence does allow
> cross-table antics contrary to PTW) as part of a deal IF both sides
> agree to it.
>
I think you will find that an illegal deal (in this case illegal due to
threats not being deals) is not a deal at all even if agreed to and
thus there can be:
1. no claim that the deal was broken (it didn't exist in the first
place)
- this should be obvious
2. it cannot be used to justify bypassing playing to win because it was
an illegal deal in the first place.
- this is a required statement because you are 100% allowed to make a
legal deal that is "at that time" playing to win and stick to that deal
even if that deal is later not PTW. However in your case the deal
wasn't legal to begin with so in essence one or both Methuselahs have
made a silly agreement that has no guarantees or VPs attached.
David
James Coupe
<gra...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Not so much that you said it, but you said you can't do it;
>
>I quote from an earlier post...
>
>---
>Johannes Walch wrote:
>> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
>> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
>> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
>> allowed.
>
>
>No.
That was, AIUI, a statement that threats of non-PTW revenge are not part
of a deal or the keeping of a deal. You can still "threaten" to do
things that are PTW. But legally made deals have PTW elements on both
sides when the deal is made. Non-PTW elements are not part of legal
deals.
Simply pointing out "If you don't do X, then I'll have to do Y to
survive..." where "Y" is "Kill Arika and Queen Anne because they're
stopping my vote-and-rush deck from doing anything" or even
"threatening" to do it is just fine. You're saying "If I can't PTW this
way, I'll PTW another way that you won't like." Which is just dandy,
and will often be the case anyway.
What you can't do is use a deal to try and make a threat of non-PTW
action legal. Or, indeed, just threaten someone with non-PTW action to
make it legal.
And, in any given circumstance, you could cross-table rush Arika the
turn she comes out. It might be a strategically solid move for you -
perhaps you can see that she'll get her prey next turn, and you really
need a head start on defending against her. Or maybe (and here's a
thought) you are just making a mistake. PTW means that players have to
be trying to win in a legal fashion. It doesn't mean that they can't
make mistakes.
How do you tell the difference between a violation of PTW and a tactical
error? That's what judges are for - to exercise judgement.
In practically any instance, any judge issuing a blanket ban on given
behaviour is wrong - unless they are restating a blanket ban that exists
already (such as "No collusion" or whatever). The point is that judges
are there to exercise judgement. Rules of thumb can be useful, and
warning players that some things end up in dodgy ground quickly is also
a possibility. It is perfectly reasonable to ask players that if they
think someone is violating PTW or making illegal deals or whatever that
they should call you over early, so you can make notes and rectify any
situations that need to be rectified at an appropriate point. It is
much easier, of course, to do that when you've seen how everyone got
where they did. Is this revenge, or just several really bad choices by
a player that have forced her into a hole?
Blanket bans, however, are almost inevitably going to lead to someone
being prevented from making an entirely legal play because the judge has
prevented it.
LSJ
> I'm curious if a threat IS a permissible (and hence does allow
> cross-table antics contrary to PTW) as part of a deal IF both sides
> agree to it.
Already answered: no. A threat is not a deal.
It is a threat (when cast as part of a deal, it is typically a
statement of what would happen if the deal were broken).
> Most commentary has seemed to be "If you vote against me, I'll rush
> you to death", and doesn't take the choice of the other party into
> question. All they have to do is deny the threat/deal, and PTW is
It isn't a deal. It's a threat.
If the threat is PTW without the threat/deal, then it doesn't matter.
(This is the case with most of the examples that are given to justify
threats.)
If it isn't, then the existence of the threat isn't enough to validate
it.
> enforced. If they accept the threat/deal, then it can be as binding as
> any other deal.
?
> Normally, a player won't accept a straight threat (thereby not
> subverting PTW conditions), but as part of a regular deal, I don't see
> why it wouldn't be part. As it stands, according to what's been said,
> "You don't PTO my Enkidu, I won't rush you" is unenforcable, even
> though it seems like a perfectly valid deal.
That's a deal.
A threat would be: "If you PTO my Enkidu, I'll rush you".
The threatened action would have to be ptw on its own merits in
order to be carried out.
LSJ
That post doesn't say you can't say it.
It says you cannot "avenge (even if not PTW) after the dealbreak".
If following through on the threat isn't PTW, then you can't do
it, as stated in the section you quote -- no additional context
needed.
reyda
> Morgan Vening wrote:
>> Normally, a player won't accept a straight threat (thereby not
>> subverting PTW conditions), but as part of a regular deal, I don't see
>> why it wouldn't be part. As it stands, according to what's been said,
>> "You don't PTO my Enkidu, I won't rush you" is unenforcable, even
>> though it seems like a perfectly valid deal.
>
>
> That's a deal.
>
> A threat would be: "If you PTO my Enkidu, I'll rush you".
>
> The threatened action would have to be ptw on its own merits in
> order to be carried out.
the problem is :
if someone says "you don't pto my enkidu and i won't rush you", i will
answer "yeah, fine", and let him rush someone else. when my turn comes,
i PTO the poor bastard.
Then i can hide behind a ruling and tell him "oh, no, retaliation is not
allowed in this case, because you gain nothing from it, so obviously you
are not playing to win". And i can legitimately call the judge to
correct his behaviour.
I don't think it's normal !
Daneel
> if someone says "you don't pto my enkidu and i won't rush you", i will
> answer "yeah, fine", and let him rush someone else. when my turn comes,
> i PTO the poor bastard.
> Then i can hide behind a ruling and tell him "oh, no, retaliation is not
> allowed in this case, because you gain nothing from it, so obviously you
> are not playing to win". And i can legitimately call the judge to
> correct his behaviour.
There is no problem.
1. Someone brings out an Inner Circle.
2. You rush them with Enkidu and kill them.
3. You proceed to win the table.
I've in many cases demonstrated with non-Camarilla Rush decks that used
6+ cap minions that immediately rushing an Inner Circle member is
generally playing to win. It's not nice, but PTO can kill your game (and
make no mistake, even if they aren't right next to you, you are probably
threat#1 to them).
--
Bye,
Daneel
David Zopf
"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42a6c7c0$0$10351$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
As a judge, I'd say; Nonsense. Play on. You've demonstrated yourself to be
a threat to Enkidu's controller's ability to maximize their VP's. Actions
against you may be retaliation, but they are also PTW.
DaveZ
AW
James Coupe
<true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>if someone says "you don't pto my enkidu and i won't rush you", i will
>answer "yeah, fine", and let him rush someone else. when my turn comes,
>i PTO the poor bastard.
>Then i can hide behind a ruling and tell him "oh, no, retaliation is
>not allowed in this case, because you gain nothing from it, so
>obviously you are not playing to win".
You cannot use revenge or threats to justify the action. However,
removing a player who is PTO-ing your vampires from the table may very
well be PTW in and of itself.
Note that a player calling the judge over and saying "Oh, I'm not going
to do it to you again, so you can't rush me, it's not PTW" can very
easily be refuted with four words: "I don't believe you."
Similarly, in the "You can't rush Arika when she's just been brought
out" phase, a cross-table rush before she gets going may equally be PWT.
For instance, she may upset the balance of votes of your vote-rush deck
and, when you offer a deal to the player, they turn it down, so you need
her off the table to regain your tentative vote control. Or you know
it's a Turbo-Arika deck, and need to lay in early. Or...
It may be the case that retributive or pre-emptive action is PTW anyway.
It's just that you cannot take actions *purely* out of revenge or spite.
They must be legal anyway. However, many, many actions at any given
point could be PTW if a judge cares to ask. And many, many forms of
"revenge" and "threats" will be motivated by PTW - if X doesn't happen,
I think I have to do Y to survive.
And, of course, if you have multiple courses of action available to you
which are all roughly the same regarding PTW, you are free to choose
whichever one of them you wish, as always.
In general, regarding the PTW conditions, a fairly light touch is needed
with most players. The most problematic are those who are Pl4yInG
k00k`/ M/-\LkAvIaNs and such. Players can, do and must be allowed to
make strategic errors, and it is not the role of a judge to intervene on
them.
Frederick Scott
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:5Co9WZ+w...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <42a6c7c0$0$10351$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>if someone says "you don't pto my enkidu and i won't rush you", i will
>>answer "yeah, fine", and let him rush someone else. when my turn comes,
>>i PTO the poor bastard.
>>
>>Then i can hide behind a ruling and tell him "oh, no, retaliation is
>>not allowed in this case, because you gain nothing from it, so
>>obviously you are not playing to win".
>
> You cannot use revenge or threats to justify the action. However,
> removing a player who is PTO-ing your vampires from the table may very
> well be PTW in and of itself.
I think the more interesting discussion issue here is about, "Can you rush
a cross-table Arike ONLY because Arika is an inner circle member and has
the potential to PTO Enkidu?" Even if you have no knowledge of whether
that player has PTO in her deck or has any inclination to PTO cross-table.
And I agree with David Zopf's answer to it. Sure you can - at least under
what I would consider "normal circumstances" (which is to say that context
can vary a great deal from one game to the next). AFTER Arika has pulled
out a PTO and used it is too late. Now you have the justification but no
Enkidu. Better to do them before they do you.
In short, healthy paranoia can be considered PTW under a lot of
circumstances, IMHO.
> Similarly, in the "You can't rush Arika when she's just been brought
> out" phase, a cross-table rush before she gets going may equally be PWT.
Precisely. In fact, I'd go further and say "...usually would be PWT."
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>I think the more interesting discussion issue here is about, "Can you rush
>a cross-table Arike ONLY because Arika is an inner circle member and has
>the potential to PTO Enkidu?" Even if you have no knowledge of whether
>that player has PTO in her deck or has any inclination to PTO cross-table.
Oh, that's certainly an interesting point - but the issue that Reyda
raised was specifically about retaliation after a broken deal. And the
point there is that retaliation for "revenge" is not allowed *in and of
itself*, but that that action may be PTW anyway.
>And I agree with David Zopf's answer to it. Sure you can - at least under
>what I would consider "normal circumstances" (which is to say that context
>can vary a great deal from one game to the next). AFTER Arika has pulled
>out a PTO and used it is too late. Now you have the justification but no
>Enkidu. Better to do them before they do you.
It's a REALLY tough call to make, as a player in the first place. But,
in a very real sense, it's one of those problems anyone playing an Inner
Circle deck (particularly Arika) faces. Do I look like the threat on
this table? If you do, it might be worth trying something else. People
who are PTW will often be looking at a bigger picture (3VP+) and not
just "Oust my prey." So cross-table action has a potential role to
play. As I've said before, I think some people over-reach themselves
with such things - but it's not my job, when judging, to stop them over-
reaching. That's up to them to see or, potentially, other players on
the table to convince them of.
But as the rushing player, it's still a hard decision to make since you
simply don't know how the table will go. It might be that that's the
deck that will save your ass later and let you scrape the final VP you
need to get the GW, or something. Of course, every decision is hard in
that sense, but things like taking out Arika are bigger than others.
There are many "What Ifs" and in the end you have to pick one of them.
>> Similarly, in the "You can't rush Arika when she's just been brought
>> out" phase, a cross-table rush before she gets going may equally be PWT.
>
>Precisely. In fact, I'd go further and say "...usually would be PWT."
Well, usually in the sense that most players would do it out of an
honest belief that they were playing-to-win - because most players are
PTW.
I'd be wary of falling into traps of assuming that, of course.
Blooded Sand
Anybody gonna argue that swimming way upstream and annihilating all of
them is NOT ptw? cos for me it works like this: I see you bring out 2-3
small to mid caps, all with pre/PRE, and killing you is not just ptw,
it's survival to me. no matter how far away you are, because those
decks just get faster and faster. so i say you die, to allow me to get
the vp's you would have otherwise gotten.
David Zopf
"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118284070....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> OK so my grandpred brings out three caitiff/three pre weenies turn one.
> Anybody gonna argue that swimming way upstream and annihilating all of
> them is NOT ptw?
Sure. Its not PTW.
> cos for me it works like this: I see you bring out 2-3
> small to mid caps, all with pre/PRE, and killing you is not just ptw,
> it's survival to me. no matter how far away you are, because those
> decks just get faster and faster. so i say you die, to allow me to get
> the vp's you would have otherwise gotten.
>
I would doubt there was a circumstance where merely bringing out three small
minions alone (even if all three had pre or dom) rose to the level of threat
to the table which you seem to imply. Weenie bleed can accelerate if left
unchecked, or it can sputter and die just before/after it ousts its first
prey. So, if all that happened was three small minions were influenced out,
and you felt that was sufficient justification for three cross-table rushes,
I'd judge; Not PTW... Again, context,context context. I'm sertain the good
folks of this board will not hestiate to come up with ancillary conditions
which could coneivably make this into a PTW circumstance. I'm only
referring to the situation to the extent you've described it so far...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
scrote
Aren't you dictating strategy?
I don't wish to get involved in a shootout of competiting scenarios,
but I would be relly unimpressed with your ruling if I was the player
in question.
I mean, if I honestly believe that rushing the weeinies (as the
original poster obviuosly does) is a legitimate PTW strategy then why
would you disallow it? Do you really think that it is so overtly _not_
PTW?
-merto
> DaveZ
> Atom Weaver
James Coupe
scrote <mud...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I mean, if I honestly believe that rushing the weeinies (as the
>original poster obviuosly does) is a legitimate PTW strategy then why
>would you disallow it?
Note that a judge has no way of knowing what you honestly think. Any
questions based on this starting point will, by necessity, have no
application in the real world. A judge has to use judgement because
they are not psychic.
A judge does not, of course, have a responsibility to correct poor play
- in the sense of strategic errors, cock-ups, missed opportunities or
taken to logical extremes) bad deck building. However, a judge does
have a responsibility to correct play which violates play-to-win. A
player motivated, in some fashion, to violate play-to-win may do things
that look like poor play. It is the responsibility of the judge to
catch, where they can, such play and correct it. This is why they are
expected to exercise their judgement.
In general, the PTW rule exists (IMO) primarily to remind players that
they are expected to play to win. As a secondary measure, it affords
judges the latitude to intervene where necessary. But having the rule
in the first place means that a number of players who would do something
stupid to start with won't do it in the first place.
However, if a judge can reach into your head and extract what you
honestly believe then, of course, all questions about play-to-win
evaporate. The judge uses their mind probes to resolve the question.
For the rest of us, there will be some conflicts between poor play and
non-PTW play which will require a judgement call. Whilst no-one wants
such calls to be wrongly made, it is inevitable that some judgement
calls will be shaky or simply wrong - judges are fallible. If you'll
lend the rest of us your mind probes, however, then that problem will go
away.
Thanks in advance.
David Zopf
"scrote" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118495355.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"OK so my grandpred brings out three caitiff/three pre weenies turn one.
Anybody gonna argue that swimming way upstream and annihilating all of
them is NOT ptw?"
Key considerations:
1)_Grandpredator_ (not pred, not prey) brings out three weenies
2) its turn one (no game history)
3) Blooded Sand goes upstream and burns/torporizes _all of them_, presumably
leaving Grandpred with no minions.
4) No more scenario given
I'll stand by my opinion, and my "ruling". Knocking down a minion, maybe
two, as a means of buffering your Pred would probably be PTW. I'm not
excluding less aggresive variants of this course of action with my ruling...
> I don't wish to get involved in a shootout of competiting scenarios,
> but I would be relly unimpressed with your ruling if I was the player
> in question.
>
> I mean, if I honestly believe that rushing the weeinies (as the
> original poster obviuosly does) is a legitimate PTW strategy then why
> would you disallow it?
Barring additional game state info, on turn one/two of a game, taking not
one,...not two... but Three cross-table rush actions to bin every last one
of your Grandpred's minions? Its not rebalancing a table (a lesser number
of rush actions would do that), it doesn't advance your game against your
prey (indeed, in a four player game, you could be handing your prey his
first VP on a silver platter), and it definitely doesn't help you defend
against your predator. There isn't enough game state info to make this PTW.
> Do you really think that it is so overtly _not_
> PTW?
Obviously, I do, else I wouldn't have said so. :-)
DZ
AW
Wes
"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote
> There isn't enough game state info to make this PTW.
Agreed, but at what defining point where is there enough state information
to make such a call?
Even leaving this kind of decision to a judge seems terribly subjective,
IMHO.
I would say that an experienced player might be able to see how the pieces
will fall *very* early in the game, and thus might indeed be playing to win,
though not obviously so.
Cheers,
WES
David Zopf
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
news:d8k22...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote
>
>> There isn't enough game state info to make this PTW.
>
> to make such a call?
>
information given.
> Even leaving this kind of decision to a judge seems terribly subjective,
> IMHO.
>
Yes, it involves Judgement ;-)
> I would say that an experienced player might be able to see how the pieces
> will fall *very* early in the game, and thus might indeed be playing to
> win, though not obviously so.
>
Note how you must necessarily bring additional information to the
scenario, or anticipate the play of an experienced player, to justify it as
PTW. As a judge, you should judge with only what is on the table, and what
information the player's themselves volunteer regarding their strategy. You
judge based on what is presented, not on what is not... This is why I
allowed that additional information _might_ make this scenario PTW.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
David Cherryholmes
> Note how you must necessarily bring additional information to the
> scenario, or anticipate the play of an experienced player, to justify it as
> PTW. As a judge, you should judge with only what is on the table, and what
> information the player's themselves volunteer regarding their strategy. You
> judge based on what is presented, not on what is not... This is why I
> allowed that additional information _might_ make this scenario PTW.
I think I disagree with you on this one. First, it seems a mistake to
suggest that two would be OK, but three somehow is qualitatively
different. We should probably stay away from drawing lines in
continuums as a basis for rulings. So perhaps it is the qualitative
shift in going from some minions to no minions that triggers the not-PTW
ruling? If I am sitting in the seat of the rush deck, I could see
making the following chain of reasoning:
A) It is very early in the game and I can afford to spend a lot of
effort cross-table now, whereas later I may have more of a predator of
my own to worry about, etc.
B) It is 3 one caps. He obviously has tech to accelerate bringing his
own minions out, and they are one caps anyway. Maybe I want to whack
him to a calculated extent, such that he is back on the offensive one,
two, or three turns from now (as read from the rest of the game state).
I almost never agree with telling a player he can't take a positive
action, unless he's just being a complete idiot (hey look! there goes
my judgment!). Where I think judge interference has its place is during
the VP-splitting hoo-ha, or when a player has suddenly decided he can't
get any more VP and is now unhooked to do whatever he wants.
Now, posit a deck that doesn't feasibly generate 20 pool damage in the
first three turns of the game, and I might think stepping in is more
reasonable.
--
David Cherryholmes
Atom Weaver
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> David Zopf wrote:
>
> > Note how you must necessarily bring additional information to the
> > scenario, or anticipate the play of an experienced player, to justify it as
> > PTW. As a judge, you should judge with only what is on the table, and what
> > information the player's themselves volunteer regarding their strategy. You
> > judge based on what is presented, not on what is not... This is why I
> > allowed that additional information _might_ make this scenario PTW.
>
> I think I disagree with you on this one.
That's your perogative, dude. As it is for everyone...
> First, it seems a mistake to
> suggest that two would be OK, but three somehow is qualitatively
> different. We should probably stay away from drawing lines in
> continuums as a basis for rulings.
*sigh* You know, I keep saying this, but no one seems to take me
seriously when I say it; Context context context. I made a call with
the information given. Add more information, and I reserve the right
to change my judgement, based on that additional information (indeed, I
see it as an entirely new call, not even a modification of the old
one). I can see how easy it is to take my call out of context, as a
broad ban of three cross-table rush actions on turn one (if only
because its been done by three people in response to my post :-) That
wasn't my intent, as evidenced by the fact that I've said ad nauseam
that extra input (including player motivation, tactics, "angle" if you
will, on the table...) could change my call of not PTW. The real point
of my post was; if asked to judge, then Judge. Make the call. Give
the game what it needs to proceed, and get on with your game...
> So perhaps it is the qualitative
> shift in going from some minions to no minions that triggers the not-PTW
> ruling?
Its not my intent to define the PTW viability of cross-table rush so
narrowly, in either direction... This example, as vague as it was, was
what I was making a call on. Without additional information, it was
not PTW as described, in my opinion.
> If I am sitting in the seat of the rush deck, I could see
> making the following chain of reasoning:
>
> A) It is very early in the game and I can afford to spend a lot of
> effort cross-table now, whereas later I may have more of a predator of
> my own to worry about, etc.
>
If you're that player, and you volunteer that additional information (t
othe table, or to the judge in private), then I'd be inclined to call
it as PTW. But again, you're adding (much) more to the call than was
originally posited by Blooded Sand, so this does fall within the scope
of my orignal comments... Player intent is a consideration, one which
wasn't included in the original post.
> B) It is 3 one caps. He obviously has tech to accelerate bringing his
> own minions out, and they are one caps anyway. Maybe I want to whack
> him to a calculated extent, such that he is back on the offensive one,
> two, or three turns from now (as read from the rest of the game state).
>
But as you know, a deck like that is all about momentum. A fast bleed
deck is relying upon that first oust to keep it going. You have to
realize that the real consequence your action(s) is to eliminate that
player from any true contention for a winning position in the game.
Mind you, that _is_ largely the point of the Rush actions, and the
weenie bleeder is playing a "sink or swim" deck, and so must be
prepared for the eventuality of sinking... But all of this is beside
the point of the original ruling, which contained none of this
context...
> I almost never agree with telling a player he can't take a positive
> action, unless he's just being a complete idiot (hey look! there goes
> my judgment!).
Careful!!! I just hosed that slope down with rendered animal fat...
> Where I think judge interference has its place is during
> the VP-splitting hoo-ha, or when a player has suddenly decided he can't
> get any more VP and is now unhooked to do whatever he wants.
>
I'd disagree that VP split deals amount to the only context within
which a play to win ruling would be solicited.
> Now, posit a deck that doesn't feasibly generate 20 pool damage in the
> first three turns of the game, and I might think stepping in is more
> reasonable.
>
In the first game we played a couple weeks ago, I pulled three small
Ravnos out by turn 2; two 2 caps, and a 3 cap. I had the capability of
pulling off a bleed of 2 with each of them (via Computer Hack).
Potentially, thats as much bleed as the three one-cap caitiff were
showing in the example given. I did Hack bleed with my first minion
influenced for the early Edge. Would cross-table rushes to torporize
all three be PTW?
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Slip-aid for the slope...
Daneel
wrote:
>> Now, posit a deck that doesn't feasibly generate 20 pool damage in the
>> first three turns of the game, and I might think stepping in is more
>> reasonable.
>>
> In the first game we played a couple weeks ago, I pulled three small
> Ravnos out by turn 2; two 2 caps, and a 3 cap. I had the capability of
> pulling off a bleed of 2 with each of them (via Computer Hack).
> Potentially, thats as much bleed as the three one-cap caitiff were
> showing in the example given. I did Hack bleed with my first minion
> influenced for the early Edge. Would cross-table rushes to torporize
> all three be PTW?
If you sit cross-table, then no, killing off one (like Vedel) would
probably suffice for now. Ravnos weenies are somewhat scary, because
every time you look at them, you see a "+1 bleed" and "+1 strength"
fading into view on their text boxes. ;)
If you sit as a predator, then by all means. Destroying about 6+ pool's
worth of investment made by your predator is a very good way to be
firlmy on track when playing rush. Not to mention that early rushes are
less crucial, because the ousting mechanism is not in place yet. You
need those cards (which you can only cycle into through rushing) to
actually make your rushes do pool damage.
--
Bye,
Daneel