Food for Thought
XZealot
Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
as you can when you know you can't oust them?
Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
Do you do something else I haven't listed here?
Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
>
> Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
> as you can when you know you can't oust them?
Maybe.
> Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
> you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
Maybe, but if I "know I am going to be ousted" I am not doing this "to
see if I can survive" -- which was your starting premise, I thought.
> Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
Maybe ... but again, given the premise, not for that reason.
> Do you do something else I haven't listed here?
Given the premise, I do whatever I please for whatever reason I
choose. Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against,
to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future.
witness1
This strongly depends on circumstance. If my prey or a crosstable
player has gone out of his way to ensure my doom, I do what I can to
punish that behavior. If it's just my predator doing his job really
well, I'll make him work for every pool but congratulate him when he
gets me.
-witness1
librarian
I think you forgot one - do you transfer out to "show them".
This is the one I hate to see. At least pool-sack FFS.
best -
chris
Kushiel
> Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against,
> to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future.
Do you think that will work?
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
<c5fc2784-2cf0-43bb...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote:
> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
I try to keep going and try to stay alive, but I'll try to not just give
up on my prey if at all possible.
> Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
> as you can when you know you can't oust them?
More often than not. I mean, I'm not particularly likely to bleed my
prey for 10 when I'm at 1 pool and unlikely to survive (unless the bleed
of 10 looks likely to oust them), as that is just spiteful to the wrong
person. But I find that I vastly prefer games where people keep their
eye on the ball of "oust your prey" rather than "die last".
> Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
> you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
Only if it seems like it will actually do something for me. Like, if
walling up and playing defensive might actually accomplish something for
me, like staying alive till my super aggresive predator gets killed when
my new predator will be less of a problem for me, at which point, I
might be able to get back in the game, yeah, I might. But if walling up
just means, in all likelyhood, that I'm still going to die with nothing,
and I'll just die last? I'll keep trying to oust my prey even while
playing more defensively.
> Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
If I think it will actually help, sure. I'm not a big fan of back
ousting folks, but if doing so might actually improve my position (as
opposed to me just getting killed by the next guy), I'm not completely
opposed to it.
> Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
I'm often quietly irritated by players who, in the face of an aggressive
predator, just wall up completely and do nothing to their prey ever
again. Even in the grimmest situations, going forward into your prey,
even a little, is worth doing. I'm often less quietly irritated by
people who, in the face of impending death, spend a whole lot of time
trying to con someone else at the table to help them stay alive, when it
is completely counter productive to do so.
All in all, I'd *much* rather die while trying to oust my prey than I
would live longer as a pathetic wiggly little worm trying to keep my
head above water and dying anyway. I think someone famous said something
like that once, but much more eloquently...
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
nikola...@gmail.com
I hang in there till the very last second, trying to lie, bluff,
threaten myself to some more time. Hoping to hold on until it can
swing my way and I can oust my prey.
Having played this game for many years have taught me that it can
happen, which makes it annoying to see people transfer out.
Kevin M.
You forgot the completely stupidly moronic "I SELF OUST!!!1" behavior.
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/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
XZealot
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
>
> > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
> > as you can when you know you can't oust them?
>
> > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
> > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
>
> > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
>
> > Do you do something else I haven't listed here?
>
> > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
>
> You forgot the completely stupidly moronic "I SELF OUST!!!1" behavior.
I didn't think of it. :)
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
I try not to let anyone on the table realise that I think I will be
ousted quickly unless it is so patently obvious it's rediculous.
When everyone knows you're going to be ousted...
Option 1: Stir up table-fear/hate and try to get my Predator crippled
before they can oust me. Particularly good when there are some strong
combat decks and a S-B or a "Vote passes by 27 votes - Voter Cap"
deck.
Option 2: "Apathy oust", you put up no fight and suck all of the
emotional satisfaction out of it. It's almost like guilt-tripping
them for playing such a cheese deck.
But my preferred tactic is to talk like you're never going to be
ousted until that last pool goes to the Blood Bank. Then drop the
mask and comment about the game. If you've been talking nasty during
the game this tells the players around you it was just game talk.
The tactic I hate most is the "Self-defeating Prophecy" player... "I
told you this thing would oust me! Didn't I tell you? You never
listened... and I'm out of the game because you guys did nothing to
slow this thing down..."
jason...@iinet.net.au
> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
It's a good but subjective question.
If I think I have a reasonable chance of pulling off a recovery, I'll
hang tough and duke it out.
If I'm utterly boned by good play from my predator, I'll make him
fight for every pool then die. I generally consider it poor form to
throw myself against my prey, if all I'm going to achieve is soften
him up for the guy who's about to kill me.
If I've been ousted by cross table shennanigans, or have been the
target of a spit-roast, I will throw everything I have at the guy I
feel most "wronged" by. Excercising the spite impulse is cathartic. :)
> Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
I hate to see an almost ousted player tapping out and throwing himself
against his prey, fully aware that he has enough juice to mortally
wound, but not KILL him, thereby setting up his predator for 2 easy
vp.
jase
Peter D Bakija
<4228f7e3-cd88-4a43...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Well, of course it is. But I think there really is a significant mindset
difference in VTES players that can kind of be broken down into:
A) The goal of the game is to oust your prey. If you oust your first
prey, your new goal is to oust your second prey. And then maybe win the
game. This is your main goal. If you get killed when you are trying to
oust your prey, no big deal, as your predator was also trying to kill
their prey, and they were just better at it that game than you. So play
another game.
B) The goal of the game is to stay alive, and hope you can oust your
prey maybe. If you are getting beat down, wall up, beg, deal, wheedle,
connive, and do everything in your power to stay alive, and hope that a
window opens and you can strike.
And I think that this particular discussion is kind of looking for the
distinction.
headle...@gmail.com
When you're ousted, you're ousted, so a lot of it does depend on
whims. I usually try to hang on to the last pool though, for my
subjective reason that watching the game continue as a nearly-defeated
player is more fun than standing up and watching as an observer.
As additional food for thought -- assuming you're on the winning end
of the above relationship, how do you prevent your defeated prey from
doing something stupid? How do you convince him/her to keep attacking
your grand-prey, even when you know you'll make the oust next turn?
and likewise, how do you make sure your grand-prey doesn't just lose
hope and transfer out, giving six more pool to your prey?
Shockwave
to bleed me for 4, and I'm on 2 or other such nonsense) I'll
completely lunge my Prey, more often than not.
The reasoning for this behaviour is simple:
I've lost count of the number of times I've sat with a Predator on 2
or 3, with myself in oustable range, and prayed to all that is holy
that they don't think to lunge me, because I'm tapped, without a Wake
or Bounce to my name. Amazingly, often they don't, and I live as a
result.
I'd hate to let me live. ;)
Kevin M.
These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
Try not self-ousting for the next year. You'll begin to LOVE the game when
you get some VPs off the self-oust that you would have conducted previously.
It'll make you a better player, I guarantee.
Kevin M.
> As additional food for thought -- assuming you're on the winning end
> of the above relationship, how do you prevent your defeated prey from
> doing something stupid?
I don't care what my defeated prey does. I care what the NON-defeated
player does.
"Oh, but KevinM, who decides when a player is defeated? What if a player
decides for themselves that they are defeated at 8 pool?"
If you have a player who believes that they are defeated at some
unreasonable stage in their game, it is your duty as players and friends to
educate said player that he is indeed not defeated -- and why -- to ensure
that the offending behavior doesn't happen again.
Just like you would in any other situation with the person.
> How do you convince him/her to keep attacking your grand-prey,
> even when you know you'll make the oust next turn? and likewise,
> how do you make sure your grand-prey doesn't just lose
> hope and transfer out, giving six more pool to your prey?
Education. Then Shame. And, if necessary and possible, Ostracisim.
Unfortunately, our game requires 4 players minimum, so Ostracisim is rarely
an option. :(
Chris Berger
>
Like others have said, if I *know* I am going to be ousted and *know*
that I can't oust my prey, then it doesn't really matter. If some
player wronged me, then this is the appropriate time for spite.
However, I feel like a lot of players think that they "know" they are
ousted when they still have an outside chance - a cross-table Life
Boon or Eagle's Sight or Consanguineous Boon. Or your predator
doesn't look like he's in oust range, but your grand-pred pulls off
the miracle lunge before your turn. Or you think that your predator
will certainly oust you based on his reliable history of bleeding for
3 at 3 stealth, and he's come into an inexplicable drought.
If you know the game's over, for sure, then do what you must. But if
there's still even an outside chance, then *that* I think, is the
interesting situation to discuss.
I am all for back-ousting if necessary. In general, I will try very
hard to not wreck my predator, and don't lightly do pool damage to
him. Most games, I will go so far as to bloat my predator when
possible - as long as he's no real threat. But if it's apparent that
my predator is going to oust me, and his predator isn't much of a
threat, then by all means I will back oust. A very aggressive combat
deck is a prime target for a backoust, if I can't deal with his brand
of combat. A heavy bleeder, likewise. Good vote decks don't seem to
be as likely because if they're doing well enough to potential steam-
roll me, then they've probably got plenty of pool via Minion Taps and
Voter Caps. Though back-rushing is, of course, a good option.
I have, at times, threatened to self-oust. Usually, I really don't
want to go through with the threat, but if it comes down to something
like saying "if my prey rushes my vamps into torpor, I will self-
oust", and he actually does it... then, yeah, I have to follow through
on the threat or else it's meaningless. I don't like to threaten this
too often because, a) I know it's annoying, and I try not to be *too*
annoying, b) I hate it when other people do it, and c) threaten too
often and it loses its power. But occasionally I might say, "rescue
me from torpor or I'll self-oust", because that's my only chance of
reasonable survival. In that type of situation, if the methuselah in
question doesn't rescue because of something totally reasonable (like,
they can oust their own prey, or they help me in some other way, or
they get totally tooled before their turn), then I can back down on
the threat. Self-ousting completely out of spite is not something I
like, because that has no chance of helping you. Threatening to self-
oust might just get you some help, though if it doesn't, you have to
carry through on the threat occasionally.
Lunging forward against prey is only a reasonable option to me if
*maybe*, *somehow*, *some way*, I can hope to oust them. Like maybe I
have to draw into the one bleed card in the whole damn deck. Or maybe
if I lower them enough, *and* my predator bleeds me for 2, *and* I
draw into a Wake and a Deflection, then I get them... Or if I can get
them down to 1 and hope that someone needs my votes to get their KRC
passed... Or something. If there's no reasonable chance at all, then
a suicide lunge has no point. Although if they've bloated up to like
20 pool, then I might do it anyway just to balance things out a
little.
If none of those are an option, then just stay untapped and hope to be
able to block is how I usually do it. Try to last one more turn, and
if that works, maybe one more after that... because 2, 3 turns in the
future, the table could look completely different and maybe there's
still hope...
Oh, one other scenario - sometimes in a hopeless situation, just play
as if it wasn't hopeless, to see how your deck flows, and hopefully
fix it for next time.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Well, of course it is. But I think there really is a significant mindset
> difference in VTES players that can kind of be broken down into:
Agree 100%. The "stay alive at all costs" tends to be a mentality most
new players adopt shortly after they grow out of their "I <3 stealth
bleed" phase. Which makes sense, because it's hard to try new strats
and experiment with different cards when you're dead. But
unfortunatley some folks never grow out of it.
Reminds me of the time a few years back when I had a guy come up to me
at a qualifier and boast that he was on 33 pool when the game timed
out. I asked hwo many vp he had, he replied "none' and walked away
happy. Baffling.
I think there's a third group too, outside the ones you've described:
Heavy combat players who measure victory not in VP, but in minion
scalps taken. Prey/Predator/Cross table doesn't really matter. True
Agents of Chaos, who live to ruin your sh*t. Not sure they deserve
their own letter though :)
jason...@iinet.net.au
> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
> Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances
(when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). But I
think many self-ousters are guilty of declaring "all hope is gone"
far, far too soon. I'm sure many of us have seen comebacks that are
nothing short of miraculous in this game.
Kevin M.
>> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
>> Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
>
> I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances
> (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP).
I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you
can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway.
[http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5]
There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at
which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive
in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you
make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport??
Frederick Scott
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:c5fc2784-2cf0-43bb...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
Thinking about it, I usually go through 7 stages:
1. Shock and Disbelief: I recount my pool over and over. I look at my
cards in hand, counting them to see if I'm missing one...the one that
will save me.
2. Denial: I say to myself, "(Joe, my predator, whoever) won't bleed me.
He's got HIS predator to worry about and he's down to 18 pool for God's
sake!"
3. Bargaining: I then try to bargain feverishishly for more time by
offering to be my predator's bitch for the rest of the game or to
give him bennies in future games or just anything.
4. Guilt: I kick myself OVER AND OVER for influencing out that last
minion. Or forgetting to bounce the bleed. Or being a generally bad
deckbuilder. Or whatever. This usually overlaps bargaining.
5. Anger: I lash out at my predator for being so obsessive about
ousting me. Why does he need to oust me so SOON?!? If he'd just wait
a turn or two, he'd surely set himself up for the sweep! SHeeesssSH!
6. Depression: I SUCK!!! GAWD, I JUST SUCK!!! I SUCK SO BAD I CAN'T
SUCK FOR SUCKING SO SUCKISHLY BAD!!!
7: Acceptance and Hope: Oh, well. Think I've got another deck in my
box here somewhere. I'll do better next game.
> Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
> as you can when you know you can't oust them?
>
> Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
> you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
>
> Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
>
> Do you do something else I haven't listed here?
>
> Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
All these questions are really answered above - if you'd just look real
hard and take several hits of acid.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:d05e55fa-d44b-4c6f...@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> When you're ousted, you're ousted, so a lot of it does depend on
> whims. I usually try to hang on to the last pool though, for my
> subjective reason that watching the game continue as a nearly-defeated
> player is more fun than standing up and watching as an observer.
There! There's the one! I agree with that!
Though I don't do it 100% of the time. Occasionally I'll be spiteful,
if spite seems incredibly appropriate.
I almost never transfer out, though. I can remember one time I've
transferred out in the last 2-3 years and it wasn't a tournament
game. And I felt horribly dirty afterwards.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:75ef701c-e3da-41f4...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
>
> I like this discussion.
I always like multi-player game philosophy discussions. It makes
it so abundantly clear that multi-player games, unlike 2-player
games, are often more than just cleverness and winning and losing.
They can enter the realm of the purely philosophical in certain ways.
Fred
Chris Berger
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c5fc2784-2cf0-43bb...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
>
> Thinking about it, I usually go through 7 stages:
>
steps, although the Guilt tends to happen more when I'm "surprise"
ousted. "WTF, why did I tap out with no wakes and no way to cycle?"
"Why in God's name would I influence out a new vampire to bring me
into perfect ousting range when that vamp can't even play any of my
defensive cards? What an idiot!" etc...
jason...@iinet.net.au
> There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
If your position is truly lost, and self-ousting will more likely lead
to a sweep as opposed to vp split, the math favours a self-oust.
You'll get more points on a TP countback if you lost at a table with a
sweep. The chances of you making/not making the final through TP
countback are small-ish, but not unimaginably remote.
I'd still consider that potentially unethical behaviour though.
> Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at
> which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive
> in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you
> make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport??
Yeah I thought you were talking about 3+ players left. Surely self-
ousting with only 2 players left is a violation of play to win, no
matter what your circumstances? If your plight is that bad, you can
always concede as you say.
A good recent example I can think of happened at our last tourney:
Me (Tori vote, 10+ pool, Anson + Anneke in play) ->
Craig (weenie Target Vitals, 3 pool, 7+ minions, no permanents beside
Aranthebes) ->
Stu (Dem Ravnos, 8 pool, Tsunda with The Rack, No Secrets, Heart,
Leather Jacket + Ivory Bow, Callirus and some other minion) ->
Jim (untested, never before played and (self-admitted) PoS Black Hand
Assamite deck, 5-6 pool, 3 minions)
20-ish minutes to go.
Craig lunges at Stu, 3 minions get binned by Tsunda to no real
progress (i think Tsunda might have had to burn his jacket) Craig
expends all his in-hand combat resources to do so
Stu and I have non-aggression pact, which only becomes void when we
each have a vp.
Jim is sucking badly, getting hit with Obedience every time he bleeds.
He has no Rush in hand.
Jim cannot kill me. Jim cannot help Craig. Craig is hand jammed and
lost a minion every time he tapped last turn.
He has four options, as he sees it:
1) Rush upstream. He might succeed in binning one of my vamps (anson
was on very low blood and had a Haven Uncovered on him iirc) and set
Stu up for the sweep.
2) Sit and wait to die. He's on three pool. The next Grand ball I draw
will spell his end.
3) Bleed Stu with all his minions, each hitting Tsunda for 1 (at best)
and being torpored in return.
4) Self oust.
Option 4 seems viable here to me. In fact, it seems to be the "moral"
choice, since anything else he does helps his prey win (and would be
quite boring to play through too)
jase
The Lasombra
>There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
>mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
>actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
I can point to at least 2 tournaments where the winner self ousted to
guarantee the tie (2/2/1) and thus won on prior round standings.
librarian
> On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
>>
> I like this discussion.
>
> Oh, one other scenario - sometimes in a hopeless situation, just play
> as if it wasn't hopeless, to see how your deck flows, and hopefully
> fix it for next time.
I like this idea.
best -
chris
Curevei
> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
It depends upon whether someone stole the Storage Annex that I put
Life Boon under or whether I drew one of the copies of Extremis Boon.
> Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
> as you can when you know you can't oust them?
Um, no.
> Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
> you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
As said by someone else, this seems to contradict the premise. Of
course, one never knows whether one will be ousted or not. Weird
stuff happens like crosstable Eagle Sight blocks, Con Boons, DIs, and
drawing into one of the copies of Extremis Boon.
> Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
>
> Do you do something else I haven't listed here?
It's situationally dependent how I react when I think I'm going to be
ousted soon. I may decide to try to wall up. I usually look for help
from other players. I rarely build decks that can cripple my
predator, so that's rarely an option, but I can imagine doing so if I
think that gives me some chance of gaining more VPs.
Of course, it also depends upon the game and the environment. In a
tournament, I take into consideration what is best for my chances of
winning the tournament. In a casual game, it depends upon how
interesting the game was to play up until the point that I think I'm
doomed and how interesting the game will be when I'm gone. In casual
play, when I figure I'm a goner, I'll try to find ways to make the
game for the rest of the players better.
> Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
I hate to see people not take into account how their actions or
nonactions will affect the game for the rest of the players. In and
of itself, transferring out, for instance, isn't bad. But, it's
usually a selfish and unsportsmanlike tactic that throws games to
one's predator by reducing the amount of resources the predator needs
to use to get the oust and/or changing the timing of the oust to
earlier than it should be. Also, it's often dumb since there are a
ridiculous number of ways that someone can recover in this game.
Similarly, any other extreme activity on the doomed one's part can
make the game for the remaining players less enjoyable/fair/
interesting.
Talking oneself out of a demise is reasonable. Sure, it can become
annoying and can get really dumb when someone just becomes a tool, but
it's fair and often not annoying.
Not conceding is occasionally annoying in casual play. If the endgame
is largely inevitable and not terribly interesting, then it's better
to start another game.
The Lasombra
>There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
>mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
>actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
I can point to at least 2 tournaments where the winner self ousted to
Kevin M.
Oh, sure. That's clearly the correct play. I guess I was thinking more
about the prelim rounds, and of course in casual games.
Kevin M.
> > KevinM wrote:
> > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
>
> If your position is truly lost, and self-ousting will more likely lead
> to a sweep as opposed to vp split, the math favours a self-oust.
> You'll get more points on a TP countback if you lost at a table with a
> sweep. The chances of you making/not making the final through TP
> countback are small-ish, but not unimaginably remote.
What you say is *technically* correct, but pretty foolish given the nature
of multiplayer games and our game in specific.
I would very much suggest that, as I said in a previous post, if there are
more than two players in the game, then players in bad positions choose to
stay in the game so that your predator's enemies have more time to assault
him and therefore be able to help you.
WHY WHY WHY would you self-oust, with options still available to you, unless
you are a weenie-douchebag? And why would I want to keep playing with you,
since I know you are just going to wreck the game if it doesn't go your way?
That is the behavior of 6-year olds, people. I was 6 once. I grew up.
The Name Forgotten
> <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
> >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
>
> > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances
> > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP).
>
> I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you
> can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway.
> [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5]
>
> There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
I've been in one of these situations where I "self-ousted" to gain a
mathematical advantage.
First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where
VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self-
oust in a social game.
The situation was that my prey was playing a wall-intercept type of
deck. It hadn't gotten too many VP's in the game, but it looked like
it would get into the final table on the 5th spot. I had done very
well with my deck in previous games, and my spot at the final table
was assured, regardless of my VP's at this table. I knew I couldn't
generate enough stealth to get past his intercept, and I'd probably
lose minions trying, and ultimately lose the game - but I knew if I
pushed it and went full-tilt against him, I could do significant pool
damage - at least enough to make it hard for him to go forward and get
VP's. My predator in this game was on the same number of VP's from
previous games as my prey - but was playing a deck that I'd much
prefer to see in the final table, and would have a much easier time of
defeating if it was my prey.
So, I had the choice of either holding it out til timeout (which is
where the table was headed), leaving both predator and prey to toss
for the fifth spot on the final table, or go forward as hard as I
could to make sure my prey couldn't get another VP, and let my
predator oust me, ensuring his spot on the final table as the fifth
spot, and stopping myself from facing that wall deck again.
Even though I admit that I was highly pissed off at the time that my
prey was just playing to shut down my game completely - ultimately it
was a strategic choice to self-oust. Needless to say - my prey in that
game didn't make it into the final table, and my predator did.
Although I still didn't win...
The Name Forgotten
> The situation was that my prey was playing a wall-intercept type of
> deck. It hadn't gotten too many VP's in the game, but it looked like
> it would get into the final table on the 5th spot. I had done very
> well with my deck in previous games, and my spot at the final table
> was assured, regardless of my VP's at this table.
Oh, I should also mention that no-one else on the table was willing to
help me out because of the effectiveness of my deck in previous games.
They were all quite happy to see my deck nullified.
Frederick Scott
"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:70b89b44-d5ac-4f55...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 5:18 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
> > >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
> >
> > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances
> > > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP).
> >
> > I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you
> > can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway.
> > [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5]
> >
> > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
>
> I've been in one of these situations where I "self-ousted" to gain a
> mathematical advantage.
>
> First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where
> VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self-
> oust in a social game.
(description of self-ousting to select which opponent he preferred to
meet in tournament finals)
...which, I believe, was kind of Kevin's point. Not because of the
"social" vs. "tournament" thing, but the way you've defined it, your
advantage was indended to help your tournament position, not help
your in-game position. I believe this would be illegal in a VEKN
tournament because you're supposed to be playing to win the immediate
game and considerations about tournament position are actually
illegal to use. This might be hard to detect and enforce much of the
time, but I understand it to be illegal nonetheless. I think Kevin's
point was more about self-ousting in a game to help your position
within that game only.
And, by the way, legal or not, I would not classify editting final
opponents as a "mathematical advantage" under any circumstances.
Fred
Salem
> There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
>
> Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at
> which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive
> in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you
> make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport??
possible legitimate situations to self-oust (assuming you have no
reasonable chance to gain any more vps)
1) your grand predator has screwed you somehow. eg: 'but i _needed_ to
play Domain challenge and bewitch, in case i drew into a Voter Cap...'
when your pred has 0 tapped minions and you have 5.
2) Your prey, while taking no forward action at all, has played so
defensively as to screw you. Often with lame excuses like 'there's
nothing i can do to my prey because he once played a copy of card X, and
i am screwed against X, so i will just torp all your vamps instead'.
in situations like those, i am quite happy to show people why their
actions suck, and make life harder for them via my death.
having said all that, i do agree a lot of people seem to think
themselves unable to gain any more vps a lot earlier than they should.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Merlin
> <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
> >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
>
> > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances
> > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP).
>
> I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you
> can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway.
> [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5]
>
> There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
>
> Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at
> which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive
> in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you
> make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport??
I've been in a tournament game where a Life Boon was keeping me alive,
but the math of the game made it impossible for me to actually win the
table. The dude who Life Boned me couldn't offer anything for the VP i
could have theoretically got for him (4-player, had my prey on the
ropes, g-pred [1VP already] Booned me, pred playing a wall deck that i
had *zero* chance against) so i self-ousted to punish the Life Boon
player for bleeding me for a ton with Donatien just to play some silly
Life Bone trick.
Had i tried to tough it out, Donatien, my actual predator and the Life
Boon could have ousted me at pretty much any time, so at that point i
would have been fighting for someone else to get a VP and then get
ousted anyway.
It was a stupid game.
-Merlin
Peter D Bakija
> I think there's a third group too, outside the ones you've described:
> Heavy combat players who measure victory not in VP, but in minion
> scalps taken. Prey/Predator/Cross table doesn't really matter. True
> Agents of Chaos, who live to ruin your sh*t. Not sure they deserve
> their own letter though :)
Heh. There is also the "Lemme make this weird trick deck work! Oh,
wait. I didn't do anything all game and then got ousted..." type and
the worst of all, the "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm going to cross table
KRC you and block you with Eagle's Sight, just 'cause I'm
CRAAAAAAAZZZZZYYYYY!!!!", which is always a blast.
But really, in terms of relatively serious play, I find the major
split is between, as noted, people who are willing to risk getting
ousted if it means maybe ousting their prey (i.e. playing to oust
primarily and taking claculated risks to do so) and people who are
above all trying to stay alive at all costs (even if it means
completely ignoring their prey).
-Peter
XZealot
> Heh. There is also the "Lemme make this weird trick deck work! Oh,
> wait. I didn't do anything all game and then got ousted..." type and
> the worst of all, the "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm going to cross table
> KRC you and block you with Eagle's Sight, just 'cause I'm
> CRAAAAAAAZZZZZYYYYY!!!!", which is always a blast.
Whilst I have fallen into the former category more times than I can
remember (remember no matter how stupid the trick, you can still win
if you use weenies), the latter is general hysterical to discuss and
horrific to endure.
Chris Berger
> On Feb 11, 8:54 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
>
> > I think there's a third group too, outside the ones you've described:
> > Heavy combat players who measure victory not in VP, but in minion
> > scalps taken. Prey/Predator/Cross table doesn't really matter. True
> > Agents of Chaos, who live to ruin your sh*t. Not sure they deserve
> > their own letter though :)
>
> Heh. There is also the "Lemme make this weird trick deck work! Oh,
> wait. I didn't do anything all game and then got ousted..." type
>
play, you want to try out some new ideas and don't want to just always
play dominate weenies and dementation stealth bleed... Sometimes my
crazy ideas don't work, and the deck blows ass. It's still fun to
try, and if people are worried about trying something too stupid
because it'll upset table dynamics, then the game as a whole doesn't
progress much.
Heck, the Assamite Anarch Death Star Cannon deck is a good example of
this. It doesn't do much for most of the game - just breeds and
bloats and doesn't hit its prey for much, and then ZAPPPPPP, 24 pool
damage in one turn. Sometimes when you play one, especially if you
didn't copy the deck verbatim and haven't entirely tweaked your
version of it, it just sits around and then gets ousted. But it's
still a good tournament-winning deck type.
> and
> the worst of all, the "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm going to cross table
> KRC you and block you with Eagle's Sight, just 'cause I'm
> CRAAAAAAAZZZZZYYYYY!!!!", which is always a blast.
>
See, I don't see that one much at all. I've seen the Malkavian Oust
Backwards deck, but as annoying as it is to have that as your prey,
it's not so much just "I'm CRAAAAAAAZZZZZZYYYYYY!!!!" as it is evil
genius. It totally messes with table dynamics, and it doesn't win as
reliably as just ousting forward like a normal human being, but it
*can* win.
As far as just stupid crazy Malks with the various "Everyone gains or
loses random amounts of pool" masters - I just don't see them much.
Peter D Bakija
> See, now this I feel is totally reasonable. Especially in casual
> play, you want to try out some new ideas and don't want to just always
> play dominate weenies and dementation stealth bleed...
Oh, I agree. I'm not trying to denigrate that kind of play, just
throwing it out there as a factor. People have every right to
experiment and fail ('cause sometimes thses things work
spectacularly), but in terms of motivation, the "I really want this
trick to work" often has a significant impact on the game around it.
> See, I don't see that one much at all.
I don't either. But I have certainly run across it (i.e. someone,
like, cross table blocking a hunt and then shooting your vampire into
torpor, just 'cause it seemed appropriate for the Malkavians to do
that, or something. And it isn't always someone playing Malkavians.
Some people just like being random and arbitrary more than they like
trying to win...)
-Peter
The Name Forgotten
> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:70b89b44-d5ac-4f55...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 5:18 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by.
> > > >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust.
>
> > > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances
> > > > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP).
>
> > > I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you
> > > can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway.
> > > [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5]
>
> > > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
> > > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and
> > > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know.
>
> > I've been in one of these situations where I "self-ousted" to gain a
> > mathematical advantage.
>
> > First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where
> > VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self-
> > oust in a social game.
>
> (description of self-ousting to select which opponent he preferred to
> meet in tournament finals)
>
> ...which, I believe, was kind of Kevin's point. Not because of the
> "social" vs. "tournament" thing, but the way you've defined it, your
> advantage was indended to help your tournament position, not help
> your in-game position.
Well then, the Lasombra has stated the one reason, and the only other
reason I can think of involves tables of larger than 5 (which can
happen in socials).
> I believe this would be illegal in a VEKN
> tournament because you're supposed to be playing to win the immediate
> game and considerations about tournament position are actually
> illegal to use. This might be hard to detect and enforce much of the
> time, but I understand it to be illegal nonetheless.
Uh... I'd like to see that VEKN rule please. As far as I know, if you
are unable to achieve a VP by any means, you may play as you wish
(barring a few other motives, like bribery).
This was certainly the case in that game as my prey had more permacept
than I could stealth past, and was walling up against me, so had a
minion to minion match, I was the only one playing votes (so no kills
by Domain Challenges or stuff like that) - I wasn't playing dominate
or auspex (no deflections of any kind), I wasn't playing untap cards
like maj's or freak drives, etc, so couldn't swarm him, and he had
more than enough pool even if I did manage to get a single action
through (over 6 pool). As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me
sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in
any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to
convince them.
Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish, so long
as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other
players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their
tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting
anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey).
> And, by the way, legal or not, I would not classify editting final
> opponents as a "mathematical advantage" under any circumstances.
How come? In this circumstance, it seems like a "mathematical
advantage" in that it involves numbers and more than or less than
situations. If it isn't, then what exactly is meant by a mathematical
advantage?
The Name Forgotten
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>>There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the
>>mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these
and
>>actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me
know.
Also, what about a situation like this:
Meth A has ousted 2 players and is on 2VPs, he is playing a vote deck
with no intercept and is on low pool.
Meth B has ousted 1 player and is on 1 VP, he is playing sneak-bleed
deck with Jost (+1 stealth)
It's Meth A's turn - he is on 1 pool and has steadily been bled by
Meth B. Meth A has only one vamp left to act. Meth B still has one
blocker (other than Jost) untapped. Meth A has a Kine Resources and
has vote lock. Meth B has 3 pool.
If Meth A calls the vote, and it passes, he will oust both himself and
the other meth, but get a VP out of it, putting Meth A on 3 VPs and
Meth B on 2.
If Meth A does anything else, then Meth B will oust him, and this will
leave B on 3 VPs and A on 2.
Hence, it's mathematically better for Meth A to call the vote that
ousts himself.
Chris Berger
While technically, that's self-ousting, I don't think it counts. When
I think about self-ousting, I generally mean transferring out. If you
can oust your prey, and the only means of doing so also ousts
yourself, I think most people would agree that you're almost always
justified in doing so.
Drain
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
Heh, "Life Boned".
Hylarious!
Drain
Kevin M.
[snip description of situation]
> in situations like those, i am quite happy to show people why their
> actions suck, and make life harder for them via my death.
The fact that you believe you will "show people" and "make life harder for
them" via your death, instead of your living and pounding them, etc., is
very disturbing. That sounds almost pathological. Ick!
I would suggest that you Choose Life. Wear this big white shirt and you'll
feel better, and be a better player.
Frederick Scott
> On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote in messagenews:70b89b44-d5ac-4f55...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> > > VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self-
> > > oust in a social game.
> >
> > (description of self-ousting to select which opponent he preferred to
> > meet in tournament finals)
...
> > tournament because you're supposed to be playing to win the immediate
> > game and considerations about tournament position are actually
> > illegal to use. This might be hard to detect and enforce much of the
> > time, but I understand it to be illegal nonetheless.
>
> Uh... I'd like to see that VEKN rule please. As far as I know, if you
> are unable to achieve a VP by any means, you may play as you wish
> (barring a few other motives, like bribery).
"Rule 4.8 Play To Win
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play towards
goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES
rulebook (e.g. attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN
ratings or overall tournament standings, etc.)..."
Attacking a player out of concern that his appearance in the final (or
favoring a different player for that reason) would be a detriment to
your ability to win that different game would be another such example.
> ...As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me
> sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in
> any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to
> convince them.
>
> Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish,
Sorry, the one doesn't justify the other. Knowledge of someone's
deck and its efficacy is a totally fine reason to pick on them and
gang on them because it hinges on winning the immediate game. On
the other hand, what you're doing is trying to the final game, not
the one you're currently playing, so that runs afoul of the win game
rule in tournament play (4.8.).
> so long
> as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other
> players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their
> tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting
> anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey).
Those are just the examples they give. I believe editing opponents
in the final is another valid example of something is not allowed. It
conflicts with the goal of the game just like attacking opponents
for their VEKN rating or tournament standing does.
> > And, by the way, legal or not, I would not classify editing final
> > opponents as a "mathematical advantage" under any circumstances.
>
> How come? In this circumstance, it seems like a "mathematical
> advantage" in that it involves numbers and more than or less than
> situations. If it isn't, then what exactly is meant by a mathematical
> advantage?
It appears to me that you're angling to gain what you subjectively
perceive as an advantage ("I prefer this opponent to that opponent...").
If that qualifies as "mathematical", then anything does. I'd define
"mathematical" as involving something objective that can be shown
with hard numbers: e.g., "This gives me 3 VP whereas otherwise I'd have
had only 2.5 VP."
Fred
Juggernaut1981
If there are any players from Blacktown Sydney from about 5 years ago,
they will remember the Malk/!Malk deck nicknamed the "Self-Oust 9000".
It's claim to fame was ousting itself on one of those "crazy random
stupid Malkavian Pool" things... scissors paper rock for 7 pool...
It often screwed itself against the wall and gave a sweep its
predator... but it was the most amusing thing to have in the room
because you would have no clue at all if the guy was suddenly going to
get a giant fistful of pool or basically oust himself.
Regarding tournaments, I am fairly sure you are allowed to consider
things such as positioning for the final as part of your "Play to win"
thoughts but only after you are basically assured that winning on the
current table is very remote.
The Name Forgotten
> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:16bfc82f-cfcb-49b2...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> "Rule 4.8 Play To Win
> One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play towards
> goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES
> rulebook (e.g. attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN
> ratings or overall tournament standings, etc.)..."
>
> Attacking a player out of concern that his appearance in the final (or
> favoring a different player for that reason) would be a detriment to
> your ability to win that different game would be another such example.
Yes, I agree with you, but you are neglicting to take into
consideration the first part of that rule, i.e.: Players must not play
towards goals that CONFLICT with the goal of the game. Attacking your
prey hardly seems to be a conflict with the goal of the game by any
stretch of the imagination. For example, if the person were not my
prey in this instance, but someone across the table from me, for
instance, and I was playing a kindred spirits deck, then I'd agree
with you that destroying his chances of a VP would be in conflict with
the goal of the game. But it was not. The man was my prey. I was
attempting to oust my prey (badly) and did what I could to maximise my
chances of earning VPs and GWs - however my efforts were ultimately
futile. Given that, I had the option of trying to survive for as long
as possible (which wouldn't have been that long, and certainly not
long enough to time-out) which would've given my prey in a stronger
position - which is NOT a requirement of Play-to-win - or going out in
a blaze of glory and ensuring that my prey would have a much harder
time of seeing the final table. I did take out-of-game considerations
into play, but it was a legitimate path to take without out-of-game
considerations.
The equivalent would be someone attempting to bribe you to win the
final table. An out-of-game consideration that leads you on the same
path as an in-game consideration does not constitute illegal play -
only when the goals conflict and you choose to let the out-of-game
consideration sway your opinion does it constitute illegal play. A
thin line, to be sure, but a valid point nonetheless.
In any event, as much as I'd like to get a ruling or judgment from LSJ
on the matter, I doubt this is a case where a hard ruling is in order.
Suffice it to say that it's a grey area, and in that situation, it's
up to the individual judge to decide. That being said, I'd love to
hear what LSJ would've done in that situation, if he had the facts in
hand.
> > ...As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me
> > sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in
> > any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to
> > convince them.
>
> > Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish,
>
> Sorry, the one doesn't justify the other. Knowledge of someone's
> deck and its efficacy is a totally fine reason to pick on them and
> gang on them because it hinges on winning the immediate game. On
> the other hand, what you're doing is trying to the final game, not
> the one you're currently playing, so that runs afoul of the win game
> rule in tournament play (4.8.).
Again, false - I was not compromising my current game in any way i.e.
I was trying to the final game AND the one I was currently playing. In
fact, that seems to be what everyone is doing in this game. The goals
did not conflict.
> > so long
> > as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other
> > players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their
> > tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting
> > anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey).
>
> Those are just the examples they give. I believe editing opponents
> in the final is another valid example of something is not allowed. It
> conflicts with the goal of the game just like attacking opponents
> for their VEKN rating or tournament standing does.
What if you knew your prey had a higher VEKN rating, and by ousting
him, you'd get a higher VEKN rating than him - something you've been
wanting to do as he's been lauding his position over you. Are you now
NOT going to oust him because there is also an out of game
consideration for doing so? Ousting him is IMO not in conflict with
the rules of the game, even if your reason for ousting him was more
because of the out of game consideration than the in game one - so
long as the in game considerations are followed.
Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove
that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or
you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside
considerations is illegal. I don't think either is possible, given the
way the rules are written at the moment.
> It appears to me that you're angling to gain what you subjectively
> perceive as an advantage ("I prefer this opponent to that opponent...").
> If that qualifies as "mathematical", then anything does. I'd define
> "mathematical" as involving something objective that can be shown
> with hard numbers: e.g., "This gives me 3 VP whereas otherwise I'd have
> had only 2.5 VP."
This gives my prey 2 VP instead of the chance at 3VP and a spot in the
final table.
This gives my predator 3VP and a spot in the final table instead of 2
VP.
My prey has blocked and torporised my vampires (2) and my predator has
not.
My prey has multiple minions with permacept (4 minions with at least 2
intercept), and an intercept location (1), whereas my predator has
none.
Hence my predator is an easier opponent to defeat than my prey.
Hence I'd prefer my predator on the final table then my prey.
Hard numbers shown objectively. Although the first 2 lines are the
ones that are really mathematical considerations.
LSJ
> On Feb 13, 4:59 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:16bfc82f-cfcb-49b2...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> on the matter, I doubt this is a case where a hard ruling is in order.
> Suffice it to say that it's a grey area, and in that situation, it's
> up to the individual judge to decide. That being said, I'd love to
> hear what LSJ would've done in that situation, if he had the facts in
> hand.
>
>
>>> ...As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me
>>> sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in
>>> any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to
>>> convince them.
>>> Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish,
>> Sorry, the one doesn't justify the other. Knowledge of someone's
>> deck and its efficacy is a totally fine reason to pick on them and
>> gang on them because it hinges on winning the immediate game. On
>> the other hand, what you're doing is trying to the final game, not
>> the one you're currently playing, so that runs afoul of the win game
>> rule in tournament play (4.8.).
>
> Again, false - I was not compromising my current game in any way i.e.
> I was trying to the final game AND the one I was currently playing. In
> fact, that seems to be what everyone is doing in this game. The goals
> did not conflict.
Given multiple choices that each meet the PTW criteria, the player is free to
take any of the options.
Frederick Scott
But you just changed your story from what I originally responded to.
When I started out, you were talking about holding on until the game
timed out vs. self-ousting. You worded it that way because Kevin's
challenge was for people to find a way that would improve their
positions by self-ousting. If your position was absolutely futile
and there was no way you could hold on until the game timed out, then
you're not really self-ousting and this doesn't address what Kevin
was talking about. And consequently, that wasn't what you said. I
quote:
# So, I had the choice of either holding it out til timeout (which is
# where the table was headed), leaving both predator and prey to toss
# for the fifth spot on the final table, or go forward as hard as I
# could to make sure my prey couldn't get another VP, and let my
# predator oust me, ensuring his spot on the final table as the fifth
# spot, and stopping myself from facing that wall deck again.
I was addressing the situation you originally described; not the
one you just presented in your last post. Had there been a significant
chance you could hang on until the game timed out, then allowing
yourself to get ousted in order to edit which opponent you would face
in the final would certainly conflict with the goal of the immediate
game: get the most victory points possible. Hence, illegal.
(I understand there is an exception that if you win the game either
way, you are free to win it however you choose - including with the
alternate goal of editing opponents.)
> > > so long
> > > as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other
> > > players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their
> > > tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting
> > > anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey).
> >
> > Those are just the examples they give. I believe editing opponents
> > in the final is another valid example of something is not allowed. It
> > conflicts with the goal of the game just like attacking opponents
> > for their VEKN rating or tournament standing does.
>
> What if you knew your prey had a higher VEKN rating, and by ousting
> him, you'd get a higher VEKN rating than him - something you've been
> wanting to do as he's been lauding his position over you. Are you now
> NOT going to oust him because there is also an out of game
> consideration for doing so? Ousting him is IMO not in conflict with
> the rules of the game, even if your reason for ousting him was more
> because of the out of game consideration than the in game one - so
> long as the in game considerations are followed.
Sure, I agree with the point you're making. But notice the point *I* was
making, which doesn't conflict: that editing opponents in the final falls
in the same category of potentially conflicting goals as playing for
tournament standing, VEKN ratings, and so forth.
> Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove
> that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or
> you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside
> considerations is illegal.
I can prove it in your original anecdote because you _said_ that's why
you chose that course of action. But you'll notice, I also conceded
that in fact, it can very difficult or impossible to prove. In your
original anecdote, playing to hand your predator a VP he wouldn't have
otherwise gotten is very difficult to discern from poor judgement. So
if that was your plan, you're probably fine as long as you don't loudly
state your thinking to the table - e.g., "I'm sure I can hold on until
time out but I'm going to uselessly expose myself to Phil to oust me
so he makes it to the finals and not Sam."
> > It appears to me that you're angling to gain what you subjectively
> > perceive as an advantage ("I prefer this opponent to that opponent...").
> > If that qualifies as "mathematical", then anything does. I'd define
> > "mathematical" as involving something objective that can be shown
> > with hard numbers: e.g., "This gives me 3 VP whereas otherwise I'd have
> > had only 2.5 VP."
>
> This gives my prey 2 VP instead of the chance at 3VP and a spot in the
> final table.
> This gives my predator 3VP and a spot in the final table instead of 2
> VP.
Sure. But that doesn't actually constitute an advantage unless you add
in your subjective determination that finals with your predator is an
advantage for you over finals with your prey.
> My prey has blocked and torporised my vampires (2) and my predator has
> not.
> My prey has multiple minions with permacept (4 minions with at least 2
> intercept), and an intercept location (1), whereas my predator has
> none.
> Hence my predator is an easier opponent to defeat than my prey.
Nope. Sorry - that's still subjective judgement. Not mathematical fact.
Counting torped vamps or permacept in the current game doesn't prove
advantage in a future game. There could be a million different kinds
of mitigating circumstances.
Fred
librarian
>
> Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove
> that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or
> you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside
> considerations is illegal. I don't think either is possible, given the
> way the rules are written at the moment.
>
>>
An illegal play is still illegal, regardless of proof.
If you kill someone, it's still illegal, even if it is never proved that
you did it (like OJ Simpson...)
best -
chris
Daneel
> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted?
>
> Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard
> as you can when you know you can't oust them?
>
> Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if
> you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?
>
> Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?
>
> Do you do something else I haven't listed here?
>
> Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?
#1. If someone went out of their way to kill me, I try to get back
at them.
#2. If everyone did their job, and I hold no grudge against anyone,
I try to kill the wall deck.
#3. If everyone played nicely and there is no wall deck I just play
on as before and die trying to oust my prey / survive my predator.
--
Regards,
Daneel
LSJ
> The Name Forgotten wrote:
>>
>> Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove
>> that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or
>> you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside
>> considerations is illegal.
>
And a legal play is still legal, even if someone begrudges the legal play and
seeks to show it is (or have it judged) illegal.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Feb 11, 3:27 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against,
> > to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future.
>
> Do you think that will work?
Since I am only one player, my behavior has minimal effect on the
metagame. But in the broader sense, the worry that (for instance)
"everyone hates a dominate stealth bleeder" or "everyone hates imbued"
is a factor that occasionally does effect a player's choice of deck.
But given the premise, how much justification do I need? It is a
given of the hypothetical that I know that I will be ousted and that I
will not oust my prey first. It is a given that nothing will "work"
for me in the normal sense.
For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed
me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on
my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with
punishment). Do I think it will "work"? Not really.
Blooded Sand
I think I have transferred out once or twice, each time because the
person who was my prey back rushed me out of existence "because in the
previous game I could not do anything to you," this being the same
game in which said person bitched and moaned that I was killing him.
Sorry prey, thats my job.
Before PTO got banned, I got cross tabled and Fatima was blown up. So
I dealth with my pred, said I would spend 13 of my remaining 14 pool
to bring her out and tool up again. I then nuked the cross tabler out
of existence. Watching Arika, Queen Anne, Marcus and Lucinde go poof
was very satisfying. I also ended up winning that game as i then
managed to oust my prey via TitR and Fame (hey, I am just cycling
cards with this K:Glory, ok?) by the time i got to my pred, i had 22
pool, 5 minons, 2 with assault rifles, one with a bow. He was kinda
annoyed about the deal but took it philosophically.
Usually I will try to turn whoever killed me into a smoking crater. If
it was my pred, then less so. But prey/cross table screwings? "load
the nukes Bob, we got ourselves a target."
Just wall up and hope for death? Sod that....
librarian
Fair enough. I think that's perfect, that people are playing legally,
until proven otherwise. This may have been a default position, but I'm
not sure it's one everyone was viewing things from.
best -
chris
The Name Forgotten
> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:af1a064b-02e8-4a9e...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Ah, I see. Sorry, my bad. You're right, I abbreviated my initial story
too much. I wasn't going to make it to the timeout, but I had the
option of trying (poorly). My prey was walling and going backwards
where possible, my predator was given full rein to go forwards and
oust me. I wasn't playing a defensive deck by any stretch of the
imagination (it was a setite-baron reckless agitation vote deck). I
can't remember too well what my predator was playing, but IIRC it was
a big bruise/bleed deck. My prey was playing Imbued (hence the
multiple minions with intercept). That aside, if I did decide to just
wall up and I didn't go forward, my predator would've ousted me and my
prey had a good chance of ousting his prey before the table timed out
(as he was mostly tooled up already, and a round or three of no
pressure from me would've given him ample time to stock up on
convictions to go forward).
> Sure. But that doesn't actually constitute an advantage unless you add
> in your subjective determination that finals with your predator is an
> advantage for you over finals with your prey.
>
> > My prey has blocked and torporised my vampires (2) and my predator has
> > not.
> > My prey has multiple minions with permacept (4 minions with at least 2
> > intercept), and an intercept location (1), whereas my predator has
> > none.
> > Hence my predator is an easier opponent to defeat than my prey.
>
> Nope. Sorry - that's still subjective judgement. Not mathematical fact.
> Counting torped vamps or permacept in the current game doesn't prove
> advantage in a future game. There could be a million different kinds
> of mitigating circumstances.
>
Yes, there could be - some of those mitigating circumstances have a
greater mathematical value than others (in other words, they are, by
the most part, quantifiable) - Most of those circumstances are so
minor as to be negligible. It comes down to odds. The odds of me
winning at a final table were significantly higher if my prey were not
present and my predator was instead. This is most clearly seen when
someone is playing Imbued, which can totally wreck certain decks, eg.
amaranth, agg-poke decks or, in my case, undirected 1-stealth vote
decks with no intercept. Even if he was cross-table from me in the
finals, he had rush (which my predator didn't) making him worse-off as
a player on the table. And yes, I knew I'd be getting serious table-
hate in the final table (which is exactly what I did get - I didn't
get anything off the ground). It was a very one-aspect deck, that, in
the right conditions, completely obliterated players very quickly - a
couple of Reckless Agitations can do that to a table.
I know some people say there is no such thing as an objectively better
deck, and it's a big area of debate. I believe some decks are just
objectively better than others, just like some cards are objectively
better than others. Not to say that a better deck ALWAYS bets a worse
one, just to say that the odds are better that it does.
I'm not going to debate the point any more than that though. You're
free to disagree. I understand your point and the logic behind it, I
just don't agree with it. A mathematical advantage does not need to
restrict itself to the kind of iron-clad certainty you're talking
about. If that's the kind of mathematical advantage that the original
poster was talking about, then I can only say I misunderstood and it
was a reasonable misunderstanding to make. (Much in the same way that
my KRC self-ousting reply showed a misunderstanding of his point,
which he then clarified).
Kevin M.
> Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against,
> > > to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future.
> >
> > Do you think that will work?
>
> Since I am only one player, my behavior
> has minimal effect on the metagame.
Perhaps in your metagame you aren't enough of an influence to change the
metagame on your own, or perhaps your metagame doesn't include such
powerful players, but when it does then yes, a single player, for a variety
of
reasons, can and does change the metagame by himself.
> For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed
> me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on
> my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with
> punishment). Do I think it will "work"? Not really.
See, this is what I take issue with, the definition of "a no-win scenario".
How are you able to take actions, cross-table no less(!), if you are in "a
no-win scenario"?
Aaaah! Gotcha! ;)
I would very much suggest that, as I said in two previous posts now,
if there are more than two players in the game, then you in a bad position
choose to stay in the game so that your predator's enemies have more
time to assault him and therefore be able to help you.
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
Kevin M.
> I think I have transferred out once or twice, each time because the
> person who was my prey back rushed me out of existence "because in the
> previous game I could not do anything to you," this being the same
> game in which said person bitched and moaned that I was killing him.
> Sorry prey, thats my job.
If this was in a tournament, that player is not playing to win, and breaking
other rules besides. Everyone heard him say "because in the previous game I
could not do anything to you" so you then call the judge over and ask the
game and your prey to be watched for non-PTW.
No, this isn't outrageous. It is his prey who is being outrageous by
wrecking the game and destroying the agreement we all have when we sit down
at the table to play VTES.
If this was in a casual game, then follow my other set of rules:
Education. Then Shame. And, if necessary and possible, Ostracisim.
> Usually I will try to turn whoever killed me into a smoking crater.
I suggest *AGAIN* that:
If there are more than two players in the game, then you in a bad position
witness1
> your predator's enemies have more
> time to assault him and therefore be able to help you.
The second does not always follow from the first.
-witness1
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > your predator's enemies have more time
> > to assault him and therefore be able to help you.
>
> The second does not always follow from the first.
How does your predator being weakened not help you?
Frederick Scott
> I'm not going to debate the point any more than that though. You're
> free to disagree. I understand your point and the logic behind it, I
> just don't agree with it.
OK. How many Usenet threads would get cut to reasonable length if
people just said that more often. :-) Likewise, I can see what you're
going for: you just wanted to demonstrate that one can self-oust to
some sort of distinct advantage in this circumstance.
> A mathematical advantage does not need to
> restrict itself to the kind of iron-clad certainty you're talking
> about. If that's the kind of mathematical advantage that the original
> poster was talking about, then I can only say I misunderstood and it
> was a reasonable misunderstanding to make. (Much in the same way that
> my KRC self-ousting reply showed a misunderstanding of his point,
> which he then clarified).\
Truth be known, I don't even really know what it was Kevin was looking
for when he used that phrase and I can't speak for him. I just know
what his challenge meant to me.
Fred
Kushiel
> Since I am only one player, my behavior has minimal effect on the
> metagame. But in the broader sense, the worry that (for instance)
> "everyone hates a dominate stealth bleeder" or "everyone hates imbued"
> is a factor that occasionally does effect a player's choice of deck.
I dunno, man. If someone who's in a losing position starts hitting me
cross-table when I haven't done anything to them, I'll ask why they're
doing that. And if their answer is, "Because I don't like your deck,"
I'm not likely to think, "Wow, I shouldn't play that deck any more."
I'm almost certainly going to think instead, "Wow, the person who just
did that is an asshole."
> But given the premise, how much justification do I need? \
How much justification do you need to not be a jerk when you're given
the opportunity to be a jerk? None, I hope.
> It is a
> given of the hypothetical that I know that I will be ousted and that I
> will not oust my prey first. It is a given that nothing will "work"
> for me in the normal sense.
Sure. But acting like a jerk because you don't like someone else's
deck doesn't have anything to do with that. And I'd be very surprised
if that works as some kind of long-term social engineering tactic in
any case.
> For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed
> me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on
> my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with
> punishment).
That's not the situation you had originally posited, and which I was
asking about.
John Eno
witness1
> > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > > your predator's enemies have more time
> > > to assault him and therefore be able to help you.
>
> > The second does not always follow from the first.
>
> How does your predator being weakened not help you?
If I have no ready minions and insufficient resources to acquire one,
no amount of damage to my predator is helpful to me.
-witness1
The Name Forgotten
> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:b718f2ee-4af0-4f0c...@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'm not going to debate the point any more than that though. You're
> > free to disagree. I understand your point and the logic behind it, I
> > just don't agree with it.
>
> OK. How many Usenet threads would get cut to reasonable length if
> people just said that more often. :-)
Now that's something I can whole-heartedly agree with! 8)
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> See, this is what I take issue with, the definition of "a no-win scenario".
> How are you able to take actions, cross-table no less(!), if you are in "a
> no-win scenario"?
I am simply working with the definition of "no win scenario" provided
by the original poster, XZealot. I am assuming a situation where you
KNOW you will be ousted, and you KNOW you will not oust your prey. In
other words, you will NOT gain any more victory points.
> Aaaah! Gotcha! ;)
Think so? I can think of many circumstances where a player without
hope of bettering his own position can still affect the outcome with
respect to the remaining players. I never said anything to suggest
that "cross table actions" were necessarily involved.
> I would very much suggest that, as I said in two previous posts now,
> if there are more than two players in the game, then you in a bad position
> choose to stay in the game so that your predator's enemies have more
> time to assault him and therefore be able to help you.
You are assuming that I have hope. Obviously, if I have hope, I
should do as you suggest. But this is contrary to the starting
proposition, suggested by XZealot, which I accepted for purposes of
discussion.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Since I am only one player, my behavior has minimal effect on the
> > metagame. But in the broader sense, the worry that (for instance)
> > "everyone hates a dominate stealth bleeder" or "everyone hates imbued"
> > is a factor that occasionally does effect a player's choice of deck.
>
> I dunno, man. If someone who's in a losing position starts hitting me
> cross-table when I haven't done anything to them, I'll ask why they're
> doing that.
Why do you assume you have done nothing to him? I never made such
assumption. At the very least, given XZealots starting assumption of
"no hope", you have left your cross-table buddy entirely without hope,
which suggests to me the possibility that you have not been a very
good cross-table buddy.
> And if their answer is, "Because I don't like your deck,"
> I'm not likely to think, "Wow, I shouldn't play that deck any more."
> I'm almost certainly going to think instead, "Wow, the person who just
> did that is an asshole."
He cannot help himself -- that is XZealots starting assumption. If he
has a choice between hurting you, and helping his predator (your prey)
OR helping you by hurting his predator (your prey). Why should he
take the latter option? Why do you assume you are entitled to his
support? What have you done to deserve it?
You can make up lots of reasons, of course. You can assume that you
have been an excellent cross-table buddy, and now he is trying to
screw you just because he is an "asshole". But such assumptions were
not the basis for discussion. I merely suggested that a person
without hope does not necessarily have an obligation to pointlessly
try to screw his predator and prey, with no benefit to himself.
> > But given the premise, how much justification do I need? \
>
> How much justification do you need to not be a jerk when you're given
> the opportunity to be a jerk? None, I hope.
Why are you engaging in name calling. "Asshole" and now "Jerk". Just
because someone cross table did not recognize some sort of (non-
existent) obligation to help you win.
> > It is a
> > given of the hypothetical that I know that I will be ousted and that I
> > will not oust my prey first. It is a given that nothing will "work"
> > for me in the normal sense.
>
> Sure. But acting like a jerk because you don't like someone else's
> deck doesn't have anything to do with that. And I'd be very surprised
> if that works as some kind of long-term social engineering tactic in
> any case.
I never said it would "work". I am merely pointing out that, given
the starting premise, I have no obligation to help YOU win, as opposed
to helping some other player. The fact that you are calling me a
"jerk" for refusing to recognize some non-existent obligation to help
YOU suggests bad sportsmanship on your part.
> > For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed
> > me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on
> > my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with
> > punishment).
>
> That's not the situation you had originally posited, and which I was
> asking about.
What I originally said was "Given the premise, I do whatever I please
for whatever reason I choose." Assuming I have no power to help
myself, I have no obligation to help YOU win, as opposed to helping
some other player. And if I know you are going to call me "asshole"
and "jerk" for refusing to help you, this is going to make me
particularly ill disposed towards serving your interests.
Kushiel
> Why do you assume you have done nothing to him?
Because your post didn't make any mention of you going cross-table in
response to someone hitting you cross-table first. It only mentioned
you taking action against decks you don't like.
> I never made such
> assumption.
Fair enough. It sure seemed like you did, given that you didn't
mention any cross-table vengeance until a follow-up post. If that's
actually what you meant ("Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate
to play against, which has hurt me cross-table during the current
game, to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future"), I'm
happy to say that I wouldn't perceive such behavior as unjustified
jerkassery.
> I merely suggested that a person
> without hope does not necessarily have an obligation to pointlessly
> try to screw his predator and prey, with no benefit to himself.
No, you didn't. You suggested that you would expend resources cross-
table to hurt someone because you didn't like the deck that person was
playing.
> Why are you engaging in name calling.
Please note the use of the word "if" in my post regarding how I feel
when people hypothetically mess with me cross-table, and note the fact
that you've never done so. I'm not calling you any names. Relax.
John Eno
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Feb 15, 5:21 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Why do you assume you have done nothing to him?
>
> Because your post didn't make any mention of you going cross-table in
> response to someone hitting you cross-table first. It only mentioned
> you taking action against decks you don't like.
In the context of that particular example (which was just an example),
I did not mention "cross table" either. If it is the sort of deck I
hate to play against, and I am in a lost position, then playing
against it has probably done something to me.
> > I never made such
> > assumption.
>
> Fair enough. It sure seemed like you did, given that you didn't
> mention any cross-table vengeance until a follow-up post.
Cross table vengeance was a different example
> If that's
> actually what you meant ("Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate
> to play against, which has hurt me cross-table during the current
> game, to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future"), I'm
> happy to say that I wouldn't perceive such behavior as unjustified
> jerkassery.
No, that was not what I meant. What I meant was, I don't need a
reason to hurt you. Any conduct I engage in that effects the table
will inevitably hurt somebody. Even if I do nothing, as opposed to
acting, that choice will inevitably hurt somebody. Given that I MUST
hurt somebody, I may hurt whoever I please for whatever reason I
please. And that person may be you.
I know that you would rather I help you, hurting other players in the
process. I know that you will call me "jerk" and "asshole" if I do
choose not to benefit you (hurting other players in the process). But
I don't have to do that. Given that my position is lost I can lose in
any manner I please.
> > I merely suggested that a person
> > without hope does not necessarily have an obligation to pointlessly
> > try to screw his predator and prey, with no benefit to himself.
>
> No, you didn't. You suggested that you would expend resources cross-
> table to hurt someone because you didn't like the deck that person was
> playing.
I said nothing about "expending resources" and -- in the context of
that example -- I said nothing about "cross table" -- though I am not
sure what difference it would make if I did.
I have no idea what you mean by "expending resources". Anything I do
effects the table, and I can as easily screw you by not expending
resources as by expending them. Given that my position is lost
(XZealot's premise), my "resources" have no value to me, and it seems
to me I am entitled to "expend" them -- or not -- however I choose.
Maybe my reason for hurting you is that I admire my predator's (your
prey's) deck, and think that, having effectively destroyed me, it
deserves to win. So I tap myself out, doing as much damage to my prey
as possible, but leaving myself (and my prey) wide open for the oust
by my predator. My predator (your prey) is thereby permitted to oust
me before you can oust him, and takes my prey as well, gaining 12 pool
on the turn before you would otherwise have ousted him.
Or perhaps my reason for hurting you is that I don't like it when
people assume that, when I am in a lost position, I have an obligation
to help them, as opposed to helping some other player.
Given the premise I can act for any reason or no reason at all. Get
it?
> > Why are you engaging in name calling?
>
> Please note the use of the word "if" in my post regarding how I feel
> when people hypothetically mess with me cross-table, and note the fact
> that you've never done so. I'm not calling you any names. Relax.
The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the
support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the
table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you
are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical
person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me.
You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which
players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he
has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs?
aleks...@gmail.com
> The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the
> support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the
> table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you
> are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical
> person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me.
>
> You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which
> players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he
> has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs?
It seems that hurting someone without gaining any in-game benefit from
it is considered by some to be "unethical".
It also seems that hurting someone passively is more acceptable than
hurting someone actively.
The reason for these guidelines is that some feel that personal issues
should be left outside of the table. Arbitrarily defining passiveness
as acceptable removes the possibility of active king making and
whatnot.
Saying that someone who actively hurts another player when they're in
a certain no win situation is a jerk is an informal expression of
support for the above conventions.
That's my understanding.
Peter D Bakija
> The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the
> support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the
> table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you
> are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical
> person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me.
It makes sense to me. Yes, you are in a lost position (that is the
premise of the discussion here, presumably). But the default position
of the game is that the people you are sitting next to are your
opponents and the people across the table from you are austensibly
your allies. Or at least not yet your enemies. So even in the face of
a lost position, acting to hinder people cross table is, what we call
in the business, a "dick move". Unless there is a reason for it. Due
to the structure of the game.
If you are in a lost position, there is a reason for it; likely either
your predator is very effective at killing you or your prey is very
effective at not being killed by you. So that is how you got to the
lost position, presumably. So given that you are in the lost position,
and probably have someone to blame for it (predator or prey, likely),
if you want to arbitrarily hinder someone (or punish or spite), it
should be someone that makes sense. Which is going to be either your
predator or your prey, in all likelihood.
Yeah, it is possible that someone cross table is the reason that you
are in the lost position, and you cross table messing with them makes
sense. But most of the time, not so much. So I'm pretty sure that
John's (Eno) point was that if someone is randomly attacking him cross
table 'cause they are in a lost position and don't like his deck, that
is a "dick move", which I would agree with.
> You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which
> players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he
> has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs?
There are people he is supposed to hurt, by default: his prey, and
failing that, his predator. If he is hurting someone else? There needs
to be a good logic for it. "I don't like your deck" doesn't really
pass muster as good logic.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> It seems that hurting someone without gaining any in-game benefit from
> it is considered by some to be "unethical".
I don't know that it is a matter of "ethical" or "unethical". But it
is certainly illogical. The game provides a structure of you you
should "hurt" (predator and prey) and who you should not
"hurt" (everyone else). Unless there is a specific reason and
advantage to messing with someone cross table, doing so is a default
bad idea.
> It also seems that hurting someone passively is more acceptable than
> hurting someone actively.
I don't know that that is true either--you certainly should hurt your
prey actively (so you can oust them). It is also often a good idea to
hurt your predator actively (so they don't kill you so fast). But
actively hurting someone cross table is not really acceptable in the
confines of the game, unless there is a specific benefit to do so (and
even then, it is often a bad idea anyway).
> The reason for these guidelines is that some feel that personal issues
> should be left outside of the table.
That is true. And hard coded into the tournament rules (which is a
good idea, but difficult to quantify).
> Saying that someone who actively hurts another player when they're in
> a certain no win situation is a jerk is an informal expression of
> support for the above conventions.
Well, if you mean "actively hurts another player who they have no
logical reason to hurt", then yeah. The default, even if you are in a
lost position, is "get your prey". So if you are in a lost positon,
and you spite your prey? That is just the game moving on. Or your
predator? Reasonable. The guy across the table for no logical reason?
Not reasonable.
-Peter
henrik
> If you are in a lost position, there is a reason for it; likely either
> your predator is very effective at killing you or your prey is very
> effective at not being killed by you. So that is how you got to the
> lost position, presumably.
From my experience, having a crap deck/player as grand predator is
almost worse (and certainly more common) than having a very effective
predator. Even if your grand predator isn't actively doing damage to
you, they've got a rather big impact on how your situation looks.
In the situation discussed above though, I don't think it's very nice
to hit someone crosstable just because they're playing a deck type you
don't like. If it's a deck that just tend to ruin the table overall
it's probably more effective to talk to the player afterwards and tell
xer not to play it again. And if it's a deck type you can't handle
then it's probably better to adapt.
aleks...@gmail.com
> On Feb 17, 1:58 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It seems that hurting someone without gaining any in-game benefit from
> > it is considered by some to be "unethical".
>
> I don't know that it is a matter of "ethical" or "unethical".
Hence the quotation marks. But you get the idea.
> But it
> is certainly illogical. The game provides a structure of you you
> should "hurt" (predator and prey) and who you should not
> "hurt" (everyone else).
I wouldn't take that for granted. You should hurt people if it takes
you closer to winning. This usually means you should hurt your prey
and predator but not always.
I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many
points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish
that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see
hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey.
This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Peter D Bakija
> Hence the quotation marks. But you get the idea.
Sure. Was playing along :-)
> I wouldn't take that for granted. You should hurt people if it takes
> you closer to winning. This usually means you should hurt your prey
> and predator but not always.
As noted, if there is a good reason to hurt someone who isn't your
prey, then it is worth doing. But we are specifically discussion
situations where there *isn't* a reason to hurt someone who isn't your
prey. We are discussing random/arbitrary abuse of someone cross table.
For reasons that have nothing to do with getting closer to winning (as
the person doing it is in a lost position, so there is no getting
closer to winning). Given that the default position is "hurt your
prey" unless there is a beneficial reason to do otherwise, it is safe
to say that sticking to your default position is generally the logical
path to follow. Which is why people look at arbitrary hosing of folks
cross table as a "dick move".
> I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many
> points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish
> that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see
> hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey.
It is moving contrary to the default position. And thus illogical.
Even in a lost position, hurting your prey makes sense, as it isn't
arbitrarily helping anyone else that you wouldn't be helping anyway.
It is maintaining the initial structure of the game. Hurting someone
cross table when in a lost position is upsetting the default structure
of the table. If there is a good reason for this, it makes sense. If
there is not, it doesn't.
> This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Everything is a matter of opinion.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> Well, if you mean "actively hurts another player who they have no
>> logical reason to hurt", then yeah. The default, even if you are in a
>> lost position, is "get your prey". So if you are in a lost positon,
>> and you spite your prey? That is just the game moving on. Or your
>> predator? Reasonable. The guy across the table for no logical reason?
>> Not reasonable.
>
> points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish
> that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see
> hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey.
As long as you agree that it is reasonable for Peter and I to call it "a
dick move" and possibly even calling you "an ass" for acting that way, I see
no problem with your argument. :)
aleks...@gmail.com
> > I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many
> > points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish
> > that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see
> > hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey.
>
> It is moving contrary to the default position. And thus illogical.
> Even in a lost position, hurting your prey makes sense, as it isn't
> arbitrarily helping anyone else that you wouldn't be helping anyway.
> It is maintaining the initial structure of the game. Hurting someone
> cross table when in a lost position is upsetting the default structure
> of the table. If there is a good reason for this, it makes sense. If
> there is not, it doesn't.
I don't recognize the same default position as you do. I play to win
and hope that others do so as well. I only hurt a player, including my
prey or predator, if it helps me win. This is my default position.
> > This is, of course, a matter of opinion.
>
> Everything is a matter of opinion.
>
> -Peter
But you do understand what I meant, right?
aleks...@gmail.com
> aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> >> Well, if you mean "actively hurts another player who they have no
> >> logical reason to hurt", then yeah. The default, even if you are in a
> >> lost position, is "get your prey". So if you are in a lost positon,
> >> and you spite your prey? That is just the game moving on. Or your
> >> predator? Reasonable. The guy across the table for no logical reason?
> >> Not reasonable.
>
> > I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many
> > points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish
> > that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see
> > hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey.
>
> As long as you agree that it is reasonable for Peter and I to call it "a
> dick move" and possibly even calling you "an ass" for acting that way, I see
> no problem with your argument. :)
For the sake of clarity: hurting my prey when it doesn't do me any
good is as illogical as hurting my grand prey when it doesn't do me
any good.
Peter D Bakija
> I don't recognize the same default position as you do. I play to win
> and hope that others do so as well. I only hurt a player, including my
> prey or predator, if it helps me win. This is my default position.
But we aren't talking about doing things to help you win. The
discussion here is based in "I'm in a lost position". At which point
doing things to help you win are irrelevant to the discussion. So you
could, at that point, be a random berzerk element, or continue to play
logically. And if you continue to play logically, randomly attacking
people cross table continues to be a bad idea.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> For the sake of clarity: hurting my prey when it doesn't do me any
> good is as illogical as hurting my grand prey when it doesn't do me
> any good.
Hurting your prey always does you good.
-Peter
henrik
> But we aren't talking about doing things to help you win. The
> discussion here is based in "I'm in a lost position". At which point
> doing things to help you win are irrelevant to the discussion. So you
> could, at that point, be a random berzerk element, or continue to play
> logically. And if you continue to play logically, randomly attacking
> people cross table continues to be a bad idea.
But how is randomly attacking your prey logical?
Peter D Bakija
> But how is randomly attacking your prey logical?
By definition, it is never random to attack your prey.
-Peter
henrik
Who's definition is that?
Peter D Bakija
> Who's definition is that?
The one that is inherent in the design of the game.
Oust your prey.
-Peter
Kevin M.
I am sorry that you feel that way. :(
aleks...@gmail.com
Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your
prey. I don't.
aleks...@gmail.com
The goal is to win, not oust.
henrik
We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking with no
gain.
Peter D Bakija
> We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking with no
> gain.
I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be
*random* to attack your prey. Attacking your prey is the primary
method of winning the game. It won't always be the best idea to attack
your prey, no, but at no point will it ever be random to do so, in the
way that it is random or arbitrary to attack people across table.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> The goal is to win, not oust.
And again, winning isn't part of the discussion here. The base
assumption here is a lost position. Where winning does not enter the
equation. So if you still have the capacity to do anything at all,
doing it to your prey is logical and non random; doing it to someone
cross table arbitrarily is random and illogical.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your
> prey. I don't.
The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey.
Which is why you are restricted in who you can attack by default.
-Peter
henrik
> I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be
> *random* to attack your prey. Attacking your prey is the primary
> method of winning the game. It won't always be the best idea to attack
> your prey, no, but at no point will it ever be random to do so, in the
> way that it is random or arbitrary to attack people across table.
Your goal is to gain victory points.
If you can gain them by attacking your prey, then that's the logical
way to go.
If you can gain them by attacking your predator, then that's the
logical way to go.
If you can gain them by attacking your grandprey or grandpredator,
then that's the logical way to go.
If you won't get to your goal, then any attacks (or non-attacks) will
be random/arbitrary/spiteful/revenge/whatever. But they won't really
be logical (in the sense that going for victory points are logical).
Sure, it's semantics, but it's not less important because of that.
aleks...@gmail.com
> On Feb 17, 11:35 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your
> > prey. I don't.
>
> The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey.
I don't share that perception.
aleks...@gmail.com
> On Feb 17, 11:36 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The goal is to win, not oust.
>
> And again, winning isn't part of the discussion here.
It is now. You seem to view hurting your prey as a secondary goal,
correct? I view winning as the main goal and getting as many victory
points as possible as the only secondary goal. From this position,
hurting my prey would only be logical if it either gave me a game win
or a victory point. If I can't reach any goals by hurting my prey it
must be illogical for me to do so.
LSJ
> On Feb 16, 11:40 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the
>> support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the
>> table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you
>> are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical
>> person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me.
>
> It makes sense to me. Yes, you are in a lost position (that is the
> premise of the discussion here, presumably). But the default position
> of the game is that the people you are sitting next to are your
> opponents and the people across the table from you are austensibly
> your allies. Or at least not yet your enemies. So even in the face of
> a lost position, acting to hinder people cross table is, what we call
> in the business, a "dick move". Unless there is a reason for it. Due
> to the structure of the game.
Just to be clear. Being cross-table does not inherently oblige someone to make
choices to support you over choices which do not support you (given the choice
between two or more options that benefit the chooser equally).
Choosing one over the other is not a dick move.
There need be no reason for choosing the one that doesn't support you, just as
there need be no reason for the chooser to make the choice which supports you.
Due exactly to the structure of the game (which is: do for yourself; do for
others if it helps you).
Badgering a player to make one choice over another when neither choice is better
for the chooser, with some argument based its favor to you (with perhaps some
hand waving to seating position, alliances, and so on) is bad form.
> If you are in a lost position, there is a reason for it; likely either
> your predator is very effective at killing you or your prey is very
> effective at not being killed by you. So that is how you got to the
> lost position, presumably. So given that you are in the lost position,
> and probably have someone to blame for it (predator or prey, likely),
> if you want to arbitrarily hinder someone (or punish or spite), it
> should be someone that makes sense. Which is going to be either your
> predator or your prey, in all likelihood.
Yeah, it's possible to add all sorts of other assumptions.
But given the simple premise: "player in a lost position", the conclusion that
the player should make choices to support cross table players is spurious.
Even with the extra baggage, it sis still the chooser's prerogative to use
factors such as retribution or spite (or not to use them). "Should make sense"
is spurious, given that all of the choices under discussion are equal under the
basic rules of the game (play to win).
> Yeah, it is possible that someone cross table is the reason that you
> are in the lost position, and you cross table messing with them makes
> sense. But most of the time, not so much. So I'm pretty sure that
> John's (Eno) point was that if someone is randomly attacking him cross
> table 'cause they are in a lost position and don't like his deck, that
> is a "dick move", which I would agree with.
>
>> You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which
>> players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he
>> has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs?
>
> There are people he is supposed to hurt, by default: his prey, and
> failing that, his predator.
Actually, he is supposed to get the most VPs among the players at the table and
win the game. Whom he helps or hurts in the pursuit of that goal is up to him.
If he is hurting someone else? There needs
> to be a good logic for it. "I don't like your deck" doesn't really
> pass muster as good logic.
It passes as well as "spite my prey" or "spite my predator". That is, they're
equal -- they serve the chooser as much as the other choices would.
LSJ
No. It could be simply one of the choices available to you in your lost position
that do you no good.
By definition of lost position, making any of the choices available to the
player in the lost position does him no good.
LSJ
> On Feb 17, 11:40 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking with no
>> gain.
>
> I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be
> *random* to attack your prey.
It sure could be. Indeed, it would be if the stated assumption is true (being in
a lost position).
From a truly lost position, every course of action available is "random" in the
sense you're using the word.
LSJ
> For the sake of clarity: hurting my prey when it doesn't do me any
> good is as illogical as hurting my grand prey when it doesn't do me
> any good.
Correct.
Kushiel
> So I'm pretty sure that
> John's (Eno) point was that if someone is randomly attacking him cross
> table 'cause they are in a lost position and don't like his deck, that
> is a "dick move", which I would agree with.
That was the first half of what I was getting at, yeah.
The second half is that, specifically because that kind of behavior is
going to be perceived as jerkassery rather than as a reasonable course
of action, it's going to be self-defeating behavior in terms of trying
to accomplish its stated goal (ie, getting the person not to play the
deck any more). henrik hits on more reasonable courses of action, even
ignoring any kind of potentially alienating behavior and looking at
the issue from a purely pragmatic point of view:
On Feb 17, 9:26 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the situation discussed above though, I don't think it's very nice
> to hit someone crosstable just because they're playing a deck type you
> don't like. If it's a deck that just tend to ruin the table overall
> it's probably more effective to talk to the player afterwards and tell
> xer not to play it again. And if it's a deck type you can't handle
> then it's probably better to adapt.
I agree completely.
John Eno
aleks...@gmail.com
> Even with the extra baggage, it sis still the chooser's prerogative to use
> factors such as retribution or spite (or not to use them). "Should make sense"
> is spurious, given that all of the choices under discussion are equal under the
> basic rules of the game (play to win).
Just to be sure, wouldn't it be legitimate to have some arbitrary
convention to prevent acting out of spite as long as you're not trying
to present it as a part of the official rules?