Play to win - practical?
The Name Forgotten
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't in normal game play.
That being said, I find the 'play-to-win' rule to be highly
problematic and unpractical. This rule has seen much debate and
controversy - mostly around the issue of when a player is allowed to
self-oust, or how a person is allowed to play once s/he has no chance
of getting any VPs.
The rule, however, does expand to situations greater than that, and
I'll point to it's non-sensical results in some corner-case situations
in another post.
This post is really focusing on whether or not having such a rule that
is enforcable is better than not having the rule, and rather teaching
players (or having them learn the hard way) that those sorts of
actions are actually worse for them then better.
My opinion about people who self-oust, or who do desperate and crazy
things based on the "I have no chance of getting any VP's" argument is
that the rules shouldn't get involved in such actions - Common sense
should. Sure, it happens - but (A) often pointing to the rules and
saying it's in the rules to play-to-win and you do, in fact, still
have a chance, just makes people more enraged, gets people arguing,
and doesn't help the game at all, regardless of whether the rule is
enforced or not or (B) it becomes to difficult and time-consuming to
enforce such a rule that people just get on with it. Thus the rule is,
largely, inpractical.
Personally, I've seen many people do really stupid things that
actually ruin whatever chance they did have of getting any VP's, just
to do something spiteful, or give up on a game. I've been on the brunt
end of people like this more than once as well. Yes, it is annoying.
However, I find it far more effective to let them play it out, and
show them the error of their ways after they can clearly see that
their choices didn't help their situation at all.
In the case of spite, it certainly isn't going to change the way I
play, and it rarely changes the way anyone plays. If people act out of
spite to ruin your game, then you are much less likely to change the
way you play in order to suit them. Just plain old common sense. So my
question to those players is: why waste your time making everybody see
you as a vindictive jackass by playing that way, regardless of whether
or not the rules allow for such play? What kind of result are you
looking for, and do you really think acting that way is going to get
you the result you're looking for?
I must admit, I've succumbed to acting like a jackass in this way
before as well, and it's very easy to be like that if you feel that
someone is unnecessarily ruining your game for no good reason.
Experience has taught me better though. It only serves to make people
like you less, and be less willing to help you in future games (or, in
bad enough situations, less likely to even play with you).
The same goes for situations where people just 'give up'. It doesn't
accomplish anything. Sure, you may find someone who'll take pity on
you, or who will play lightly against you in the future to avoid
having you throw a temper-tantrum and storm off the table, but you'll
do so by alienating most players of the game, and making things much
harder for yourself in the future (as people will be far less likely
to help you out).
For this reason, I think the 'play-to-win' rule should actually be
dropped. It serves no purpose that's better than the basic rules and
common sense dictates, and, in fact, often just leads to controversy,
heated arguments, and very rarely is it actually enforced (or, at
least, by my experience. Counter-examples would be great though).
I realise making such a bold statement is going to give rise to
flamers. I'm not really interested in arguing the point, although I'm
more than willing to debate and understand other players opinions on
the matter.
henrik
> Just plain old common sense. So my
> question to those players is: why waste your time making everybody see
> you as a vindictive jackass by playing that way, regardless of whether
> or not the rules allow for such play? What kind of result are you
> looking for, and do you really think acting that way is going to get
> you the result you're looking for?
When I selfoust, it's usually due to getting screwed over by someone
and wanting that someone to know xe can't pull my strings however they
wish.
Like someone breaking deals, someone crosstable voting down my
referendums because they feel like it etc. Or because someone is
keeping me in the game just to be a meatwall and insure their victory
points, without giving me any realistic chance of winning.
There's, of course, a quite fine line between giving me that small
hope of my own victory point and denying me it. I'm not saying I'll
selfoust every time someone uses me for their own gain, I mean, that's
kinda what vtes is all about.
And, I threaten to selfoust more times than I actually selfoust.
As for the big question, yes I think that people understand that I
won't accept them using me too much.
Brendon
I agree with henrik above-mantioned.
I think the best way when you decide the selfoust to not say anyone on
the table, just do.
They will be see you are stupid enough to miscalculate yourself and if
the luck is turning, maybe your ass is saved.
Sometimes the anger wake up our inner beast and the frenzy clouded our
minds.
This is the part of the game you like it or not.
The Name Forgotten
> On Feb 18, 12:07 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Just plain old common sense. So my
> > question to those players is: why waste your time making everybody see
> > you as a vindictive jackass by playing that way, regardless of whether
> > or not the rules allow for such play? What kind of result are you
> > looking for, and do you really think acting that way is going to get
> > you the result you're looking for?
>
> When I selfoust, it's usually due to getting screwed over by someone
> and wanting that someone to know xe can't pull my strings however they
> wish.
> Like someone breaking deals, someone crosstable voting down my
> referendums because they feel like it etc.
Personally, if someone is being a dick towards me from across the
table without any good reason, I don't think being a dick back is
going to earn me any favours from the table. The fact is that people
are more likely to side with you if you don't lose your cool and be a
dick back. That way, either that cross-table player will lose the
respect of other players (in which case people will be less likely to
help him out in the future or even less likely to play with him) or
they will learn that going needlessly cross-table doesn't help their
game at all and stop doing it. I'm not convinced that copying their
behaviour helps your situation at all.
> Or because someone is
> keeping me in the game just to be a meatwall and insure their victory
> points, without giving me any realistic chance of winning.
That's a good counter-point, and one I didn't think of. I think self-
ousting in that situation is justified, unless you can think of
someway to outsmart the guy who's propping you up as a meatwall. To
clarify, I don't say that self-ousting is always a bad thing - I just
think sometime people overdo it, and it's very rare that a self-oust
is justified and having a rule about it doesn't change the fact, or
help the situation - common sense and the basic rules do a better job
of it.
> As for the big question, yes I think that people understand that I
> won't accept them using me too much.
Yeah, but if you're in a playgroup where people are propping you up as
a meatshield all the time, then I'd hazard to say there is something
wrong with your decks. If, however, you're in a playgroup that people
act like dicks and like to destroy your game cross-table all the time,
I'd either start questioning why I'm playing with them, or I'd start
questioning why everyone acts that way towards me specifically, and
see if it's justified.
The Name Forgotten
I'm struggling to understand your post. Could you explain?
> Sometimes the anger wake up our inner beast and the frenzy clouded our
> minds.
> This is the part of the game you like it or not.
Oh, I agree with that - as I said, sometimes emotions do cloud our
judgment. Experience has certainly made me far more cool under
pressure. But the point is, that when you self-oust in those moments,
you are not helping your case at all - it just makes you a worse off
player - which is not what you want to be. In other words, that's
where common sense, the basic rules and experience will come in - the
'play-to-win' tournament rule doesn't help at all.
You're far better off apologizing and saying you lost your cool for a
moment. I think most, if not all, VTES players have lost their cool at
some point. I know I have.
This, of course, is so long as you're still sportsmanlike about it
(i.e. you don't start swearing at other players etc.). But there are
other rules about that kind of behaviour (namely 5.2 in the tournament
rules), and you don't need Play-to-Win to enforce that.
ben...@gmail.com
You should spend more time figuring out how to win instead of
figuring out how to lose.
- Ben Peal
henrik
> Personally, if someone is being a dick towards me from across the
> table without any good reason, I don't think being a dick back is
> going to earn me any favours from the table. The fact is that people
> are more likely to side with you if you don't lose your cool and be a
> dick back. That way, either that cross-table player will lose the
> respect of other players (in which case people will be less likely to
> help him out in the future or even less likely to play with him) or
> they will learn that going needlessly cross-table doesn't help their
> game at all and stop doing it. I'm not convinced that copying their
> behaviour helps your situation at all.
I'm not saying that being a dick back is the way to go. I'm saying
that when someone crosstable is being a dick, I tend to tell them to
stop since I can't play the game with that kind of player behaviour.
If they don't stop, I try to get them ousted since I can't play with
that kind of player behaviour. If they don't get ousted, I selfoust
(unless I can take a gamewin and all that, ofc).
> That's a good counter-point, and one I didn't think of. I think self-
> ousting in that situation is justified, unless you can think of
> someway to outsmart the guy who's propping you up as a meatwall. To
> clarify, I don't say that self-ousting is always a bad thing - I just
> think sometime people overdo it, and it's very rare that a self-oust
> is justified and having a rule about it doesn't change the fact, or
> help the situation - common sense and the basic rules do a better job
> of it.
Well, ofc your primary objective when being used as a meatwall is to
stop being used (unless it's good for you to be used).
Selfousting shouldn't be used except when there's no chance of getting
more victory points, as the rules say. And that's rare.
> Yeah, but if you're in a playgroup where people are propping you up as
> a meatshield all the time, then I'd hazard to say there is something
> wrong with your decks. If, however, you're in a playgroup that people
> act like dicks and like to destroy your game cross-table all the time,
> I'd either start questioning why I'm playing with them, or I'd start
> questioning why everyone acts that way towards me specifically, and
> see if it's justified.
I'm in a playgroup where we try to use each other constantly, and try
to squeeze the last drop out of our "allies" each time. And I think
it's important that opponents know I won't be pushed around more than
to a certain extent.
The Name Forgotten
> On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not saying that being a dick back is the way to go. I'm saying
> that when someone crosstable is being a dick, I tend to tell them to
> stop since I can't play the game with that kind of player behaviour.
Agreed.
> If they don't stop, I try to get them ousted since I can't play with
> that kind of player behaviour. If they don't get ousted, I selfoust
> (unless I can take a gamewin and all that, ofc).
Although I think we're probably on the same page - I just want to
clarify that this is largely dependent on how the rest of the table
feels - if others think that the way the other guy/gal is playing is
uncalled for, then sure, go ahead and get the player ousted. If the
table thinks that you're being overly sensitive, suck it up... and
then get your revenge when that player needs your help someday 8D
Someone who's always bemoaning that everyone is out to get them, and
is constantly going cross-table because of every slight (real or
imagined) hardly gets any favours from others in this game.
>
> > Yeah, but if you're in a playgroup where people are propping you up as
> > a meatshield all the time, then I'd hazard to say there is something
> > wrong with your decks. If, however, you're in a playgroup that people
> > act like dicks and like to destroy your game cross-table all the time,
> > I'd either start questioning why I'm playing with them, or I'd start
> > questioning why everyone acts that way towards me specifically, and
> > see if it's justified.
>
> I'm in a playgroup where we try to use each other constantly, and try
> to squeeze the last drop out of our "allies" each time. And I think
> it's important that opponents know I won't be pushed around more than
> to a certain extent.
True, but there is a significant difference between people trying to
convince you that their idea is the right one to take for both of you,
and people trying to convince you that their idea is the right one to
take otherwise they'll smash your face into the dirt. While the former
happens very often, the latter doesn't happen as much - and when it
does, you do have the right to point out that killing you is not
serving his ends in any way, and proceed with "Chapter 2 - How to deal
with a dick player" (as we've mentioned above).
henrik
> > If they don't stop, I try to get them ousted since I can't play with
> > that kind of player behaviour. If they don't get ousted, I selfoust
> > (unless I can take a gamewin and all that, ofc).
>
> Although I think we're probably on the same page - I just want to
> clarify that this is largely dependent on how the rest of the table
> feels - if others think that the way the other guy/gal is playing is
> uncalled for, then sure, go ahead and get the player ousted. If the
> table thinks that you're being overly sensitive, suck it up... and
> then get your revenge when that player needs your help someday 8D
Whether screwing is uncalled for or not isn't really relevant. Let's
call the players A -> E. I'm A, my prey is B and the rest goes
clockwise.
Let's say player C keeps messing with me, making it impossible for me
to oust my prey (and thus get a victory point), I need to stop C
(either by dealing or by ousting). It doesn't matter if C needs to
stop me in order to secure xer own gamewin or if it's done because of
personal non-game issues.
> Someone who's always bemoaning that everyone is out to get them, and
> is constantly going cross-table because of every slight (real or
> imagined) hardly gets any favours from others in this game.
Of course.
> > I'm in a playgroup where we try to use each other constantly, and try
> > to squeeze the last drop out of our "allies" each time. And I think
> > it's important that opponents know I won't be pushed around more than
> > to a certain extent.
>
> True, but there is a significant difference between people trying to
> convince you that their idea is the right one to take for both of you,
> and people trying to convince you that their idea is the right one to
> take otherwise they'll smash your face into the dirt. While the former
> happens very often, the latter doesn't happen as much - and when it
> does, you do have the right to point out that killing you is not
> serving his ends in any way, and proceed with "Chapter 2 - How to deal
> with a dick player" (as we've mentioned above).
Except when, as in the situation above, killing me actually does serve
their end.
Anyway, I don't see where this is going right now, and crosstable
ousting isn't rare in these parts of the world so if you're in the way
of someone and you refuse to deal with them they're not too unlikely
to smash your face in the dirt.
After all, 2 victory points is all it takes to get a game win and that
means you can throw the rest out to the wolves (as long as you don't
throw all to the same wolf).
Frederick Scott
news:d0e51f0c-6a51-4503...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> For this reason, I think the 'play-to-win' rule should actually be
> dropped. It serves no purpose that's better than the basic rules and
> common sense dictates, and, in fact, often just leads to controversy,
> heated arguments, and very rarely is it actually enforced (or, at
> least, by my experience. Counter-examples would be great though).
I disagree. It has all these problems you cite. And yet, having
a PTW rule is still better than not having a PTW rule. The alternative
is having absolutely nothing you can cite if one of your opponents
absolutely refuses to play to win in a tournament game, start-to-finish.
There are people who would do that. In two-player tournaments, that's
not a problem because they only hurt their own positions. In multi-
player tournaments, the amount of damage they could do could be
endless.
Believe me, multi-player tournaments need SOME kind of a rule. If
you propose a better one, be my guest. But it can't not have one
at all.
Fred
The Name Forgotten
> On Feb 18, 5:48 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> Whether screwing is uncalled for or not isn't really relevant. Let's
> call the players A -> E. I'm A, my prey is B and the rest goes
> clockwise.
> Let's say player C keeps messing with me, making it impossible for me
> to oust my prey (and thus get a victory point), I need to stop C
> (either by dealing or by ousting). It doesn't matter if C needs to
> stop me in order to secure xer own gamewin or if it's done because of
> personal non-game issues.
Agreed. I think the table would also be in agreement of that
situation. We've had similar situations where cross-table voters have
decided to vote down everything you call, so you call votes to oust
him to get table support on those votes, and give you the chance of
getting the rest of your votes right. Nothing wrong with that.
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post, so I won't repeat it.
The main thing is when you are doing those actions to your own
detriment, making it easier for others to oust you (and hence, you
lose) that makes most people think you're taking things too far. For
example, when you start going after C, knowing that doing so is going
to put you in a worse-off position (either short or long-term -
depending on how long you last :), and possibly hurt your chances of
making allies in future games. I think we both can agree that that
course of action is always a poor one to make.
henrik
> The main thing is when you are doing those actions to your own
> detriment, making it easier for others to oust you (and hence, you
> lose) that makes most people think you're taking things too far. For
> example, when you start going after C, knowing that doing so is going
> to put you in a worse-off position (either short or long-term -
> depending on how long you last :), and possibly hurt your chances of
> making allies in future games. I think we both can agree that that
> course of action is always a poor one to make.
Well.. If it's between ousting C or not getting a single vp, there's
not much choice imo.
The Name Forgotten
> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:d0e51f0c-6a51-4503...@v4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
As I mentioned in another post - I think that we should abandon the
relevent portion of the Play-to-win rule - namely:
"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it
is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably
possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible."
The rest of the rules cover most of the situations you talk about -
but also have the added benefit of not lumping such decisions about
self-ousting on the lap of the judge who, really, has little or no way
to make such decisions fairly without wasting a huge amount of time.
Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which
people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a
space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that, and I
don't think many people do - in fact, there would be no reason for
someone to do it, unless they colluded with another player out of game
to do so. Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is
already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've
noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the
part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone).
Frederick Scott
Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please
point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to
finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos
that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a
large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that
demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule.
I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart,
certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable?
I've always thought the "motivational magic fairy dust" was pretty much
entirely in the PTW rule. Other rules, like sportsmanship, fill other highly
important purposes. But little else in the rules addresses what players
should be attempting to accomplish in a game - and multiplayer games
absolutely need this, IMHO. Without it, how can you build your deck and
make tactical decisions with some hope of understanding what your opponents
are likely to do if you do 'X'.
If what you're proposing is to maintain the concept of the Play to Win
rule but remove the section that defines how PTW is defined, that doesn't
work either, IMHO. Without that definition, players could make all kinds
of absurd arguments about what "playing to win" actually means.
> Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which
> people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a
> space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that,
Maybe the reason you've never or met or played someone who did that is
that PTW exists. I don't think 99% of the players need to be told,
basically, that they must "play to win". I'm sure the vast majority of
VtES players do show up at tournaments with the general motivation of
winning the tournament themselves. But, for one thing, in the heat of a
tournament with emotions flowing - especially since one's opponents have
so much arbitrary power over whether one succeeds or not - it's easy to
switch gears and start acting on some non-PTW motivation. I'm pretty
sure that just the existance of the PTW rule helps keep such things from
going over the top ridiculous in some cases, even if players can still
get away with lots of minor mischief when they're determined. And
secondly, the existance of the PTW rule prevents anyone from ever
_planning_ to show up at VtES tournament with the intent of spreading
mischief instead of winning. If it didn't exist, you _might_ meet a
player who "did that". As it is, such people know they'd just
eventually get confronted and booted from the event. So why bother?
> Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is
> already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've
> noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the
> part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone).
I'm not sure where you think it's covered. Please cite.
And even if it is, it's not enough by itself.
Fred
The Name Forgotten
> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > relevent portion of the Play-to-win rule - namely:
>
> > "For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it
> > is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably
> > possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible."
>
> > The rest of the rules cover most of the situations you talk about -
>
> Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please
> point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to
> finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos
> that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a
> large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that
> demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule.
>
> I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart,
> certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable?
Sure. Section 5.1. Cheating.
Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
activities:
- Collusion to alter the results of a game
If you are playing simply to get your buddies into the final table -
that seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of collusion.
It's also in the V:EKN Judge's Guide under 164 - Cheating - Collusion
Definition:
Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish
the results of a game.
Examples:
A player agrees to let his friend oust him without offering resistance
in order to improve the friend's standings in the event.
With two players remaining, each agree to flip a coin to determine
which player will concede the game.
> I've always thought the "motivational magic fairy dust" was pretty much
> entirely in the PTW rule. Other rules, like sportsmanship, fill other highly
> important purposes. But little else in the rules addresses what players
> should be attempting to accomplish in a game - and multiplayer games
> absolutely need this, IMHO. Without it, how can you build your deck and
> make tactical decisions with some hope of understanding what your opponents
> are likely to do if you do 'X'.
I think the motivation to win by following the rules is generally good
enough. There's not many people who go into tournaments with the
intention to lose - and usually, those people don't last long in the
VTES scene. Either way, it's difficult to do without infringing on
another rule.
> If what you're proposing is to maintain the concept of the Play to Win
> rule but remove the section that defines how PTW is defined, that doesn't
> work either, IMHO. Without that definition, players could make all kinds
> of absurd arguments about what "playing to win" actually means.
No - "playing towards goals that are in conflict with the goals of the
game" and it's relevent examples are more than enough to get you were
you are going. You could even add a further example of 'playing solely
to earn other players victory points' to help shut down your previous
example - although I believe colluding is strong enough (or should be
strong enough) to stop people from doing that.
> > Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which
> > people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a
> > space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that,
>
> Maybe the reason you've never or met or played someone who did that is
> that PTW exists.
Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to
win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as
possible. The fact that you should try and win is a given in all
games. You don't see chess championships with rules like 'you must
attempt to checkmate in as few moves as possible'. Or championship
bridge games where both members of the partnership must always try to
get the highest score possible when it is their turn. Or poker games
that tell you that you must try maximise your pot and earnings on each
hand. Why should VTES need such an arbitrary rule to force players to
try and maximise their 'winnings' in VPs or GWs constantly? In all of
those games, it hasn't lead to the kinds of problems you're talking
about (at least in ways that the other rules don't cover - I know
colluding is a big issue in Poker).
> I don't think 99% of the players need to be told,
> basically, that they must "play to win". I'm sure the vast majority of
> VtES players do show up at tournaments with the general motivation of
> winning the tournament themselves.
> But, for one thing, in the heat of a
> tournament with emotions flowing - especially since one's opponents have
> so much arbitrary power over whether one succeeds or not - it's easy to
> switch gears and start acting on some non-PTW motivation. I'm pretty
> sure that just the existance of the PTW rule helps keep such things from
> going over the top ridiculous in some cases, even if players can still
> get away with lots of minor mischief when they're determined.
The same can be said for other multi-player card games - even Rummy.
It's easy for one player to simply play to make another's game really
difficult, by dumping cards that you might need to win the game, but
is useless to one of your opponents. Still, I highly doubt that the
championship rummy held at the old age home up the road from me will
have a rule like "you must always get the largest run possible" or
"you must always try to declare rummy as far as reasonably possible"
or some other such nonsense.
The point is that the 'play-to-win' tournament rule doesn't really
help in those situations - at least, as I said, not in ways that other
rules don't already cover. Firstly, because it usually involves one
person arbitrarily or purposefully ruining another persons game for no
reason (which means perhaps the other person has broken a rule in the
first place) - which seems to go against the examples given of players
attacking other players for VEKN ratings or tournament standings. "I
don't like your face" seems to be another bad reason to attack other
players. I'd be fine with expanding that list of examples to include
"needlessly attacking certain players without undue cause or
provocation", far more than I'd be happier with holding a double
standard.
> And
> secondly, the existance of the PTW rule prevents anyone from ever
> _planning_ to show up at VtES tournament with the intent of spreading
> mischief instead of winning. If it didn't exist, you _might_ meet a
> player who "did that". As it is, such people know they'd just
> eventually get confronted and booted from the event. So why bother?
While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win
tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least
given the amount of debate going on here) than I'd ever imagine a
person coming to a tournament and doing absolutely nothing - which,
atm is the only negative scenario I can see possibly arising from
dumping that section. Although, to be honest - I think the rules even
cover that scenario - at least in part (although I might be taking it
out of context). My reference being in the VEKN Judges Guide:
152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major
Definition:
Major Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as behavior that is
disruptive to a player or players at the tournament, but does not
cause delays or include any form of physical contact or significant
emotional distress.
Example:
(C) A player refuses to play a game.
> > Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is
> > already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've
> > noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the
> > part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone).
>
> I'm not sure where you think it's covered. Please cite.
It's in the same section -
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play
toward 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 standing, etc.).
Attacking certain players cross-table on the basis of "I feel like it"
seems to be unsportsmanlike to me, if these examples are to be
followed.
> And even if it is, it's not enough by itself.
Sure. I agree. I think that the rest of the rules covers the other
scenarios - at least, all the ones I can think of. That section of
play to win does not seem to be helpful in any way whatsoever.
I hope I didn't leave anything in mid-sentence. I've written this
response in 3 different sittings.
LSJ
> While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win
> tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least
What problems are created by the clarification of the aspect of sportsmanship
that is play to win?
John Flournoy
> On Feb 18, 9:04 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please
> > point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to
> > finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos
> > that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a
> > large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that
> > demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule.
>
> > I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart,
> > certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable?
>
> Sure. Section 5.1. Cheating.
> Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
> activities:
> - Collusion to alter the results of a game
>
> If you are playing simply to get your buddies into the final table -
> that seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of collusion.
It's only collusion if all parties agree to it. If I show up and start
playing to make my buddies win - even when they are loudly asking me
to stop, then I'm just playing badly, not colluding with them.
> It's also in the V:EKN Judge's Guide under 164 - Cheating - Collusion
>
> Definition:
>
> Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish
> the results of a game.
>
Notice the requirement of multiple players agreeing; this does not
cover one player acting independently.
Another scenario that has happened before: Three players left, A->B-
>C. Player B goes backwards and hurts Player A. A gets so pissed at
this that he self-ousts, well before the game is 'clearly lost', just
to spite B by giving C the VP. But not collusional.
> Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to
> win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as
> possible.
Where, exactly, do the rules say this? (Aside from the "play to win"
section, which you are arguing we can do without.)
The rulebook says "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory
points". Note this is not the same thing as "the most victory points
that you possibly can".
Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
-John Flournoy
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting
victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0
game wins or 1 game win.
Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3
prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to
oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0
win over a 3-2 win.
But if you don't *know* you will get a game win, it is perfectly
acceptable to settle for a plan that will get you a 3-2 win.
LSJ
> On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
>> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
>> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
>> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
>
> I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting
> victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0
> game wins or 1 game win.
No. If you are getting the GW, and have the choice of getting it with 2VPs or
with 5VPs, you are under no compulsion to go for the 5VP GW.
Play to win compels you to win. How you win is up to you.
Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many
VPs as you (reasonably) can.
> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
> between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
Correct.
> Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3
> prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to
> oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0
> win over a 3-2 win.
No. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.
> But if you don't *know* you will get a game win, it is perfectly
> acceptable to settle for a plan that will get you a 3-2 win.
That's true.
John Flournoy
> On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
> > for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
> > if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
> > under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
>
> I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting
> victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0
> game wins or 1 game win.
Regardless of what you think, this is not what the rules (both the
game rules and the tournament rules) say. If you disagree, show me
where they say otherwise.
> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
> between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
Correct.
> Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3
> prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to
> oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0
> win over a 3-2 win.
This is simply not accurate by the tournament rules or the rulebook
rules.
Rulebook: winning 3-2 is "the most victory points", so you have
fulfilled the stated Object of the Game.
Tournament rules: "For tournaments, playing to win means playing to
get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is
not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as
possible."
Notice that it does not say "and you must get as many as possible once
you have a game win."
> But if you don't *know* you will get a game win, it is perfectly
> acceptable to settle for a plan that will get you a 3-2 win.
It is also acceptable if you do know you will get a game win, for both
the default rules and the tournament rules.
Again, if you think I am mistating the rules on this, please cite the
rules I have overlooked, instead of saying what you simply think they
are without supporting evidence.
-John Flournoy
The Name Forgotten
> On Feb 18, 2:51 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:04 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > Really? Do they? Perhaps I'm just missing something but could you please
> > > point out what keeps a person from, say, playing a tournament start to
> > > finish to get his buddies in the final? Or to simply cause lots of chaos
> > > that may end up rewarding bad play and failing to reward good play to a
> > > large extent of the player's opponents? I'm not sure I see anything that
> > > demands it in the tournament rules aside from the PTW rule.
>
> > > I could be missing something. I don't know the tournament rules by heart,
> > > certainly. Could you site the sections you think are applicable?
>
> > Sure. Section 5.1. Cheating.
> > Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
> > activities:
> > - Collusion to alter the results of a game
>
> > If you are playing simply to get your buddies into the final table -
> > that seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of collusion.
>
> It's only collusion if all parties agree to it. If I show up and start
> playing to make my buddies win - even when they are loudly asking me
> to stop, then I'm just playing badly, not colluding with them.
Yes, but, as I've responded before, this could also be part of the
collusion - in fact, there would be no way to tell other than by the
way you are playing - which is exactly in the same manner as someone
who is colluding. It's too close to distinguish, and any judge would
have to point that out, at the very least, and enforce the ruling as
if it was a collusion at worst.
>
> > It's also in the V:EKN Judge's Guide under 164 - Cheating - Collusion
>
> > Definition:
>
> > Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish
> > the results of a game.
>
> Notice the requirement of multiple players agreeing; this does not
> cover one player acting independently.
However, the manifestation of this in play is identical - there would
be no reasonable way to tell them apart. At the very least it would
warrant a warning from the judge that continuing to help player B
would be seen as a act of collusion.
> Another scenario that has happened before: Three players left, A->B->C. Player B goes backwards and hurts Player A. A gets so pissed at
>
> this that he self-ousts, well before the game is 'clearly lost', just
> to spite B by giving C the VP. But not collusional.
Yes - as I said, such a scenario is possible - but where do you draw
the line at 'clearly lost' - can A not make a case that with B going
backwards, he stands no chance of getting a VP, and thus is free to do
as he pleases? This is where the whole issue becomes problematic.
Trying to point to the rules and say that he must play to maximise
VP's is only likely to enrage him further, by making him more
defensive of his position, start looking for excuses to make his
actions look legit, and slow down play. I'd rather let the idiot self-
oust, and ask him (after he's calmed down) how self-ousting helped his
situation at all. Or, more likely, I'll try to explain to him that by
self-ousting, all he is doing is succumbing to B's desires - i.e. B
obviously wants him to get enraged, blow a fuse, and feel like he has
no chance of getting anywhere - self-ousting proves nothing and
certainly accomplishes nothing good - even player C who benefits in
this transaction will likely lose respect for you. Very few people
enjoy defeating a defenseless (or harmless) opponent.
> > Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to
> > win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as
> > possible.
>
> Where, exactly, do the rules say this? (Aside from the "play to win"
> section, which you are arguing we can do without.)
That's exactly what I mean by my statement - I've never used that
rule, or ever felt the need to. I find it difficult to place myself in
a position where I could actually see myself saying to a player - you
must play on and try to oust your prey because the rules say you must.
>
> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
>
Agreed. I never contended this point.
The Name Forgotten
As I said - it creates an overly-vague standard of reason with which
to measure a rule against. In fact, the sheer number of debates where
people have argued that they were justified to self-oust, and where
others claim they were not, based on this rule (from both sides) shows
that this ruling is prima facie problematic. Getting judges involved
in determining one way or the other seems far too messy for my liking,
and, as a judge, I'd know I'd want to stay clear from such an argument
and just let things go, giving the benefit of the doubt to the highly
emotional self-ouster.
It just isn't a practical rule, and it's damn near impossible to rule
and enforce. In the few cases where the player in the situation cannot
be convinced to at least give it a go - without resorting to 'you
must' rules and using plain common sense - it's highly likely that
that player is probably too belligerent to play - in which case he's
probably violated some sportsmanship rule.
Kevin M.
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have
>> a choice between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
>
> Correct.
Every time I see this, and I think about how it makes last-second spite
self-ousting in the finals illegal, it brings a tear of joy to my eye. At
least something is going right.
It's too bad that there are so many players in this (and that other) thread
that believe VTES and the play-to-win rule is about legislating their
ability to self-oust instead of enjoying the good fight and going for the
win no matter what their condition.
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/
Frederick Scott
OK. I replied to the concept of the Collusion clause of the sportsmanship
rule as covering the same ground as PTW elsewhere. I hadn't seen the
"Examples" section of the Judge's Guide so I didn't know what it meant.
If that's what that clause mean, then my reaction is, why don't we just
get rid of the "Collusion" reference in 5.1 because that reference is a
subset of 4.8. You can't engage in that kind of collusion without
violating PTW anyway so it doesn't need to exist (unless it encompasses
other bad behaviors somehow not covered by PTW). On the other hand, PTW
clearly covers bad behaviors not proscribed by 4.8, as both John Flournoy's
and my response to your response to LSJ point out. Players don't need
to collude to lay down for a friend in a tournament.
> > I've always thought the "motivational magic fairy dust" was pretty much
> > entirely in the PTW rule. Other rules, like sportsmanship, fill other highly
> > important purposes. But little else in the rules addresses what players
> > should be attempting to accomplish in a game - and multiplayer games
> > absolutely need this, IMHO. Without it, how can you build your deck and
> > make tactical decisions with some hope of understanding what your opponents
> > are likely to do if you do 'X'.
>
> I think the motivation to win by following the rules is generally good
> enough.
Would you please stop and identify what "rules" you're talking about?
Tournament rule 4.8 is the rule that fixes this.
> There's not many people who go into tournaments with the
> intention to lose
(Responded to elsewhere in my previous post.)
> > If what you're proposing is to maintain the concept of the Play to Win
> > rule but remove the section that defines how PTW is defined, that doesn't
> > work either, IMHO. Without that definition, players could make all kinds
> > of absurd arguments about what "playing to win" actually means.
>
> No - "playing towards goals that are in conflict with the goals of the
> game" and it's relevent examples are more than enough to get you were
> you are going.
No, they don't. Examples are just examples. They do not define. Without
definition, the rule becomes meaningless as the "goals of the game" are
not obvious from the rulebook itself.
> You could even add a further example of 'playing solely
> to earn other players victory points' to help shut down your previous
> example - although I believe colluding is strong enough (or should be
> strong enough) to stop people from doing that.
Examples are just examples. They are helpful to understanding definitions
but by themselves, they do not define. They can't. (Hint: if they could,
the $100,000 Pyramid would have made a lousy game show!)
> > > Dumping this part of the rule would still leave a small hole in which
> > > people can do absolutely nothing the entire game and just waste a
> > > space - but I've never met or played with someone who did that,
> >
> > Maybe the reason you've never or met or played someone who did that is
> > that PTW exists.
>
> Highly doubtful. I've never needed to tell a player here to play to
> win because the rules say you must reasonably go for as many VPs as
> possible.
This isn't proof. In tournaments, PTW exists. Outside of tournaments,
players have control over who they gather and play with and this is
sufficient control. And, yes, I have met players who don't play to
win by the rulebook rules in pickup games. Others have told me stories
of similar incidents. The classic one is the guy who has a Malkavian
deck and thinks it's cute to roleplay "Malkavian" and do basically
random things. "HEY! We're just CRAAAaaaaaaaZZZZZYYY!!!"
> > I don't think 99% of the players need to be told,
> > basically, that they must "play to win". I'm sure the vast majority of
> > VtES players do show up at tournaments with the general motivation of
> > winning the tournament themselves. But, for one thing, in the heat of a
> > tournament with emotions flowing - especially since one's opponents have
> > so much arbitrary power over whether one succeeds or not - it's easy to
> > switch gears and start acting on some non-PTW motivation. I'm pretty
> > sure that just the existance of the PTW rule helps keep such things from
> > going over the top ridiculous in some cases, even if players can still
> > get away with lots of minor mischief when they're determined.
>
> The same can be said for other multi-player card games - even Rummy.
> It's easy for one player to simply play to make another's game really
> difficult, by dumping cards that you might need to win the game, but
> is useless to one of your opponents. Still, I highly doubt that the
> championship rummy held at the old age home up the road from me will
> have a rule like "you must always get the largest run possible" or
> "you must always try to declare rummy as far as reasonably possible"
> or some other such nonsense.
It's not the same game. It doesn't have the same dynamics. In VtES,
opponents have a great deal of power over whether you'll be successful
or not and often how they wield that power may not appear to them to
have much impact on their own ability to win. I may have a Prince whose
two votes will resolve a political action in a way that makes an
enormous difference to my grandpredator and grandprey in a 5-player game
but it doesn't make any difference to me at all (as far as I can tell
with the information I have at hand at that moment). This is not
necessarily true of other multiplayer games and 52-card Hoyle deck
card games are usually good examples of that. People don't ally or
gang up much in rummy and there's a lot of good reasons for that.
It's not worth trying to make this analogy and prove anything by it,
trust me.
> The point is that the 'play-to-win' tournament rule doesn't really
> help in those situations - at least, as I said, not in ways that other
> rules don't already cover. Firstly, because it usually involves one
> person arbitrarily or purposefully ruining another persons game for no
> reason (which means perhaps the other person has broken a rule in the
> first place) - which seems to go against the examples given of players
> attacking other players for VEKN ratings or tournament standings. "I
> don't like your face" seems to be another bad reason to attack other
> players. I'd be fine with expanding that list of examples to include
> "needlessly attacking certain players without undue cause or
> provocation", far more than I'd be happier with holding a double
> standard.
How would expanding the list of examples improve any real problem with
the Play To Win rule? I don't see the point. PTW addresses the
definition of bad behavior in terms of playing to the wrong motivation
perfectly - we don't need no stinkin' "list of examples" when it comes
right down to it. The only relevant example is playing in pursuit of
any motivation that conflicts with getting a game win or, failing that,
maximizing your victory points. Perfect. It needs NO examples and that's
its beauty!
Now, the fact that it can be hard to tell when a player is actually
violating it can be a real problem with enforcing the rule. But your
"list of examples" addresses this weakness not one bit. If I'm not
playing to win because I don't like your face, how is having this
cited in the examples make it any easier for a judge to tell when I'm
doing it? It doesn't matter why I'm doing it - only THAT I'm doing
it.
> > And
> > secondly, the existance of the PTW rule prevents anyone from ever
> > _planning_ to show up at VtES tournament with the intent of spreading
> > mischief instead of winning. If it didn't exist, you _might_ meet a
> > player who "did that". As it is, such people know they'd just
> > eventually get confronted and booted from the event. So why bother?
>
> While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win
> tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least
> given the amount of debate going on here) than I'd ever imagine a
> person coming to a tournament and doing absolutely nothing -
I don't see Play-To-Win as actually causing any problems. If everyone
follows the spirit of PTW, there are no problems. It's only when
someone doesn't do that when problems arise. The way I see it, those
problems are a matter of defining when someone crosses the line and
deciding what to do about it if they do. PTW is very vague on how to
navigate the grey areas. But the problems, IMHO, are far worse if you
simply ignore them so this is certainly *NOT* what I'd want to do
instead. Again, if you have a better way to solve problems caused by
players playing to other motivations besides winning, we're all ears.
But I haven't heard you say anything that addresses the grey-ness
issue. Widening the list of examples won't fix that.
...
> My reference being in the VEKN Judges Guide:
One thing I need to point out to you, the VEKN Judges Guide
is not the actual rules. While a definite resource for
judges, you don't get your rules out of a judge's guide. It's
not the place for formal rules to exist.
> 152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major
>
> Definition:
>
> Major Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as behavior that is
> disruptive to a player or players at the tournament, but does not
> cause delays or include any form of physical contact or significant
> emotional distress.
>
> Example:
>
> (C) A player refuses to play a game.
It's not the same thing. Players may cause chaos in games without
physical contact or (directly causing) significant emotional
distress. It wasn't the purpose of that rule and that rule doesn't
cover the problem.
> > > Going after people cross-table because you feel like it is
> > > already covered in other parts of the tournament rules (which I've
> > > noticed recently, is also in the Play to Win section, but isn't the
> > > part I'm talking about abandoning - sorry if I confused anyone).
> >
> > I'm not sure where you think it's covered. Please cite.
>
> It's in the same section -
>
> One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play
> toward 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 standing, etc.).
>
> Attacking certain players cross-table on the basis of "I feel like it"
> seems to be unsportsmanlike to me, if these examples are to be
> followed.
Um, you're quoting directly from the guide to judging the PTW rule.
I don't understand your point, here.
> > And even if it is, it's not enough by itself.
>
> Sure. I agree. I think that the rest of the rules covers the other
> scenarios - at least, all the ones I can think of.
I don't believe you've shown that. PTW is the rule that covers the
problems with players not playing to win.
Fred
LSJ
> On Feb 18, 10:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> The Name Forgotten wrote:
>>> While I agree, I think that the problems that the Play-to-Win
>>> tournament clause creates are far more common and plentiful (at least
>> What problems are created by the clarification of the aspect of sportsmanship
>> that is play to win?
>
> As I said - it creates an overly-vague standard of reason with which
> to measure a rule against.
A clarification removes vagueness. It adds no vagueness.
> In fact, the sheer number of debates where
> people have argued that they were justified to self-oust, and where
> others claim they were not, based on this rule (from both sides) shows
> that this ruling is prima facie problematic.
The "rule" exists inherently in sportsmanship. If you have that, you'll have
just as many arguments without the clarification, and probably more.
Indeed, that's why the (redundant) clarification was added to the VEKN rules.
> Getting judges involved
> in determining one way or the other seems far too messy for my liking,
> and, as a judge, I'd know I'd want to stay clear from such an argument
> and just let things go, giving the benefit of the doubt to the highly
> emotional self-ouster.
>
> It just isn't a practical rule, and it's damn near impossible to rule
> and enforce. In the few cases where the player in the situation cannot
> be convinced to at least give it a go - without resorting to 'you
> must' rules and using plain common sense - it's highly likely that
> that player is probably too belligerent to play - in which case he's
> probably violated some sportsmanship rule.
Indeed.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
John Flournoy wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting
> > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0
> > game wins or 1 game win.
>
> Regardless of what you think, this is not what the rules (both the
> game rules and the tournament rules) say. If you disagree, show me
> where they say otherwise.
Well, LSJ has already told me I'm wrong. But if you want to know how
I reached this conclusion, I will happily explain my logic below. I
don't think the language of the rules is as clear as you suggest.
> > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
> > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
>
> Correct.
>
> > Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3
> > prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to
> > oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0
> > win over a 3-2 win.
>
> This is simply not accurate by the tournament rules or the rulebook
> rules.
>
> Rulebook: winning 3-2 is "the most victory points", so you have
> fulfilled the stated Object of the Game.
And yet, the "stated object of the game" is achieved, in a 5-player
game, when the score is 3-0. And yet the game does not end at that
point. It continues. This implies that there must be a secondary
goal.
And there is, per the tournament rules, and per the intuitive
understanding of virtually all players. Even when you know you cannot
earn a game win, one is expected to fight for as many victory points
as you can.
You seem to think it is self evident that this secondary goal applies
only to the players who have already lost, and not to the player who
has "already" won. I can only answer that this was not self evident
to me.
> Tournament rules: "For tournaments, playing to win means playing to
> get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is
> not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as
> possible."
> Notice that it does not say "and you must get as many as possible once
> you have a game win."
No. But once I have a game win, it is not reasonably possible for me
to get another one in the same game. It is certainly not reasonably
possible for me to "play to get a game win", in any meaningful sense,
when I already have 3 victory points in a 5-player game. Since it is
not reasonably possible for me to play for a second game win, I must
play for as many victory points as I can.
At least, that's how I understood that rule when I read it.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
> >> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
> >> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
> >> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
> >
> > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting
> > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0
> > game wins or 1 game win.
>
> No. If you are getting the GW, and have the choice of getting it with 2VPs or
> with 5VPs, you are under no compulsion to go for the 5VP GW.
>
> Play to win compels you to win. How you win is up to you.
I understood that much. What I did not realize was that this would
still apply in situations where it was no longer possible for me to
"play to win" because I had, for all practical purposes, already
achieved that goal.
> Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many
> VPs as you (reasonably) can.
>
> > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
> > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
>
> Correct.
>
> > Example 2: I *know* I have scored a game win, because I have ousted 3
> > prey in a 5 player game. This achieved, I must continue to try to
> > oust my remaining prey, and not let him oust me. I must choose 5-0
> > win over a 3-2 win.
>
> No. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.
Okay. Let me run with that.
It is the 3rd round of a 3-round tournament. I have 10 victory points
and 2 game wins from the first 2 rounds, so I know I am guaranteed to
get in the finals.
3rd round is a 5-player table. I quickly oust my prey, grand-prey and
grand-grand prey. Only my original predator remains.
I know he earned one game win earlier in the tournament, so he has a
chance of getting into the finals. But I can also see his deck would
be helpless against mine if we faced each other in the finals.
So I just let him oust me. As a result, he ends with 1 Game Win and 6
victory points, thereby bumping out of the finals a player who scored
1 Game win and 5.5 victory points.
Legal?
John Flournoy
> John Flournoy wrote:
> > Rulebook: winning 3-2 is "the most victory points", so you have
> > fulfilled the stated Object of the Game.
>
> And yet, the "stated object of the game" is achieved, in a 5-player
> game, when the score is 3-0. And yet the game does not end at that
> point. It continues. This implies that there must be a secondary
> goal.
>
> And there is, per the tournament rules, and per the intuitive
> understanding of virtually all players. Even when you know you cannot
> earn a game win, one is expected to fight for as many victory points
> as you can.
>
> You seem to think it is self evident that this secondary goal applies
> only to the players who have already lost, and not to the player who
> has "already" won. I can only answer that this was not self evident
> to me.
Fair enough. I'll note that in casual games (at least in the ones I
regularly play in) the game does _not_ always continue after someone
has gotten 3VP - often times if someone has insured a game win, we'll
stop and see if anyone wants to play out the rest of it, or start a
new game instead.
More often than not, we opt to start a new game (in part to let the
ousted people have something to do.)
In a tournament setting, there's obvious value in playing it out
(because the VPs of a non-game-winner still matter for the overall
multi-round results.)
-John Flournoy
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.
>
> Okay. Let me run with that.
>
> It is the 3rd round of a 3-round tournament. I have 10 victory points
> and 2 game wins from the first 2 rounds, so I know I am guaranteed to
> get in the finals.
>
> 3rd round is a 5-player table. I quickly oust my prey, grand-prey and
> grand-grand prey. Only my original predator remains.
>
> I know he earned one game win earlier in the tournament, so he has a
> chance of getting into the finals. But I can also see his deck would
> be helpless against mine if we faced each other in the finals.
A lot of that set-up says nothing about game state, so is not germane to the
question that follows.
I'll trim it to the part that matters to the question:
"I oust three preys in succession, leaving with 3VP."
> So I just let him oust me. As a result, he ends with 1 Game Win and 6
> victory points, thereby bumping out of the finals a player who scored
> 1 Game win and 5.5 victory points.
> Legal?
Yes. You are free to win in the manner of your choosing.
Brum
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
LSJ: Do Table Points and Victory Points matter?
So, if John has 3 VP's and there is only Sylvia left to oust and he
lets Sylvia oust him. Legal?
I ask this to get a explination why TP's and VP's don't matter.
Like this John might not go to the Final, or win it.
So, Play to Win only apply to Table Win? This is very important.
I'm not going to the discussion about how bad the rule is. I prefer to
say that this level of abstraction and subjectivity should be more
practical and detailed. Maybe the rule needs revision.
I have no doubt it came up with the best intensions, but it brought
more problems then solutions.
Cheers,
Tiago
LSJ
To deciding who goes to the final? Yes.
To deciding how the player who already has a GW is restricted (or not) by PTW? No.
>
> So, if John has 3 VP's and there is only Sylvia left to oust and he
> lets Sylvia oust him. Legal?
That's the example given above.
> I ask this to get a explination why TP's and VP's don't matter.
> Like this John might not go to the Final, or win it.
Because PTW means "play to win (the game)".
> So, Play to Win only apply to Table Win?
Game win. Yes.
> I'm not going to the discussion about how bad the rule is. I prefer to
> say that this level of abstraction and subjectivity should be more
> practical and detailed. Maybe the rule needs revision.
The details are already given in the rule.
> I have no doubt it came up with the best intensions, but it brought
> more problems then solutions.
Saying so without describing the perceived problem doesn't help much.
Brum
>
> > So I just let him oust me. As a result, he ends with 1 Game Win and 6
> > victory points, thereby bumping out of the finals a player who scored
> > 1 Game win and 5.5 victory points.
> > Legal?
>
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
But in this case the is loosing in the manner of his choosing. Is
there something I'm missing in this example?
LSJ
Getting the GW is not losing.
Q: I have 3 VPs. Can I let the final other remaining player oust me?
A: Yes. Since doing so is winning (getting the game win with 3VPs to 2VPs.
You may be missing the twist in the set-up that the game win "he ends (the
preliminary rounds of the tournament) with" came from an earlier round. All "he"
got from this round (the game you won) is 2 VPs. But that 2 VPs is enough to put
him over the other player (not sharing the final table with "you" and "he") who
ended the preliminary rounds with 5.5 VPs.
Brum
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
I'm sorry LSJ, my english is awfull while I'm doing this at work.
So my questions were not clear. My bad, sorry.
PTW only applies to the specific table where the situation insues?
Can a player lose VPs / help someone else win VPs, thinking on the
other tables results, even if he already has table win on this table?
Or putting it in another way (in hope of being more clear):
1. Trying to get Table win, if possible, is obligatory at all times.
Right?
2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to
give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table?
This will clear things, I hope.
Sorry for being a pain in the but.
Tiago
LSJ
> On 20 Fev, 12:14, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> So, if John has 3 VP's and there is only Sylvia left to oust and he
>> > > lets Sylvia oust him. Legal?
>>
>> That's the example given above.
>>> I ask this to get a explination why TP's and VP's don't matter.
>>> Like this John might not go to the Final, or win it.
>> Because PTW means "play to win (the game)".
>>
>>> So, Play to Win only apply to Table Win?
>> Game win. Yes.
>
> I'm sorry LSJ, my english is awfull while I'm doing this at work.
>
> So my questions were not clear. My bad, sorry.
>
> PTW only applies to the specific table where the situation insues?
Yes. PTW means "play to win the game at hand", with particulars as describe in
the VEKN rules: get the GW if reasonably possible. If getting the GW is not
reasonably possible, get as many VPs as reasonably possible.
> Can a player lose VPs / help someone else win VPs, thinking on the
> other tables results, even if he already has table win on this table?
Yes, that's the example given above.
To be clear:
A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part
of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies
the play to win rule.
> Or putting it in another way (in hope of being more clear):
>
> 1. Trying to get Table win, if possible, is obligatory at all times.
> Right?
When the player has a reasonable chance at winning, yeah.
A player in a lost position is not restricted to make only activities that lead
to him or her winning, since there are no such activities, by definition.
> 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to
> give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table?
Yes. Any decision at that point would be based on factors external to that
table, since the question of "do I win this table" is already answered "yes".
A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part
of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies
the play to win rule.
Brum
>
> - Mostrar texto citado -
Thank you for putting up with me. This simplifies things allot, for us
here.
Until reaching Table Win, a player must try to get as many VP's as
possible.
After reaching that Table Win, he can do whatever he likes, as long as
he doesn't break any other rule. :)
Thanks,
Tiago
henrik
> > 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to
> > give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table?
>
> Yes. Any decision at that point would be based on factors external to that
> table, since the question of "do I win this table" is already answered "yes".
>
> A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part
> of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies
> the play to win rule.
First of, is there any real difference here if said player has taken
as many victory points as possible? Or would such a player be allowed
to use any factors to make decisions about how xe played?
And a situation:
Player A and B are the only two left on the table.
Player A has 3 victory points (and thus a game win).
Here, it's already been stated that A can throw the remaining victory
points to B.
Let's say that A and B are friends, would it still be legal to throw B
the two victory points or would that be considered collusion/
unsportsmanlike/cheating in general?
Is there any general way to draw the line in those cases, or are they
purely up to the judges discretion?
Another situation:
Four players left on the table, and Player A is about to get ousted by
D (very obvious, and B or C can't do anything about it).
Since A can't reasonably get any more victory points, would xe be
allowed to lunge at xer (or is that xis?) predator in order to give C
a bigger chance in the tournament (or even an obviously huge chance of
ousting both D and A in a row)?
It is clear that attacking D does not change the situation for A
(other than getting ousted by a different person).
And would this be considered cheating in any way if A anc C were
friends?
In both examples, there is nothing that suggests that the friends had
been deciding to act in that way beforehand.
We got into a discussion last night about collusion and similar ways
of cheating, and couldn't really decide on how hard a judge should
look at stuff like this. In the end I suppose it might just be
judgement calls , but I'd love some answers from LSJ (and other judges
as well) in order to get some more perspective.
Somewhat old thread, but since the issue here is the same as my
question I figured I'd put it in here. If this is better or worse for
newsreader people (or google people), please tell me of a better way
of handling it next time.
LSJ
> On Feb 20, 2:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>>> 2. After achieving Table Win, can player make decisions (including to
>>> give his VPs away) based on factores external to that table?
>> Yes. Any decision at that point would be based on factors external to that
>> table, since the question of "do I win this table" is already answered "yes".
>>
>> A player who gets the GW satisfies PTW. Any activity (or inactivity) on the part
>> of that player that leads to the game ending with that player winning satisfies
>> the play to win rule.
>
> First of, is there any real difference here if said player has taken
> as many victory points as possible? Or would such a player be allowed
> to use any factors to make decisions about how xe played?
No. Yes.
> And a situation:
> Player A and B are the only two left on the table.
> Player A has 3 victory points (and thus a game win).
>
> Here, it's already been stated that A can throw the remaining victory
> points to B.
Yes: A, having won, is free to win in any manner xe chooses. Any activity or
inactivity that leads to winning is playing to win.
> Let's say that A and B are friends, would it still be legal to throw B
> the two victory points or would that be considered collusion/
> unsportsmanlike/cheating in general?
Legal, as per above.
> Is there any general way to draw the line in those cases, or are they
> purely up to the judges discretion?
Moot.
> Another situation:
> Four players left on the table, and Player A is about to get ousted by
> D (very obvious, and B or C can't do anything about it).
> Since A can't reasonably get any more victory points, would xe be
> allowed to lunge at xer (or is that xis?) predator in order to give C
> a bigger chance in the tournament (or even an obviously huge chance of
> ousting both D and A in a row)?
Yes, assuming the judge agrees with the premise that A is in a lost position.
> It is clear that attacking D does not change the situation for A
> (other than getting ousted by a different person).
>
> And would this be considered cheating in any way if A anc C were
> friends?
Moot, since no other activity or inactivity produces a reasonable chance at more
GWs or more VPs for A.
aaronmiller38
I agree with your understanding of play to win jay. However I think it
could be to difficult to determine if a given play will result in more
victory points for a given player. With that in mind I don't think it
can be ruled that a player is not playing to win unless they self oust
in a game. I would say the play to win rule should be updated to
clearly say that self ousts are not allowed.
I was in a situation where this made a big difference in the game. I
needed a table win with 5 vp to qualify for nationals. I had already
ousted my pray and was well on my way to take out my second one, but
my grand pyray was at one pool and was likely going to die on his
upkeep unless I did something to stop it which I could with a resque.
Instead he ousts himself. This In the end kept me from ousting my
second pray on my next turn, 12 pool, 2 vp, and a game win, not to
mention, possbly a qualifying spot. Now I didn't make a big deal out
of it. The player was and still is my friend, and no one else thouht I
could get my pray that turn amyway. It was just quite anoying to have
come away with only 1 vp as a result of someone self ousting.
If for this resion alone I believe it should be made clear self
ousting is never playing to win and as such is aginst the rules.
And for those of you that don't think it's posable to get a half vp
from a recked position, I would like to add this. In my previous game
I was able to stay in the game till the last three minutes of the game
with 4 pool and almost oust my pray by making deals with the rest of
the table. Hade I just made one more deal I found out after the game I
could have got that oust with some help. The point being you never
know what will happen in the game and you may get that next turn which
will make all the difference.
Aaron Miller
Prince W. Lafayette IN
Archibald Zimonyi
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 5:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Notice that the PTW section _also_ does not say you must reasonably go
> >> for as many VPs as possible either; it says that you must do so only
> >> if you cannot get a Game Win. If you _can_ get a Game Win, you are
> >> under no compulsion by any rule to maximize your VPs further.
>
> > I don't think that's true. I think the secondary goal of getting
> > victory points applies regardless of whether you know you will get 0
> > game wins or 1 game win.
>
> No. If you are getting the GW, and have the choice of getting it with 2VPs or
> with 5VPs, you are under no compulsion to go for the 5VP GW.
>
> Play to win compels you to win. How you win is up to you.
>
> Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many
> VPs as you (reasonably) can.
>
> > Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
> > between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
>
> Correct.
In a game;
I know I cannot get a GW.
I know I cannot get a VP, however I know that if the game times out, I
can get 0.5 VP. This is a truth that exists until I actually lose my
last pool, so in effect this should make it impossible for any player
to legally self-oust.
Do I misunderstand something there?
Archie
LSJ
> On Feb 18, 11:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many
>> VPs as you (reasonably) can.
>>
>>> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
>>> between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
>> Correct.
> Doesn't this disallow a player from self-ousting?
No. A player who cannot reasonably get more than zero VPs is free to get those
zero VPs in any manner.
> In a game;
> I know I cannot get a GW.
> I know I cannot get a VP, however I know that if the game times out, I
> can get 0.5 VP. This is a truth that exists until I actually lose my
> last pool, so in effect this should make it impossible for any player
> to legally self-oust.
> Do I misunderstand something there?
Only the fact that it is not always reasonably possible to survive to the time
limit. Indeed, I often see players ousted before time is called.
Archibald Zimonyi
Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was
dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable
to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be
played much?
I haven't thought it through which is why I ask.
Archie
LSJ
> Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was
> dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable
> to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be
> played much?
>
> I haven't thought it through which is why I ask.
The same thing that would happen if that word were dropped from "beyond a
reasonable doubt" -- people would invent all sorts of crazy scenarios that would
make a Rube Goldberg Machine look like a screwdriver in order to do anything
they like (like, having two GWs already, throw a winnable game for an impossible
win scenario that, when it fails, leaves a friend in a better position; or
browbeat another player with calls of "don't be spiteful" into serving only as a
puppet to aid a win.)
(and, really? Composing a post and waiting for a response is easier/faster than
thinking it through?)
Archibald Zimonyi
> Archibald Zimonyi wrote:
> > Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was
> > dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable
> > to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be
> > played much?
>
> > I haven't thought it through which is why I ask.
>
> The same thing that would happen if that word were dropped from "beyond a
> reasonable doubt" -- people would invent all sorts of crazy scenarios that would
> make a Rube Goldberg Machine look like a screwdriver in order to do anything
> they like (like, having two GWs already, throw a winnable game for an impossible
> win scenario that, when it fails, leaves a friend in a better position; or
> browbeat another player with calls of "don't be spiteful" into serving only as a
> puppet to aid a win.)
>
is it not? To remove the word reasonably does not mean you can play
differently in a tournament does it?
> (and, really? Composing a post and waiting for a response is easier/faster than
> thinking it through?)
My above questions is exactly why I wrote what I did, I want to know
what others think.
In my opinion, unless I am completely mistaken, if you remove
reasonably then everyone has to play for a GW. Once a GW for a game
cannot be reached, everyone has to play for maximizing VPs. So in
effect, you cannot self-oust.
Archie
LSJ
> On Mar 3, 2:54 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Archibald Zimonyi wrote:
>>> Ah yes, the word reasonably. What would happen if that word was
>>> dropped from the PTW rule? So that you always had to go for GW, unable
>>> to do so go for most VPs. Would it change the way a game would be
>>> played much?
>>> I haven't thought it through which is why I ask.
>> The same thing that would happen if that word were dropped from "beyond a
>> reasonable doubt" -- people would invent all sorts of crazy scenarios that would
>> make a Rube Goldberg Machine look like a screwdriver in order to do anything
>> they like (like, having two GWs already, throw a winnable game for an impossible
>> win scenario that, when it fails, leaves a friend in a better position; or
>> browbeat another player with calls of "don't be spiteful" into serving only as a
>> puppet to aid a win.)
>>
> Two GWs? Do you mean VPs? PTW is only valid for each individual game
> is it not? To remove the word reasonably does not mean you can play
> differently in a tournament does it?
I mean two GWs.
Where PTW-reasonable would keep the player from taking a dive for a friend,
PTW-any-even-unreasonable would allow the player to dive under the conjecture
that something ... extreme ... would happen to allow him to win the game after
the preposterous move, so that the preposterous move is a theoretical path to
victory and is therefore PTW.
>> (and, really? Composing a post and waiting for a response is easier/faster than
>> thinking it through?)
> My above questions is exactly why I wrote what I did, I want to know
> what others think.
>
> In my opinion, unless I am completely mistaken, if you remove
> reasonably then everyone has to play for a GW. Once a GW for a game
> cannot be reached, everyone has to play for maximizing VPs. So in
> effect, you cannot self-oust.
No. In effect, you liberate the player from PTW and allow more self-ousting
because there's a vanishingly small chance that the activity that seems to lead
to certain ousting will, in fact, lead to victory.
Archibald Zimonyi
How does "gain as many VP as you can" lead to self-ousting?
Can you provide an example.
Archie
LSJ
> How does "gain as many VP as you can" lead to self-ousting?
>
> Can you provide an example.
Pick any unreasonable avenue to show how the activity which seems (to a
reasonable observer) to be self-ousting may, when the planets align, lead to
victory.
"My prey may play Life Boon and give me all her pool." is a classic.
The supply of contrived scenarios is limited only by players' imaginations
(which they have demonstrated they have in abundance).
carn...@gmail.com
"If I tap myself completely out every turn bleeding, I might get one
of these bleeds past the wall deck in front of me. And sure, he's
going to dunk most of my minions with his .44, but he might not dunk
them all, and then I can keep bleeding non-stop, and that gets me more
VPs potentially than if I sit here and don't go forward. Sure, my
predator will be bleeding me out quickly when I'm tapped out, but
there's a chance that I can get enough bleeds past my prey's wall
before I'm ousted, I don't _know_ that he has enough wakes to catch
all my actions - and the tiny chance at 1VP is better than the .5VP
I'd get if I don't do this and stay untapped to block instead, so it's
legal! " etc.
> Archie
-John Flournoy
carn...@gmail.com
Here's a much more specific example: Three players, A -> B-> C->
Player A has one pool, and one minion with [obf] and one blood, and a
single stealth card in hand.
Player B has one minion with a .44 and four Raven Spies, one pool and
Dragonbound in play.
Player C has one minion in torpor, and one pool.
A's turn starts.
A can claim "I have to try to bleed B - I might oust him if I can top
deck 4 more stealth cards back-to-back-to-back-to-back, in which case
I'll kill them both. And that's more VPs than if I don't act, because
if I don't act player B will let Dragonbound kill Player C, and that's
not as many VPs as I can get."
So he bleeds forward and dies and gives his VP to player C via what is
effectively a legal-without-"reasonable" self-oust.
-John Flournoy
Archibald Zimonyi
Oh, I thought the above example would be voided by "as you can". If I
self-oust I can gain no more VPs. Sure, there are other effects that
prevent me from actually be ousted but I cannot take the action to get
me in a position to actively self-oust.
But ok, adding reasonable then one cannot hope for someone playing
Life Boon.
Archie
Archibald Zimonyi
The above sounds almost like a normal stealth&bleed strategy anyway so
I hope you did not mean that this was playing reasonably.
Archie
Meej
Or B might just say "Hands for 1" to leave A's minion empty instead of
in torpor, letting B pick up all three of the remaining VP's. (Not
that this invalidates what you're saying, if anything it reinforces
it...)
- D.J.
Archibald Zimonyi
Does this mean that I cannot play like that with the reasonable play?
I.e. I see no difference between one top decking and four, sure the
chances are greater for one then four but still, it is not in my
opinion reasonable to act like that (anymore I might add :)
Also, self-ousting is not allowed if you HAVE to maximize VPs, so I
would say doing nothing (and hoping for a time-out) with 0.5VP is more
then "hoping" for things. Again, adding reasonable is still up to the
player (or judge if one is called) and the sentence "maximize VPs"
does not mean all VPs except the ones that give you the GW, it means
as many as you can get. Self-ousting gives you zero. So your example
sounds like not playing for maximum VPs.
Archie
The Name Forgotten
> Archibald Zimonyi wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Secondarily, if you cannot (reasonably) win, PTW compels you to acquire as many
> >> VPs as you (reasonably) can.
>
> >>> Example 1: I know I have no chance of a game win, but have a choice
> >>> between getting a 0.5 vp or 0 vp. I must choose 0.5 vp
> >> Correct.
> > Doesn't this disallow a player from self-ousting?
>
> No. A player who cannot reasonably get more than zero VPs is free to get those
> zero VPs in any manner.
>
Just to throw a spanner into the works here (mostly because I still
think the PTW rule is very badly worded, but have been unable to
convey this to LSJ as he just makes me repeat myself until infinity) -
the PTW rule doesn't actually say this. It actually says:
"when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as
many Victory Points as possible."
As far as the section pertaining to VP's is concerned (the second half
of the above) - it makes no mention of 'reasonably'.
So, in short - if we follow this through - when the GW is not
reasonably possible then we ignore that part of the ruling completely,
and players are now under the PTW rule of:
A player must be "playing to get as many Victory Points as possible."
That being said, from LSJ's posts I do fully understand how PTW is
meant to be played out in tournaments (in this case, judges are meant
to assume that possible means reasonably possible) - I just don't
think the ruling states or enforces that, and I'd have to run to LSJ's
posts if I had to back this up.
carn...@gmail.com
You might not see a difference, but the difference between one top-
decking and four is in a lot of cases going to be a statistically very
large difference.
Let's say for example you have a little more than half your deck left
(50 cards) and 10 more stealth cards in it.
Odds of topdecking one stealth card: 20%.
Odds of topdecking four stealth cards: .091%
If your deck was down to say 20 cards and you knew 10 of them were
stealth?
Topdecking 1: 50%.
Topdecking 4 in a row: 4.3%
> Also, self-ousting is not allowed if you HAVE to maximize VPs, so I
> would say doing nothing (and hoping for a time-out) with 0.5VP is more
> then "hoping" for things.
This is LSJ's whole point. If I _have_ to maximize VPs, then I can
justify any no-matter-how-slight "hoping" attempt (if there's no
'reasonable' clause.)
In the example I gave above; doing nothing gets you no more than .5
VPs. Trying to go forward might give you 3VPs, which is clearly a lot
more than .5VPs, so by trying for 3VPs I am trying to get as many as
possible - even if I have a .00000001 percent chance of getting 3VPs,
that is still "possible" and thus I can claim I'm trying to maximize
my VPs and thus I'm playing to win.
> Again, adding reasonable is still up to the
> player (or judge if one is called) and the sentence "maximize VPs"
> does not mean all VPs except the ones that give you the GW, it means
> as many as you can get. Self-ousting gives you zero. So your example
> sounds like not playing for maximum VPs.
Of course it's not reasonable - the whole point is that this is a
specific example of how _removing_ the 'reasonable' part of the rule -
as LSJ stated - will "liberate the player from PTW and allow more self-
ousting because there's a vanishingly small chance that the activity
that seems to lead to certain ousting will, in fact, lead to victory."
Which is what you specifically asked for.
> Archie
-John Flournoy
carn...@gmail.com
Since you specifically wanted examples of how _not_ having to play
reasonably effects things, no, I did not mean that this was playing
reasonably.
> Archie
Archibald Zimonyi
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Ok, assuming reasonable play again then, how would this example place
itself:
Two players left (A and B) from a five player table. A has 2vps and B
has 1vp. After some heavy fighting the situation is as follows.
Player A has 5 pool and zero ready vampires (all vampires are in
torpor with no blood). He has one counter on an uninfluenced vampire
in the uncontrolled region.
Player B has 1 pool and one ready vampire with superior dominate and 1
blood.
It is player B's turn and he has a Conditioning on hand.
Is playing the Conditioning for the GW unreasonable play?`
With the knowledge that Player A has only played with 2 cap vampires
with inferior potence (which he would most likely bring out and smack
down player B's last vampire), is playing the Conditioning for the GW
unreasonable play?
The reason I ask is that player A naturally sits with an Archon
Investigation, and you know how many additional VPs player B gets
then.
Archie
carn...@gmail.com
I'd think that was reasonable play, assuming you didn't _know_ that
the player had the AI in his hand.
Even if you know for certain that he has one in his deck to begin with
(which is by no means guaranteed), there's still a good chance
(assuming he's not decked or nearly so) that he hasn't drawn it yet,
and if he hasn't drawn it yet you win.
> Archie
-John Flournoy
Archibald Zimonyi
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Ok, thanks for all your examples. Let me ask this then. Since the
wording "reasonable" still allows for certain play to be allowed
(which is where people might want change), what would be the effect of
reversing the word. So instead of taking reasonable actions (which
allow for shady ones) you are not allowed to take unreasonable actions
to achieve your goals (GWs, VPs)? Would this not disallow your
examples of "crazy play" or would there still be such cases available
in the wording?
Archie
LSJ
> Ok, thanks for all your examples. Let me ask this then. Since the
> wording "reasonable" still allows for certain play to be allowed
> (which is where people might want change), what would be the effect of
> reversing the word. So instead of taking reasonable actions (which
> allow for shady ones) you are not allowed to take unreasonable actions
> to achieve your goals (GWs, VPs)? Would this not disallow your
> examples of "crazy play" or would there still be such cases available
> in the wording?
Allowing only reasonable play to win is the same as disallowing unreasonable
play to win.
Also, cutting unused quoted material is reasonable.
aaronmiller38
> Brum wrote:
> > On 20 Fev, 12:14, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Or putting it in another way (in hope of being more clear):
>
> > 1. Trying to get Table win, if possible, is obligatory at all times.
> > Right?
>
> When the player has a reasonable chance at winning, yeah.
> A player in a lost position is not restricted to make only activities that lead
> to him or her winning, since there are no such activities, by definition.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand what you are trying to get at with your answer, but I
don’t believe it is ever possible for a player to truly know they are
in a lost position.
Could you or anyone give me a definite example of when a player is in
a lost position and will for sure be ousted from the game and there is
nothing anyone could reasonably do to stop it from happening?
If not, then it seams to me that currently it is up to each player to
decide when they are in a lost position and can then chouse to louse
as they wish, then fine, just say so.
However, if there is going to be a tournament rule about playing to
win, I think it should reflect that by specifically stating what
constitutes a lost position such as in withdrawing from the game, or
not allowing self ousting as I believe this is nothing more then a
form of pore sportsmanship, and is against the spirit of the game.
After all, you never know what could happen when you allow the other
players in the game to take there turns they may want to try and keep
you in the game for some resin and once it gets back around to your
predators turn things may be completely different.
In the end I don’t believe the play to win rule should restrict a
player’s choices in how they go about getting VP's and a GW, but it
should prevent them from giving them to other players by transferring
them selves out of the game.
Aaron
LSJ
> I understand what you are trying to get at with your answer, but I
> don’t believe it is ever possible for a player to truly know they are
> in a lost position.
Well, yeah. I've said as much. Actually, it happens quite often, but the state
usually doesn't last long.
That doesn't change the answer for when "in a lost position" is a stated part of
the case under study.
aaronmiller38
Thanks for the answer.
I have been talking it over with some other princes and the point was
made that there are times when the self oust is your best move for a
game win. Say you have two VP, no one else has a VP yet and the game
is close to timing out, but your pray is about to get his pray and
grand pray. If you oust your self then your predator stands a chance
of holding out and till the game times out. This path to victory must
be made available to players and as much as I dislike it I must take
the good with the bad.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> On Feb 20, 8:14 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > When the player has a reasonable chance at winning, yeah.
> > A player in a lost position is not restricted to make only activities that lead
> > to him or her winning, since there are no such activities, by definition.
>
> don’t believe it is ever possible for a player to truly know they are
> in a lost position.
From an absolutist perspective, no-one can ever tell anything for
sure, especially when it concerns the future. But it is certainly
possible to imagine a player so devoid of hope that all options seem
equally hopeless, even "self-ousting".
> Could you or anyone give me a definite example of when a player is in
> a lost position and will for sure be ousted from the game and there is
> nothing anyone could reasonably do to stop it from happening?
Sure. 4 players left, it is my turn. My prey has Dragonbound in
play, and 5 pool. I have 1 pool and 8 minions in torpor with no
blood. I have 1 minion in play with 1 blood, and no way of rescuing a
single minion from torpor. I have no way of ousting my prey this
turn, or gaining pool this turn, or burning the Dragonbound this
turn. My cross-table buddy has 3 pool or less.
I think that should do it, but for added insurance ... my prey has 2
or more copies of Army of Rats in play, and I have no way of burning
both with my single minion.
James Coupe
>I have been talking it over with some other princes and the point was
>made that there are times when the self oust is your best move for a
>game win. Say you have two VP, no one else has a VP yet and the game
>is close to timing out, but your pray is about to get his pray and
>grand pray. If you oust your self then your predator stands a chance
>of holding out and till the game times out. This path to victory must
>be made available to players and as much as I dislike it I must take
>the good with the bad.
Up to a point.
What you (the general you) will generally fail at is trying to stop
people doing things based on their motivation, or based on what they
say. "You can't make that deal - it's a VP split deal!" is the classic
thing that a lot of people have wanted to enforce, but it's hard. The
good play is still a good play, so people just do it in another way.
If there are things you don't like about the game, it is always possible
to stop and think about how you could change the game so that it's not
an avenue a player would want to take in more circumstances. (You'll be
unlikely to stop it in every conceivable situation.)
Say that you found the above situation to be distasteful, and harmful to
the game. You might provide a stronger disincentive against it. e.g.
you might decide to enact a rule as follows: "Players who are ousted
lose half a victory point (but never go below zero VP)." So that then
means that the player in the above situation wouldn't want to self-oust,
because he'd go to 1.5 VP and lose all chance of a game win (which
requires a minimum of two). Or you could tally up "being ousted" as one
of the things you use to determine who makes the finals, like GWs and
VPs. Perhaps a player who has 1 GW and 5 VP over two rounds (3VP one
round, 2 VP another round) beats the player with 1GW and 5VP who split
it up 5VP, 0VP. So there'd be more incentive to play decks that don't
get ousted. That might be a bad thing, slowing the game down, but it
would also discourage self-ousting.
That's not to say that situations like the above are bad, or good, or
just something that happens. But you CAN potentially change the rules,
so that you can move out whatever you think is bad. Some of the
counter-intuitive good moves might be sacrificed in the process, but
then it's fine - the reasonable player knows that move is bad for them,
so they don't even want to make it.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.