Q: Simultaneous Ousting with Ancient Influence
John Whelan
deadlocked and about to time. Each has 2 vampires in play: a 1-cap
and a vamp with 6+ cap. Each has 4 pool or less (or can easily go
that low through transfers).
Fred: "Why don't I call this Ancient Influence. We can both select
out 1-cap, and both be ousted simultaneously, thus gaining an extra
half-pool."
Mike: Sure.
Fred: Okay, I call this Ancient Influence.
Mike: No block.
Fred: I select Hasina Kesi.
Mike: HAH, SUCKER, I select MURAT!!!
Fred: Well, if you're selecting Murat, I'm selecting Lucretia the
Cess Queen.
Mike: JUDGE!!!
What happens?
Johann von Doom
> What happens?
If your example is an exact transcript, nothing happens yet. Ancient
Influence specifies that if the referendum passes, players select
their vampires, and in your example it hasn't passed yet, so any
discussion isn't binding with regard to game state.
John Eno
Ancient Influence
Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire
he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains an amount of pool from the
blood bank equal to his or her chosen vampire's capacity. Each
Methuselah then burns 5 pool. Only one Ancient Influence can be played
in a game.
John Whelan
wrote:
> On Jul 30, 6:12 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What happens?
>
> If your example is an exact transcript, nothing happens yet. Ancient
> Influence specifies that if the referendum passes, players select
> their vampires, and in your example it hasn't passed yet, so any
> discussion isn't binding with regard to game state.
Fine. Insert "Vote Passes" just before selection of Hasina Kesi.
The Lasombra
>2 players (Fred & Mike) remain in the game. They are more-or less
>deadlocked and about to time. Each has 2 vampires in play: a 1-cap
>and a vamp with 6+ cap. Each has 4 pool or less (or can easily go
>that low through transfers).
>Fred: "Why don't I call this Ancient Influence. We can both select
>out 1-cap, and both be ousted simultaneously, thus gaining an extra
>half-pool."
>Mike: Sure.
>Fred: Okay, I call this Ancient Influence.
>Mike: No block.
> "Vote Passes"
>Fred: I select Hasina Kesi.
>Mike: HAH, SUCKER, I select MURAT!!!
>Fred: Well, if you're selecting Murat, I'm selecting Lucretia the
>Cess Queen.
>Mike: JUDGE!!!
>What happens?
The judge kicks them both in the ding-ding.
Then, Fred is ousted and Mike gains 2 VPs.
Deals aren't binding.
The selection of vampire is a one time event, not subject to revision.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
Now also selling boxes and individual cards.
Jozxyqk
> Mike: Sure.
> Mike: No block.
> Mike: JUDGE!!!
> What happens?
You must play to win and disregard all deals when there are 2 players left.
The deal is illegal in the first place.
John Whelan
> On Thu, 30 July 2009 15:12:35 -0700 (PDT), John Whelan wrote:
> >2 players (Fred & Mike) remain in the game. They are more-or less
> >deadlocked and about to time. Each has 2 vampires in play: a 1-cap
> >and a vamp with 6+ cap. Each has 4 pool or less (or can easily go
> >that low through transfers).
> >Fred: "Why don't I call this Ancient Influence. We can both select
> >out 1-cap, and both be ousted simultaneously, thus gaining an extra
> >half-pool."
> >Mike: Sure.
> >Fred: Okay, I call this Ancient Influence.
> >Mike: No block.
> > "Vote Passes"
> >Fred: I select Hasina Kesi.
> >Mike: HAH, SUCKER, I select MURAT!!!
> >Fred: Well, if you're selecting Murat, I'm selecting Lucretia the
> >Cess Queen.
> >Mike: JUDGE!!!
> >What happens?
>
> The judge kicks them both in the ding-ding.
>
> Then, Fred is ousted and Mike gains 2 VPs.
>
> Deals aren't binding.
>
> The selection of vampire is a one time event, not subject to revision.
Suppose the deal takes place during the selection phase:
Mike: I call this ancient influence.
All: No block. Vote in favor.
Mike. Okay vote passes. I propose that, if all agree, we all select
our lowest capacity vampire and get ousted simultaneously. Deal?
All: Agree.
Fred. HAHA. I changed my mind. I select Murat.
Can Fred change his mind, or was his vampire selected at the moment
when all agreed.
John Whelan
> The deal is illegal in the first place.
No it isn't. This is PTW ... or would be if, say, Neonate Breach had
been used instead of Ancient Influence. The only question is whether
one can workably do the same thing with Ancient Influence.
Johann von Doom
> Fine. Insert "Vote Passes" just before selection of Hasina Kesi.
The judge scratches his head and wonders why he was called over, Mike
gets two VPs, and Fred hopefully learns a lesson about trusting people
not to oust him.
John Eno
The Lasombra
>Suppose the deal takes place during the selection phase:
>Mike: I call this ancient influence.
>All: No block. Vote in favor.
>Mike. Okay vote passes. I propose that, if all agree, we all select
>our lowest capacity vampire and get ousted simultaneously. Deal?
>All: Agree.
>Fred. HAHA. I changed my mind. I select Murat.
>Can Fred change his mind, or was his vampire selected at the moment
>when all agreed.
He cannot change his mind, he made his selection earlier.
John Whelan
Is it your position that all the players selected their vampire
simultaneously at the moment when the last person said "I agree"?
The Lasombra
>Is it your position that all the players selected their vampire
>simultaneously at the moment when the last person said "I agree"?
Yes.
LSJ
The choices cannot be made simultaneously, so the standard ordering is used.
First the acting Methuselah makes xer choice.
Then each other Methuselah in turn clockwise.
So Mike selects Murat and Fred cannot back up and change his choice.
Johannes Walch
"I agree" is not choosing a vampire. Players must specifically choose a
vampire after the referendum has passed.
Standard ordering applies as LSJ has noted elsewhere.
John Whelan
Johannes Walch wrote:
> John Whelan schrieb:
> > On Jul 30, 6:54 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:43:38 -0700 (PDT), John Whelan wrote:
> >>> Suppose the deal takes place during the selection phase:
> >>> Mike: I call this ancient influence.
> >>> All: No block. Vote in favor.
> >>> Mike. Okay vote passes. I propose that, if all agree, we all select
> >>> our lowest capacity vampire and get ousted simultaneously. Deal?
> >>> All: Agree.
> >>> Fred. HAHA. I changed my mind. I select Murat.
> >>> Can Fred change his mind, or was his vampire selected at the moment
> >>> when all agreed.
> >> He cannot change his mind, he made his selection earlier.
> >
> > Is it your position that all the players selected their vampire
> > simultaneously at the moment when the last person said "I agree"?
>
> "I agree" is not choosing a vampire.
It can be depending on context. Similarly, "yes" can be choosing a
vampire.
> Players must specifically choose a
> vampire after the referendum has passed.
The last person to say "I agree" has done just that. He has indicated
his choice of vampire during the vampire selection phase. I think the
catch is, however, that the earlier persons to say "I agree" have not
chosen a vampire -- they have merely promised to choose a vampire at
some future point "if all agree". But for the last person, that
future point has already arrived.
> Standard ordering applies as LSJ has noted elsewhere.
Right. No way to do it simultaneously.
D.J.
> Johannes Walch wrote:
> > Players must specifically choose a
> > vampire after the referendum has passed.
>
> The last person to say "I agree" has done just that. He has indicated
> his choice of vampire during the vampire selection phase. I think the
> catch is, however, that the earlier persons to say "I agree" have not
> chosen a vampire -- they have merely promised to choose a vampire at
> some future point "if all agree". But for the last person, that
> future point has already arrived.
>
> > Standard ordering applies as LSJ has noted elsewhere.
>
> Right. No way to do it simultaneously.
Which means that, unless the last person to say "I agree" was the
person calling the referendum, that can't have been choosing the
vampire, since that's not the proper place in the order for that
person to choose a vampire. And even then, it's a little fuzzy.
- D.J.
Johannes Walch
When I am the judge I strictly enforce players to make non-ambiguous
choices. If you have to choose a vampire, name it. If you have to choose
a number say it.
orianice
Thanks for the funny moment
now I have another question derived from here:
according to PTW rules, Both Mike and Fred have interest in being
simulaneously ousted since they cannot win more vps another way
Now when Fred has chosen his 1-cap, Mike has 2 choices:
- select his Murat and take 2vps or more
- select his 1-cap and make 1vp
does he have the right to choose his 1-cap since at the moment of the
choice it is not PtW anymore?
Chris Berger
>
> Thanks for the funny moment
> now I have another question derived from here:
>
> according to PTW rules, Both Mike and Fred have interest in being
> simulaneously ousted since they cannot win more vps another way
>
> Now when Fred has chosen his 1-cap, Mike has 2 choices:
> - select his Murat and take 2vps or more
> - select his 1-cap and make 1vp
>
> does he have the right to choose his 1-cap since at the moment of the
> choice it is not PtW anymore?
>
IANALSJ, but the way I always understood it is that while you can't
make a deal that violates PtW, you are always allowed to honor deals
that were beneficial when you made them.
wumpus
Except that deals are now explicitly 'off' in the two-player endgame.
(Including, presumably, deals made in the two-player endgame.)
Of course PTW doesn't force you to take additional VPs if you already
have a Game Win, and we don't know the current disposition of the VP -
only that this deal will increase the net for at least one player.
Alex
John Whelan
> > > Now when Fred has chosen his 1-cap, Mike has 2 choices:
> > > - select his Murat and take 2vps or more
> > > - select his 1-cap and make 1vp
> > > does he have the right to choose his 1-cap since at the moment of the
> > > choice it is not PtW anymore?
> > IANALSJ, but the way I always understood it is that while you can't
> > make a deal that violates PtW, you are always allowed to honor deals
> > that were beneficial when you made them.
> Except that deals are now explicitly 'off' in the two-player endgame.
> (Including, presumably, deals made in the two-player endgame.)
>
> Of course PTW doesn't force you to take additional VPs if you already
> have a Game Win, and we don't know the current disposition of the VP -
> only that this deal will increase the net for at least one player.
I'm not sure the answer. But it seems to me, that if the judge comes
over and tells Mike he *must* choose Murat, he should probably carry
that one step further, and tell Fred, that, knowing that Mike must
choose Murat, Fred must choose Lucretia.
Conversely, it seems to me that if Fred is allowed to play badly by
throwing the game to Mike, Mike should be allowed to play badly by
failing to take advantage of the wonderful opportunity offered.
John Whelan
> The choices cannot be made simultaneously, so the standard ordering is used.
> First the acting Methuselah makes xer choice.
> Then each other Methuselah in turn clockwise.
>
> So Mike selects Murat and Fred cannot back up and change his choice.
So I guess we could have the following scenario:
Fred: Mike, why don't you play ancient influence. We'll both select
our 1 caps, get ousted simultaneously, and gain an extra half-pool.
Mike. Sure. I call ancient influnece.
Fred. No block. 1 vote in favor
Mike: 2 votes in favor.
Fred. It passes. I'm going to select Hasina Kesi
Mike. SUCKER! I select Murat.
Fred. DOUBLE-SUCKER! You forgot about the ordering rules. I select
Lucretia. I gain 5 pool. Whoo-hoo!
Jozxyqk
Mike and Fred are both dicks.