Scrap the withdraw rule altogether
Eric Freeman
Can someone please give me one solid reason why this rule needs to exist in
the first place? I have been playing Jyhad since 1994 and I have never seen
a sucessful withdraw in casual play. To be honest I can't recall it ever
being attempted. The only time I've even heard of it done is the whole lets
all withdraw so I can advance crap that seems to be in vouge this year. The
rule serves no purpose whatsoever. Except as a loophole for whiney players
who misjudged the tounament metagame. If you deserve to be in the finals
then you should be able to OUST YOUR PREY! If you can't do that then you
don't deserve to advance. We don't need several pages of new tounament rules
so an entire table can quit with no repercussions. The withdraw rule should
be eliminated entirely.
Eric Freeman
Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?
LSJ
Ben Peal successfully withdrew in the finals at a sanctioned V:EKN tournament
at Dragon*Con this past weekend. Doing so improved his finishing placement.
He was my prey at the time. I tried unsuccessfully to prevent his
withdrawal attempt.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Eric Freeman
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F54BC53...@white-wolf.com...
> Ben Peal successfully withdrew in the finals at a sanctioned V:EKN
tournament
> at Dragon*Con this past weekend. Doing so improved his finishing
placement.
>
> He was my prey at the time. I tried unsuccessfully to prevent his
> withdrawal attempt.
>
I never said it couldn't be done. I do see some strategic implications of a
single player doing it.. but that said the whole entire tables withdrawing,
and how to cope with it conversation still bugs me. seems to me that it
shouldn't even be an issue but now that it is the rule as a whole seems
extremely unnecessary. Is a rare extremely cornercase example worth the
added complication required to keep it from being abused? When entire tables
are agreeing to not play the game that to me is a big problem. that far
outweighs the minor benefit a single player can gain from using the rule in
a contentious manner.
Eric Freeman
Timlagor
> Ben Peal successfully withdrew in the finals at a sanctioned V:EKN tournament
> at Dragon*Con this past weekend. Doing so improved his finishing placement.
>
> He was my prey at the time. I tried unsuccessfully to prevent his
> withdrawal attempt.
How did he do it? (why couldn't you stop him?)
LSJ
> I never said it couldn't be done. I do see some strategic implications of a
> single player doing it.. but that said the whole entire tables withdrawing,
You suggest that the rule be done away with because you have never seen its
purpose.
I counter that it has a purpose and give an example.
Your statement above that you see some strategic implications runs counter
to your previous statement that "The rule serves no purpose whatsoever."
Refraining from hyperbole will help ensure that your point is not clouded
by the inevitable posts that will be made to point out such errors.
> and how to cope with it conversation still bugs me. seems to me that it
> shouldn't even be an issue but now that it is the rule as a whole seems
> extremely unnecessary. Is a rare extremely cornercase example worth the
Successfully withdrawing is a rare case, yes. The effect of being able to
attempt to withdraw is more pervasive, however. It, like gaining pool for
having the edge at the beginning of your turn, is part of the game to help
prevent the game from stalling out as player entrench and wait for other
players to stick their necks out. The rule exists to encourage proactive
play.
> added complication required to keep it from being abused? When entire tables
> are agreeing to not play the game that to me is a big problem. that far
Entire tables agreeing to withdraw is not an example of entire tables
agreeing not to play the game. Withdrawing is part of the game, and the
agreement to withdraw can only come (under the play to win rule) after
the vast majority of the game has been played.
> outweighs the minor benefit a single player can gain from using the rule in
> a contentious manner.
I wouldn't call improving one's final standing in the finals of a tournament
a minor benefit.
Your use of "contentious" is puzzling. Please enlighten me as to the
"contentiousness" of the play.
LSJ
My minions had been reduced (by diablerie and corruption) to a single minion.
My single bleed (of two) was futile against his Dummy Corporation. If I
had had a Govern in hand instead of a Bonding, or a second minion, things
would have gone differently.
David Cherryholmes
This past weekend at DragonCon, Ben Peal successfully withdrew while LSJ
was trying to kill him. He succeeded, due to a Dummy Corporation he had
in play.
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
david.che...@duke.edu
Eric Freeman
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> > I never said it couldn't be done. I do see some strategic implications
of a
> > single player doing it.. but that said the whole entire tables
withdrawing,
>
> You suggest that the rule be done away with because you have never seen
its
> purpose.
>
> I counter that it has a purpose and give an example.
no you countered with and example of a sucessfull withdraw you made no
mention a purpose.
>
>
> > and how to cope with it conversation still bugs me. seems to me that it
> > shouldn't even be an issue but now that it is the rule as a whole seems
> > extremely unnecessary. Is a rare extremely cornercase example worth the
>
> Successfully withdrawing is a rare case, yes. The effect of being able to
> attempt to withdraw is more pervasive, however. It, like gaining pool for
> having the edge at the beginning of your turn, is part of the game to help
> prevent the game from stalling out as player entrench and wait for other
> players to stick their necks out. The rule exists to encourage proactive
> play.
If you have played through your entire deck to the point of a legal withdraw
entrenching is academic
>
> > added complication required to keep it from being abused? When entire
tables
> > are agreeing to not play the game that to me is a big problem. that far
>
> Entire tables agreeing to withdraw is not an example of entire tables
> agreeing not to play the game. Withdrawing is part of the game, and the
> agreement to withdraw can only come (under the play to win rule) after
> the vast majority of the game has been played.
In order to withdraw you must have first exausted your library and begin
your turn with less than a full hand in order for a table to reach this
condition in unison there must first be an agreement in place to not play
out each turn as one normaly would (not play the game) if this is legal in
the last 2 minutes then it is legal in the first 2 minutes as enforcement of
the play to win rule is pure speculation on the judges part in either case.
>
> > outweighs the minor benefit a single player can gain from using the rule
in
> > a contentious manner.
>
> I wouldn't call improving one's final standing in the finals of a
tournament
> a minor benefit.
The benefit of a single player in a single game is minor compared to the
benefit of the game at large.
>
> Your use of "contentious" is puzzling. Please enlighten me as to the
> "contentiousness" of the play.
I misspelled conscientous and my spell check added contentious in its place.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Eric Freeman
berni...@attbi.comholdlespam
>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>news:3F54C65...@white-wolf.com...
>> Eric Freeman wrote:
<Snip>
>> > and how to cope with it conversation still bugs me. seems to me that it
>> > shouldn't even be an issue but now that it is the rule as a whole seems
>> > extremely unnecessary. Is a rare extremely cornercase example worth the
I would downgrade the rarity of a player attempting to withdraw to
"Uncommon". One of the bargaining chips you can use at a table is to
offer another player the opportunity to withdraw with thier VP intact if
they help you against another player.
Other players and I have done this deal in the past, in the spirit of
maximizing VP's.
>> Successfully withdrawing is a rare case, yes. The effect of being able to
>> attempt to withdraw is more pervasive, however. It, like gaining pool for
>> having the edge at the beginning of your turn, is part of the game to help
>> prevent the game from stalling out as player entrench and wait for other
>> players to stick their necks out. The rule exists to encourage proactive
>> play.
I'm not quite sure how having the withdraw rule encourages proactive
play. Or is it more to discourage stalling? Very similar, but
different.
>If you have played through your entire deck to the point of a legal withdraw
>entrenching is academic
>> > added complication required to keep it from being abused? When entire
>tables
>> > are agreeing to not play the game that to me is a big problem. that far
>>
>> Entire tables agreeing to withdraw is not an example of entire tables
>> agreeing not to play the game. Withdrawing is part of the game, and the
>> agreement to withdraw can only come (under the play to win rule) after
>> the vast majority of the game has been played.
>
>In order to withdraw you must have first exausted your library and begin
>your turn with less than a full hand in order for a table to reach this
>condition in unison there must first be an agreement in place to not play
>out each turn as one normaly would (not play the game) if this is legal in
>the last 2 minutes then it is legal in the first 2 minutes as enforcement of
>the play to win rule is pure speculation on the judges part in either case.
Insofar as someone attempting to withdraw due to the conditions
described above, I've only seen happen on maybe 3-4 different occasions.
Half of which were successful.
<Snip remainder>
>Eric Freeman
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
LSJ
> I'm not quite sure how having the withdraw rule encourages proactive
> play. Or is it more to discourage stalling? Very similar, but
> different.
It is discouraging stalling by encouraging proactivity.
When your prey attempts to withdraw, you are put into the position of
having to be proactive to prevent that from happening.
Snapcase
eric...@hotmail.com says...
> I have been playing Jyhad since 1994 and I have never seen
> a sucessful withdraw in casual play. To be honest I can't recall it ever
> being attempted.
I've seen it attempted and successfully pulled off on a couple of
occasions.
> The rule serves no purpose whatsoever. Except as a loophole for whiney players
> who misjudged the tounament metagame.
...and as an actual mechanic for people to win now that Brinkmanship is
in the game.
--
-Snapcase
Wouter Kuyper
Apart from making the brinksmanship obsolete.
maybe change that to: if a player has less then a full hand AND has
lost a pool or blood since that moment he is ousted.
I think it removes some strategic options, yes, but it removes a lot
of hassle as well,
W
Wouter Kuyper
LSJ
Please give an example of the "hassle" that would be removed by the
omission of the rule.
If you find it a hassle, then simply don't attempt to withdraw yourself
and don't interfer with other players' attempts to do so.
Raille
<big snip>
>
>
> Insofar as someone attempting to withdraw due to the conditions
> described above, I've only seen happen on maybe 3-4 different occasions.
> Half of which were successful.
>
I withdrew in a game at Origins. I was down to one pool and was
prepared to transfer out, with 3 players still seated.
My prey did not want his prey to pick up the VP which is of course
maximizing his VPs, so he offered me a withdraw is I did Not transfer
out. I accepted since this maximized my VPs. He could have welshed on
the deal after the fact, but I ended up with a withdraw and 1 VP which
is 1 more than I could have gotten other wise.
Raille
Colin Riggs
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> > After following the threads on how to mutualy withdraw. I have a
question.
> > Can someone please give me one solid reason why this rule needs to exist
in
> > the first place? I have been playing Jyhad since 1994 and I have never
seen
> > a sucessful withdraw in casual play. To be honest I can't recall it ever
> > be eliminated entirely.
>
> Ben Peal successfully withdrew in the finals at a sanctioned V:EKN
tournament
> at Dragon*Con this past weekend. Doing so improved his finishing
placement.
>
> He was my prey at the time. I tried unsuccessfully to prevent his
> withdrawal attempt.
>
Ben Peal withdrew waay back at the 2001 Northeast Qualifier and gained his
3rd VP at the final table. Seems like he should be watched.
Colin Riggs
David Cherryholmes
DragonCon. We were playing a four way, I had the table under an iron fist
with a multi-rush deck, when my prey squeeked through an oust, leaving us
at a three-way that I was going to obviously win. My predator tells me
that if I agree to let him withdraw he won't influence himself out,
otherwise he would. He had no minions, he was meat. If he withdrew then
my prey would've had two VP's and the best I could get was a tie. With
his deal I got the tablewin, and he got one more VP than he would've.
Timlagor
> There was another instance of the withdrawal rule coming into play at
> DragonCon. We were playing a four way, I had the table under an iron fist
> with a multi-rush deck, when my prey squeeked through an oust, leaving us
> at a three-way that I was going to obviously win. My predator tells me
> that if I agree to let him withdraw he won't influence himself out,
> otherwise he would. He had no minions, he was meat. If he withdrew then
> my prey would've had two VP's and the best I could get was a tie. With
> his deal I got the tablewin, and he got one more VP than he would've.
What a great deal: Self-oust *and* withdrawal in one go! (the deal
obviuosly)
Wouter Kuyper
I think the withdrawal rule is good and it adds strategic options to
the game.
that's one.
BUT,
It happens very often (i use it as well) that just before timelimit, a
whole table decides to withdraw increasing each persons VP from 0,5 to
1.
I don't think the withdrawal rule was meant to be used like that
(speculation) and it also gives me a feeling of abusing the rules.
I think that if a table goes towards timelimit the players deserve to
get only the 0.5 VP they would get for surviving until then.
As LSJ pointed out to me in a private mail the problem lies maybe not
within the withdrawal rule, but in the Time Limit. He is right
(ofcourse), but i think time limit is a given in tournament play.
This means that i think the withdrawal rule should be changed in such
a way that it leaves all the strategic options open, but that it
leaves out the option of an escape route for everyone just before the
timelimit passes.
I haven't given it much thought yet, but would it be reasonable to
assume that it happens VERY little that 2 or more players attempt to
withdraw in a single game, where it s not used as an escape route for
the timelimit?
So my idea would be the following:
Only one player per game can succesfully withdraw.
It might have repercussions on Brinksmanship...haven't thought about
that yet.
What do you think?
Do you agree with my "uncomfortable" feeling with the use of mutual
withdrawal as an "escape route"?
If so, what would be a nice way to leave all strategic options open,
but remove the option of "escape route"?
What do you think of my option?
W
Timlagor
> Ok, i thought i would post it in this thread.
>
> I think the withdrawal rule is good and it adds strategic options to
> the game.
>
> that's one.
>
> BUT,
>
> It happens very often (i use it as well) that just before timelimit, a
> whole table decides to withdraw increasing each persons VP from 0,5 to
> 1.
>
> I don't think the withdrawal rule was meant to be used like that
> (speculation) and it also gives me a feeling of abusing the rules.
>
> I think that if a table goes towards timelimit the players deserve to
> get only the 0.5 VP they would get for surviving until then.
Why not just give everyone 1 VP for surviving and have done with it?
In effect everyone gets a VP at the beginning and only leaves without it
if someone kills them. (except you can't play Gambit Accepted with it..
so not such a great analogy but anyway...)
LSJ
> Why not just give everyone 1 VP for surviving and have done with it?
> In effect everyone gets a VP at the beginning and only leaves without it
> if someone kills them. (except you can't play Gambit Accepted with it..
> so not such a great analogy but anyway...)
2-1-1-1-0 is a game win for the 2VP holder.
1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 is not.
Timlagor
> Timlagor wrote:
> > Why not just give everyone 1 VP for surviving and have done with it?
> > In effect everyone gets a VP at the beginning and only leaves without it
> > if someone kills them. (except you can't play Gambit Accepted with it..
> > so not such a great analogy but anyway...)
>
> 2-1-1-1-0 is a game win for the 2VP holder.
> 1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 is not.
is that a problem?
LSJ
Yes.
The Game Win rules were written to exclude 1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 from getting
a Game Win. See the Game Win rules.
Eric Freeman
> The Game Win rules were written to exclude 1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 from getting
> a Game Win. See the Game Win rules.
the rules require 2 vp to gain a gw. To what end? the 1.5 player performed
better in the game than any other player Why shouldn't he get the game win?
Eric Freeman
LSJ
>>a Game Win. See the Game Win rules.
>
> the rules require 2 vp to gain a gw. To what end? the 1.5 player performed
> better in the game than any other player Why shouldn't he get the game win?
To avoid having the first player to get a VP having an incentive to stall the
table out, clearly.
Eric Freeman
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>The Game Win rules were written to exclude 1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 from
getting
> >>a Game Win. See the Game Win rules.
> >
> > the rules require 2 vp to gain a gw. To what end? the 1.5 player
performed
> > better in the game than any other player Why shouldn't he get the game
win?
>
> To avoid having the first player to get a VP having an incentive to stall
the
> table out, clearly.
But this situation is addressed by VEKN rule 5.3 why the redundancy?
Eric Freeman
LSJ
>>table out, clearly.
>
> But this situation is addressed by VEKN rule 5.3 why the redundancy?
Because it is not handled by the V:EKN rules.
A player is perfectly able to stall out the table (i.e., have it go to time)
without violating V:EKN 5.3. See Eagle's Sight, Autarkis Persecution, et al.
Eric Freeman
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> >>To avoid having the first player to get a VP having an incentive to
stall the
> >>table out, clearly.
> >
> > But this situation is addressed by VEKN rule 5.3 why the redundancy?
>
> Because it is not handled by the V:EKN rules.
>
> A player is perfectly able to stall out the table (i.e., have it go to
time)
> without violating V:EKN 5.3. See Eagle's Sight, Autarkis Persecution, et
al.
So what is to stop them from stalling out the table after one oust and then
negotiating a withdraw thus granting them a game win ? the other players
don't want them to have a game win?? but they will net more vp's and must
play to win so not agreeing to the withdraw is not maxamizing there own vp.
Because they already have 1 more gw in the tounament than the ousting
player? .. no that is an out of game concideration and thus illegal. It
appears you have created the situation you are trying to avoid.
Eric Freeman
LSJ
> So what is to stop them from stalling out the table after one oust and then
> negotiating a withdraw thus granting them a game win ? the other players
The fact that the other players must play to win.
> don't want them to have a game win?? but they will net more vp's and must
> play to win so not agreeing to the withdraw is not maxamizing there own vp.
No. "Play to win" does not oblige a player to trust another player to honor
a deal.
> Because they already have 1 more gw in the tounament than the ousting
> player? .. no that is an out of game concideration and thus illegal. It
It is true that it is not a factor.
> appears you have created the situation you are trying to avoid.
Not after looking more closely at the situation, no.
Timlagor
> Eric Freeman wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > >To avoid having the first player to get a VP having an incentive to
> > >stall the table out, clearly.
> >
> > But this situation is addressed by VEKN rule 5.3 why the redundancy?
>
> Because it is not handled by the V:EKN rules.
>
> A player is perfectly able to stall out the table (i.e., have it go to time)
> without violating V:EKN 5.3. See Eagle's Sight, Autarkis Persecution, et al.
Even if you planned your deck specifically to stall the table you would
be hard presseed to make it keep everyone in AND oust your own prey
quickly.
It may be possible but not by any stretch of the imagination can all
decks (or even many) achieve this. I would say that if someone manages
to devise a deck capable of doing this they probably deserve the win -
certainly it won't unbalance the tournament significantly to allow it.
salem
scrawled:
[snip]
>So my idea would be the following:
>Only one player per game can succesfully withdraw.
In my experience, mutual withdrawl deals only occur when the game is
down to 2 players.
1 player withdraws (1vp), the other player keeps their vp for being
last in.
they just both cycle through their library until one of them has no
deck left and less than 7 cards.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
wolflord
> down to 2 players.
>
> 1 player withdraws (1vp), the other player keeps their vp for being
> last in.
>
> they just both cycle through their library until one of them has no
> deck left and less than 7 cards.
>
On a side note: I've seen lots of tables, still with the complete set
of 5 players in the game, making a mutual withdraw. Some games simply
just can't be completed within reasonable time limits,depending on the
decks and seating.
In such a case, it occurs they all decide they're better off
withdrawing and taking the 1 VP...
Greetz
Jo
Jeroen
> > In my experience, mutual withdrawl deals only occur when the game is
> > down to 2 players.
> >
> > 1 player withdraws (1vp), the other player keeps their vp for being
> > last in.
> >
> > they just both cycle through their library until one of them has no
> > deck left and less than 7 cards.
> >
>
> On a side note: I've seen lots of tables, still with the complete set
> of 5 players in the game, making a mutual withdraw. Some games simply
> just can't be completed within reasonable time limits,depending on the
> decks and seating.
> In such a case, it occurs they all decide they're better off
> withdrawing and taking the 1 VP...
>
turn!!! 5 Intercept decks on the same table.
:-)