What 'respect' and 'sportmanship' means
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
while it seems that it is a trivial question, I felt it was better to
come here and ask for extra input just in case - if nothing else,
because I've been out of the loop (that is, playing and judging
tournament games) for more than a year already.
The situation is this:
Meth A -> Meth B -> Meth C are playing during a Sword of Caine event.
There's one hour left and both A and C have 5 pool left (or something
to that effect - more later).
A had all controlled vampires torporized (no blood left at all) by C.
A plays Pentex Loves You! and passes. B bleeds C. A wants to tap
Pentex to boost B's bleed against C.
The judge later posted about the situation and said he did this:
- He called Meth A aside and asked him why he was using Pentex to
undermine hep his prey (Meth B). Meth A said he had no strategy at
all, and was just doing it to get back at Meth C for torporizing all
his vampires.
- The judge them feels it's not acceptable and prohibits him from
doing so.
- The judge says he based his ruling on that part of the tournament
rules that says "players should treat others in a respectful and
sportsmanship-like manner at all times" (emphasis on 'respectful'), or
something like that.
And then asks if what he did was acceptable. In his mind, A's play was
disrespectful to B because it had no consequence to A at all, and was
done just out of spite for what happened on that table before.
Myself, my answer to him was this:
1. First, treating other players in a respectful manner only applies
to things outside the realm of actual play. That means harassing other
players needlessly (as opposed to in-game threats), messing up with
his cards/counters, cursing his family and things like that. Using
effects against other players is part of the game and doesn't
constitute "treating them in a disrespectful manner" - at best, it's
just bad play.
2. Second, it seems clear Meth A had no chances to get even half a VP
anymore (save striking a deal with B, but it seems B didn't want any
of it). Since the judge also felt that way, A was free to play however
he likes - as long as he doesn't indulge in things like collusion or
playing to eliminate direct adversaries for a seat at the finals
(which constitutes playing for interests outside the current table).
3. Once the possibilities of collusion between Meths A and B, or the
chance A was playing for the tournament results as a whole, were ruled
out - the judge said he didn't feel like these would apply to the
situation - there's nothing disrespectful about A trying to help B
oust C before C can oust A. So, what the judge did was completely out
of his league.
In short, revenge against your predator because he eliminated all your
chances to survive (again, barring deals) is, in no shape or form, a
violation to the Play to Win rule - much less a violation of basic
sportsmanship behavior. It is, at worst, just bad/innocuos play (for
A's reputation, I mean), which is beyond the judge's scope.
The simple question is: have I dispensed correct advice, considering
the little amount of information provided?
best,
Fabio "Sooner2222" Macedo
adam....@gmail.com
wrote:
I think the general question here is
"If you feel that that there is no way for you to survive/gain a vp...
are you allowed to spend your efforts to "spite" another person."
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
wrote:
'hell yea, why not?'
There's an underlying worry about cultural differences, though.
"Respectful" means what it means, but around these parts it is
considered "sportsmanship behavior" to save time and just admit you're
dead meat. That's why I focused on the tidbit about treating others in
a respectful manner - local players badly need to separate the ideas
of respect for another player and using effects against them
'needlessly'. The latter seems to be governed by other set of rules
(Play to Win, no collusion, et al).
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Rehlow
Its hard to say. I don't think doing something out of pure spite or
making someone else lose without helping yourself win in any way is
very a sportsmanlike thing to do.
It reminds me of a table I was at in Atlanta during the NAC. I don't
remember if the tournament was actually part of the NAC or one of the
days before. I was at a rough place on the table and started whining
about how no one else was doing anything to help me out of a bad
situation. I blamed my prey for not taking an actions I would have
liked him to take. I blamed my grand predator for being too much of a
wall and not blocking enough of my predator's actions. I told my
predator he was picking on me. None of it actually helped me not get
ousted. After I was ousted I walked away from the table and thought
about my actions and how others might have viewed them. I was quiet
embarrassed at how I acted. After the game had ended I returned to the
table and apologized to the other players that were still there. I
seeked out the other players that had left the table and apologized to
them too. None of them felt I had done anything wrong (or were too
polite to say so) and I was just playing the game. I felt better that
I had not offended anyone. I still decided that I did not like the way
I acted and have refrained from acting that way since.
I know some other games have a door prize that goes to the best
sportsman/friendliest opponent. Maybe an extra promo for such a thing
in Vampire would make everyone a little nicer (not that we should have
to be bribed to act that way).
Later,
~Rehlow
Kushiel
> the little amount of information provided?
Yes.
If everyone is in agreement that a player cannot gain any VPs, he's
allowed to not gain those VPs in any manner he chooses. That includes
screwing over his predator if he wants to.
John Eno
ira...@gmail.com
> Its hard to say. I don't think doing something out of pure spite or
> making someone else lose without helping yourself win in any way is
> very a sportsmanlike thing to do.
If you have no reasonable chance at any more VPs because your predator
has completely crippled your game without actually killing you, then I
think it's perfectly fine (and human nature) to do something to spite
your predator.
Say you're a stealth bleed deck and all you do is bleed. You're down
to 1 pool, 1 ready minion, 4 in torpor, and Dragonbound in play. If
your prey is at 10 pool, and your predator just frontally assaulted
you, do you still bleed meaninglessly into your prey? Or just stay
untapped and die? Or go backwards at your predator? Any of these are
fine (assuming you don't have any reasonable chance to live and gain
more VPs) and are equally sporting in the eyes of the rules.
I recently began thinking about this as the "clean kill vs. messy
kill" effect. As a predator, if you don't have any tricks up your
sleeve, your prey will see their death coming well in advance, and it
will be a messy kill. It's important to be able to kill your prey
cleanly, so they don't feel the urge to wall or go backwards. I
hadn't really thought of it this way much before, and I think it's
important to consider when deckbuilding. I'm sure other people have
already thought of this, and perhaps considered it in a deck's ability
to lunge.
Ira
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> On Apr 17, 1:27 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote:
>
> > Its hard to say. I don't think doing something out of pure spite or
> > making someone else lose without helping yourself win in any way is
> > very a sportsmanlike thing to do.
>
> If you have no reasonable chance at any more VPs because your predator
> has completely crippled your game without actually killing you, then I
> think it's perfectly fine (and human nature) to do something to spite
> your predator.
That's the fine line I'm trying to tread, indeed.
When any given play choice could be considered more than just revenge/
spite, and enter sportsmanship territory, especially in VTES? I can't
envision it. I can see bad play; play choices that are moved by out-of-
game considerations (from collusion to overall tournament results or
personal grudges carried from other tables); and direct offenses
(humiliation, coaxing, physical harassment, messing with other
player's stuff).
But I can't see play choices evoking the sportsmanship rule.
Fabio "Sooner2222" Macedo
chr...@comcen.com.au
> I know some other games have a door prize that goes to the best
> sportsman/friendliest opponent. Maybe an extra promo for such a thing
> in Vampire would make everyone a little nicer (not that we should have
> to be bribed to act that way).
In Australia we often award a "best and fairest" at large tournaments.
Each player gets a vote. The prize at the 2005 Nats was pretty good.
I don't know if it affects people's play at all but it's nice to have
another way to win something without making the finals.
Chris.
crispyfloss
> I recently began thinking about this as the "clean kill vs. messy
> kill" effect. As a predator, if you don't have any tricks up your
> sleeve, your prey will see their death coming well in advance, and it
> will be a messy kill. It's important to be able to kill your prey
> cleanly, so they don't feel the urge to wall or go backwards. I
> hadn't really thought of it this way much before, and I think it's
> important to consider when deckbuilding. I'm sure other people have
> already thought of this, and perhaps considered it in a deck's ability
> to lunge.
I think this is exactly right. And it fosters the right attitude for
the game. Everyone wants to show up and have a chance to play their
game. If I don't have a meaningful chance to play and win a game
because of my predator interfering overwhelmingly from the get-go,
yeah, I'll be motivated to do things that hamper him. Or at least
find a way to play my game that doesn't help my predator out.
For a slightly more controversial take on this perspective, see
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d1a876adfc3aad9e
Which, perhaps significantly, is another rush deck complaining about
its inability to finish off its prey.
It just seems to me that:
If a deck requires having a compliant prey to win, it has a systemic
flaw.
If a deck requires having a prey that plays its game to win, it has to
let its prey play its game.
If a deck is guaranteed to piss off its prey, it better finish them
before they can do anything about it.
Which, maybe unsurprisingly, is the kind of deck that I think is most
likely to piss people off - the one that doesn't give them a chance to
do anything about it.
crispyfloss
wrote:
> On 17 abr, 20:53, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you have no reasonable chance at any more VPs because your predator
> > has completely crippled your game without actually killing you, then I
> > think it's perfectly fine (and human nature) to do something to spite
> > your predator.
>
> That's the fine line I'm trying to tread, indeed.
> When any given play choice could be considered more than just revenge/
> spite, and enter sportsmanship territory, especially in VTES?
> But I can't see play choices evoking the sportsmanship rule.
It is a fine line. The kind of thing that calls for judges that
follow the spirit of the game rather than crude formalism to make
decisions.
I could imagine a hypothetical situation.
A player sits down at a table. People have shuffled and dealt out
their crypts and hands. Before the first transfer, he turns to his
predator and says "I'm a crappy player. But I understand I have to
try and get VPs, and I know I can't if you do anything with me. So
here's my proposal: don't do anything to me, and let me get a VP. If
you do anything, I can't get a VP, because I'm so bad. And I
understand that if I can't get a VP, I can do whatever I want to, and
understand I will use my every device to curse your existence to my
dying day, and throw everything that I can possibly muster back at
you."
Predator things player is joking, laughs, starts playing his game.
Player makes good on his threat, and completely screws predator.
I want to say Player isn't playing to win, but if he's really that
bad, he's complying with the letter (although not the spirit) of play-
to-win, isn't he? I think unsportsmanlike conduct, i.e., not showing
up to play the game, but rather to disrupt it, is the most appropriate
categorization.
Kushiel
> It is a fine line. The kind of thing that calls for judges that
> follow the spirit of the game rather than crude formalism to make
> decisions.
>
> I could imagine a hypothetical situation.
I can't imagine this hypothetical situation actually happening,
though. Has it?
John Eno
James Coupe
crispyfloss <crisp...@gmail.com> writes:
>I could imagine a hypothetical situation.
>
>A player sits down at a table. People have shuffled and dealt out
>their crypts and hands. Before the first transfer, he turns to his
>predator and says "I'm a crappy player. But I understand I have to
>try and get VPs, and I know I can't if you do anything with me. So
>here's my proposal: don't do anything to me, and let me get a VP. If
>you do anything, I can't get a VP, because I'm so bad. And I
>understand that if I can't get a VP, I can do whatever I want to, and
>understand I will use my every device to curse your existence to my
>dying day, and throw everything that I can possibly muster back at
>you."
>
>Predator things player is joking, laughs, starts playing his game.
>Player makes good on his threat, and completely screws predator.
>
>I want to say Player isn't playing to win, but if he's really that
>bad, he's complying with the letter (although not the spirit) of play-
>to-win, isn't he? I think unsportsmanlike conduct, i.e., not showing
>up to play the game, but rather to disrupt it, is the most appropriate
>categorization.
I'd suggest reading the thread from:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/dc9fca
5e6800590d>
Basic upshot:
- threats are not deals
- legal deals are about the only way to make behaviour which isn't play-
to-win legal, because it was play-to-win when the deal was
struck, and the player is allowed to stick to the deal (but not
compelled to)
- that you have threatened to do something does not make it play-to-win
- your actions must be play-to-win, in the opinion of the judge if
necessary
- the judge will need to make a judgment call on any given player, and
so will not necessarily be able to take into account that this
player really is truly awful
So in general, once play passes below some level of abject idiocy, a
judge is going to rule against it, even if the player is actually the
most stupid person in the entire world. Pretty much.
Note also that accepting this line of thinking ("I'm so terrible that
I'll have to go mental if you do anything to me") is dangerous in that
it implicitly allows a player to do the same with a truly terrible deck:
- "I need all 30 pool and all the vampires I want, so if you bleed me,
I'll die and have to kill you."
- "I need these 4 vampires in my uncontrolled region, and if I don't get
all 4, I'm going to kill you."
and so on.
I can't find the post where LSJ points out that a player seriously
attempting to subvert/undermine/something a tournament by turning up
with the stupidest deck ever, purely so he can fuck with play-to-win
requirements, could be excluded. If anyone remembers the post I mean...
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Bram Vink
The play to win rule is maintained by the judge's.. here it comes:
Judgment.
As much as I'm a proponent of laissez faire judging, it's really up to
the judge what is considered play to win or not. If the player has an
argumentation you can find yourself agreeing with, then you can let
the game and his play proceed.
He cannot not-attempt to gain a VP, if he, by the judges judgement,
has a reasonable chance of attaining another.
If he really is such a bad player, then he obviously needs protection
from himself.
Cheers,
B
LSJ
> I can't find the post where LSJ points out that a player seriously
> attempting to subvert/undermine/something a tournament by turning up
> with the stupidest deck ever, purely so he can fuck with play-to-win
> requirements, could be excluded. If anyone remembers the post I mean...
I have some vague recollection of such a post, but cannot find it myself, either.
Anyway, such a player (one actively attempting to disrupt the tournament) would
be in violation of the sportsmanship rule, and would be subject to Game Loss. In
formats where switching decks between rounds is not allowed, it would be
reasonable to upgrade the penalty to Disqualification (rather than continue to
seat him and then GL him at the beginning of each round).
atomweaver
news:1176856422....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Aye.
I consider it actually healthy for a reputation, though. So long as the
opponent knows that there is no malice intented with the decision, its
good for other players to know that you, as a player, will extract the
highest in-game expense possible from the one who dares take your VP :-)
It's _my_ VP, right up until I give up that last pool, which you will
have to "...pry from my cold, dead hands"!! If my pred tries to take
that last pool from me, I will be certain to do what I can, such that my
VP comes with as terrible a price as I can arrange.
DZ
AW
Merlin
The Livonia, Michigan playgroup has a sportsmanship prize at their
tournaments. All players get one vote between the last round and the
final on a sealed ballot. It seems to be good.
-Merlin
crispyfloss
I haven't seen it, yet.
But I'm sure everyone's sat at a table where someone completely
overreacted to something trivial and then refused to play the game,
and let their prey break loose and go nuts on the table.
crispyfloss
> In message <1176860967.512534.82...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> writes:
> >I want to say Player isn't playing to win, but if he's really that
> >bad, he's complying with the letter (although not the spirit) of play-
> >to-win, isn't he? I think unsportsmanlike conduct, i.e., not showing
> >up to play the game, but rather to disrupt it, is the most appropriate
> >categorization.
>
> Basic upshot:
...
> - your actions must be play-to-win, in the opinion of the judge if
> necessary
>
> - the judge will need to make a judgment call on any given player, and
> so will not necessarily be able to take into account that this
> player really is truly awful
>
> So in general, once play passes below some level of abject idiocy, a
> judge is going to rule against it, even if the player is actually the
> most stupid person in the entire world. Pretty much.
>
> Note also that accepting this line of thinking ("I'm so terrible that
> I'll have to go mental if you do anything to me") is dangerous in that
> it implicitly allows a player to do the same with a truly terrible deck:
I would tend to think that a player attempting to play something below
a base level of competitiveness was also being unsportsmanlike - even
if they didn't overtly disrupt the table, they are effectively
colluding with their predator and prey by giving the one no pressure
and the other an easy VP. Again, there's a line.
All I was saying in my earlier post was that I think the situation
that Fabio talked about implicated play-to-win more than anything
else, as he said, but that there is certainly some base level of play
that could be so disruptive that it detracts from the game that I
wouldn't call a violation of play-to-win. It's not like the
hypothetical player was "playing" when he put together his truly
terrible deck...
LSJ
> I would tend to think that a player attempting to play something below
> a base level of competitiveness was also being unsportsmanlike - even
> if they didn't overtly disrupt the table, they are effectively
> colluding with their predator and prey by giving the one no pressure
> and the other an easy VP. Again, there's a line.
No. Collusion involves two or more people.
The predator and prey are not part of any a priori secret deal in this case.
Also...
Bringing a sub par deck is not a violation of the rules (assuming it is not the
player's intention to undermine the tournament).
Likewise, rare drafting in a draft tournament is not a violation, even though it
may lead to a reduction in the quality of the deck eventually played.
> All I was saying in my earlier post was that I think the situation
> that Fabio talked about implicated play-to-win more than anything
> else, as he said, but that there is certainly some base level of play
> that could be so disruptive that it detracts from the game that I
> wouldn't call a violation of play-to-win. It's not like the
> hypothetical player was "playing" when he put together his truly
> terrible deck...
Correct. The "play to win" rule doesn't govern deck construction (or card drafting).
crispyfloss
> crispyfloss wrote:
> > I would tend to think that a player attempting to play something below
> > a base level of competitiveness was also being unsportsmanlike - even
> > if they didn't overtly disrupt the table, they are effectively
> > colluding with their predator and prey by giving the one no pressure
> > and the other an easy VP. Again, there's a line.
>
> No. Collusion involves two or more people.
>
> The predator and prey are not part of any a priori secret deal in this case.
Semantics. You agree later on that it wouldn't be governed by play-to-
win.
> Also...
>
> Bringing a sub par deck is not a violation of the rules (assuming it is not the
> player's intention to undermine the tournament).
You could infer intent from a grossly unplayable deck. It's just a
very low base.
> Likewise, rare drafting in a draft tournament is not a violation, even though it
> may lead to a reduction in the quality of the deck eventually played.
In your opinion could you infer an intent to undermine a tournament by
a player rare drafting, then packing up and leaving without even
playing a single round (absent reasonable justification)? There's no
meaningful sanction against someone not playing, but from a normative
perspective if nothing else?
LSJ
> In your opinion could you infer an intent to undermine a tournament by
> a player rare drafting, then packing up and leaving without even
> playing a single round (absent reasonable justification)? There's no
> meaningful sanction against someone not playing, but from a normative
> perspective if nothing else?
Without playing a single round, the player forfeits his product.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec7.2.6
crispyfloss
Well I guess there is a meaningful sanction then. Smashing.
Ector
> On Apr 17, 5:33 pm, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio.soo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17 abr, 20:53, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If you have no reasonable chance at any more VPs because your predator
> > > has completely crippled your game without actually killing you, then I
> > > think it's perfectly fine (and human nature) to do something to spite
> > > your predator.
>
> > That's the fine line I'm trying to tread, indeed.
> > When any given play choice could be considered more than just revenge/
> > spite, and enter sportsmanship territory, especially in VTES?
> ...
> > But I can't see play choices evoking the sportsmanship rule.
>
> It is a fine line. The kind of thing that calls for judges that
> follow the spirit of the game rather than crude formalism to make
> decisions.
be very cautious to keep his imtervention minimal, but not to leave
such disrupting behaviour unnoticed.
> I could imagine a hypothetical situation.
>
> <...skipped...>
>
> I want to say Player isn't playing to win, but if he's really that
> bad, he's complying with the letter (although not the spirit) of play-
> to-win, isn't he? I think unsportsmanlike conduct, i.e., not showing
> up to play the game, but rather to disrupt it, is the most appropriate
> categorization.
Actually, there is too little information to make a final conclusion.
Players often threat their predators and hurt their predators. IMHO, a
judge should answer two questions first:
a). Can killing the predator be beneficial for the player? Sometimes
it can. Look at his grandpredator and try to decide which predator is
more dangerous to the player in question. If you're playing a Kindred
Spirits deck, and your predator is a Rush, it may be logical to help
your grandpredator in ousting such dangerous predator (rememember, he
gets pool for each Kindred Spirits, too).
b). Maybe, the player really cannot reasonably hope to get at least 1
VP? In most cases, if he can punish his predator, he could punish his
prey as well. If you have his decklist, you can roughly evaluate his
chances of getting VPs, without meddling in the game. If you don't
have decklists - it's your chance to think about their importance :)
But sometimes it's clear that he cannot get any VPs even without the
decklist. No rules violation in this case, right?
As long as you decide that both a) and b) are wrong, you can simply
ask the player: "Are you sure you're playing to win?" and listen to
his answer. You can also take the player from the table to make him
explain how he's going to get any VPs or why does he think that he
cannot get any VPs. You may easily parry stupid excuses like "I'm a
bad player" telling "you must at least try". As long as you've
determined that the player really didn't played to win, issue warning
and tell the player that you'll have to upgrade it to Game Loss the
next time.
In 99% cases that would be enough. Why do I know? Because I really had
such players :)
I must note that such behaviour is typical mostly for the newbies,
and, IMHO, a judge should avoid issuing DQ (or even GL) to a newbie,
if possible. The earlier you will notice such behaviour, the more
chances you will have to fix the problem without issuing huge
penalties and the less disruption will be caused. So ask your players
to report any cases of such suspicious behaviour to you...
Yours,
Ector
Xexyz
consider only the current game being played, or the overall
tournament? Suppose that you find yourself in the last game before
the final round and have enough VPs/points to give you the final seat
in the final round. The person closest to you in points is also at
your table, and as long as this person doesn't score higher than you
during this game you're assured a seat in the final round. If during
the course of the game you determine you can't get any VPs, is it then
acceptable to do whatever it takes to ensure this player doesn't
finish the game with more points than you, even if it means going
across the table to facilitate getting this player ousted before you?
LSJ
> One thing I've been musing on is this: Does the play-to-win rule
> consider only the current game being played, or the overall
> tournament?
Just the current game.
> Suppose that you find yourself in the last game before
> the final round and have enough VPs/points to give you the final seat
> in the final round. The person closest to you in points is also at
> your table, and as long as this person doesn't score higher than you
> during this game you're assured a seat in the final round. If during
> the course of the game you determine you can't get any VPs, is it then
> acceptable to do whatever it takes to ensure this player doesn't
> finish the game with more points than you, even if it means going
> across the table to facilitate getting this player ousted before you?
The set-up of the final round etc. is meaningless, but with that out of the way,
yes, you are allowed to get your 0 VPs in whatever manner you like (assuming the
judge agrees with your analysis that "you can't get any VPs").
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> Xexyz wrote:
> > Suppose that you find yourself in the last game before
> > the final round and have enough VPs/points to give you the final seat
> > in the final round. The person closest to you in points is also at
> > your table, and as long as this person doesn't score higher than you
> > during this game you're assured a seat in the final round. If during
> > the course of the game you determine you can't get any VPs, is it then
> > acceptable to do whatever it takes to ensure this player doesn't
> > finish the game with more points than you, even if it means going
> > across the table to facilitate getting this player ousted before you?
>
> The set-up of the final round etc. is meaningless, but with that out of the way,
> yes, you are allowed to get your 0 VPs in whatever manner you like (assuming the
> judge agrees with your analysis that "you can't get any VPs").
Wait. So one *can* try to oust the competitor for a seat at the finals
if you have no chance to get more VPs at this table? Shouldn't you
take into consideration only the table state and what happened *at
that table*?
Sure, it's probably very hard for the judge to guess player's intent,
but still.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
LSJ
Sure -- meaning you can take out whomever you like (at the table) -- you can get
your zero VPs in whatever manner you choose.
You may wall up (and hurt your predator), go all-forward (and hurt your prey) or
whatever else you want to do to get your 0 VPs.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> Sure -- meaning you can take out whomever you like (at the table) -- you can get
> your zero VPs in whatever manner you choose.
> You may wall up (and hurt your predator), go all-forward (and hurt your prey) or
> whatever else you want to do to get your 0 VPs.
tournament results.
While we're at it, what do you think about the original situation as
presented? (That is, play decisions are in no way or form governed by
sportsmanship, or is it?)
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
LSJ
> On Apr 19, 4:09 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Sure -- meaning you can take out whomever you like (at the table) -- you can get
>> your zero VPs in whatever manner you choose.
>> You may wall up (and hurt your predator), go all-forward (and hurt your prey) or
>> whatever else you want to do to get your 0 VPs.
> So I guess this kinda overrules the idea that you can't play based on
> tournament results.
It. Doesn't.
The. Play. Is. Legal. Without. Regard. To. Tournament. Results.
So. It. Remains. Legal. No. Matter. What. The. Tournament. Results.
> While we're at it, what do you think about the original situation as
> presented? (That is, play decisions are in no way or form governed by
> sportsmanship, or is it?)
Play decisions are governed by sportsmanship, as has been covered extensively
many times.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 4:09 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Sure -- meaning you can take out whomever you like (at the table) -- you can get
> >> your zero VPs in whatever manner you choose.
> >> You may wall up (and hurt your predator), go all-forward (and hurt your prey) or
> >> whatever else you want to do to get your 0 VPs.
> > So I guess this kinda overrules the idea that you can't play based on
> > tournament results.
>
> It. Doesn't.
> The. Play. Is. Legal. Without. Regard. To. Tournament. Results.
> So. It. Remains. Legal. No. Matter. What. The. Tournament. Results.
Wow. Thanks for all the condescension.
That was really, really unnecessary. Especially considering that it's
directed at someone who never caused any big trouble or hurdle around
here with rules questions or any demands for this or that errata,
design choice X or whatever.
> > While we're at it, what do you think about the original situation as
> > presented? (That is, play decisions are in no way or form governed by
> > sportsmanship, or is it?)
>
> Play decisions are governed by sportsmanship, as has been covered extensively
> many times.
Again, sorry, mister, if I've missed it. The answers in this thread
went both ways, though.
I'll try to keep in mind anyone can just wake up in a bad day,
including you.
Fabio Macedo
- really, really pissed off.