Game win vs. Tornament win
Blargleman
more of an overall question:
Is it the 'object of the game' (in a tornament) to win a game (thus
maximising VP's) or to win the tornament (with a larger/longer view to
the current game)? These appear similar, but have potential to
contradict.
For example: I chose to transfer all my remaining (say, 3) pool and
thus oust myself. I do this because I can see several things:
One. I can see that I cannot (or that it is extremely unlikely that
I will) gain any VP's from where I am currently situated (as far as
who my prey is (that is, their situation), what my pack 'technique'
is, how my minions are, etc.)
Two. One person at the table is in a very good position to get lots
of VP's (perhaps to clean up the table), and they are not my predator
(perhaps they are my grand-predator).
Three. It seems likely that they will be able to oust my predator
during their next turn, (and perhaps me as well).
Four. That person is in a position to deny me a place at the final
table if they gain the pile of VP's that it appears is likely they are
going to gain.
Thus, without discussing the choice with any other person (thus
avoiding any suggestion of collusion) I choose to oust myself, and
thus deny that person my VP, and perhaps even weaken their position
(by giving my predator 6 blood). By doing this, I definately gain no
(or nor more, if I had already gained some) VP's from this game, but
from a tornament perspective, it maximises my chance of winning the
tornament.
Thus the question: Is it the 'object of the game' (in a tornament) to
win a game (thus maximising VP's) or to win the tornament (with a
larger/longer view than the current game)?
Cheers!
The Lasombra
(Blargleman) wrote:
>This sort of follows with the current thread (A, B & C vamps) but is
>more of an overall question:
>Is it the 'object of the game' (in a tornament) to win a game (thus
>maximising VP's)
You may not play for any out of game considerations.
You must play to win the current game.
>or to win the tornament (with a larger/longer view to
>the current game)? These appear similar, but have potential to
>contradict.
As above.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Timlagor
The aim is definitely the current game.
However, as I understand it, so long as you are within the play-to-win rules
for the current game, you may play how you like. Specifically, if you have
no realistic prospect of gaining any further VP, I believe it is currently
legal to oust yourself. It may even be advantageous to your rating for that
game so to do.
It seems that if you already have 3VP (GW) it's also legal to
concede/selfoust for whatever reason.
Legendre
decreed that such maneuvering is illegal. You have to play each game
as its own game, with a blind eye towards all out-of-game concerns.
-Michael
Robert Goudie
"Legendre" <mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:fb4469c.03062...@posting.google.com...
> For reasons that continue to boggle my mind, the powers that be have
> decreed that such maneuvering is illegal. You have to play each game
> as its own game, with a blind eye towards all out-of-game concerns.
Hi Michael,
No need to be boggled. :)
Individual games aren't fun if players aren't playing toward the same goal.
If your cross-table "ally" is trying to knock you out because your rating is
high and your predator is trying to transfer out on purpose so he can help get
his predator into the finals because he knows he can beat his predator's deck,
and your grand prey has flown into town to make sure you don't qualify for the
national championships.... Basically the one "normal" player at the table who
just wanted to play a fun game of V:TES is leaving disgusted because the rest
of you are playing different games.
>with a blind eye towards all out-of-game concerns.
That's not altogether correct. When the out-of-game concern conflicts with
the goal of the current game, you may not pursue the out-of-game concern. No
one said you can't try to win the tournament or qualify for the continental
championships--you just can't act in such a way that bastardizes the
individual game.
-Robert
Blargleman
Yeah, mind boggling. The whole idea of multiple rounds in pretty much
EVERY tornament on the planet (I mean, sports, games, everything) is
twofold:
Firstly, there is the test of outright skill. In almost every case,
there is also a degree of luck (which by definition of the word 'luck'
means that there isn't anything you can do about that). The multiple
rounds involved helps even this out, somewhat.
Then there is the strategy (which you could argue is another type of
the test of skill.. just a different skill). Perhaps in a given round
round of bicycle race you 'flog your guts out' (perhaps that is an
excessively Aussie phrase, but hopefully you get it) and go for the
win. Then you have an easy round to recover. Using this technique you
are hoping to work within the scoring structure to improve your
chances.
Same sort of thing here, as I described in some detail, further
up-thread.
Which brings me to a similar point to the previous one. Apparently it
is legal for me to transfer all but one blood and then tap my vampires
out (say, hunting, even if they don't need to hunt), then discard my
only wake up, and say, 'Your turn'. How is this significantly
different? How is this any more 'Sportsman-like'?
Blargleman
PS. For fun and kicks I created my own complete expansion and am
currently play testing the 'Redeemers'. Perhaps I should put up some
of these and give you all a look-see. :) White-Wolf might even get
some fun ideas for later expansions.
DeistMutts
can't get any VPs, and only have enough blood just to transfer out on
your turn, I believe in my moral/sportsmanship decision to transfer
out in these circumstances:
1) Your predator is NOT letting you die, just because he is using the
excuse to have you as a wall and build up more (no idea why, but
idiots do that sometimes)
2) Your prey went backwards the whole game, stopping you from doing
anything, transfer out to teach your prey a lession next time don't
EVER do that again in whole game
3) Your grand-predator was never your ally to begin with, and kept
screwing your game up by not voting in your favor and not helping you
ease the pressure off your predator, transfer out to give your
predator 6 more pool for your grand-predator to deal with, and know
that by NOT GOING FORWARD, he's gonna suffer the consequences
4) The whole game everyone gangs up on your failed anarch revolt deck,
and you have nothing else to do, might as well transfer out
5) You got 1 VP, and your predator worked hard to try to oust you for
1 VP, and your ally is about to oust your predator to gain his second
VP, so you want a chance to give your predator 1VP and hopefully
everyone gets out with just 1VP and boost your chance to the finals
Either way, transfer out if it helps you to gain edge on the next
round. If not, teach someone who's not playing a decent game in your
mind a lession so they'll never forget next time around. I find this
very helpful in terms of making players play better instead of a
one-track mind as if they're playing Magic... In tournaments, you
can't really define what's best for you, since everything's up in the
air. However, you can transfer out to teach others play decently and
respect you as a player next time.. this always makes the game more
interesting and more fun, and more professional.. but whatever you do,
don't transfer out to piss off someone you don't like, or that you
don't care, or.. just because.. cuz that's just very
unsportsmanship-like, and very dirty.
glen_r...@optusnet.com.au (Blargleman) wrote in message news:<ea33cebc.03062...@posting.google.com>...
salem
(Blargleman) scrawled:
>mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.03062...@posting.google.com>...
>> For reasons that continue to boggle my mind, the powers that be have
>> decreed that such maneuvering is illegal. You have to play each game
>> as its own game, with a blind eye towards all out-of-game concerns.
>>
>> -Michael
[snip]
>Then there is the strategy (which you could argue is another type of
>the test of skill.. just a different skill). Perhaps in a given round
>round of bicycle race you 'flog your guts out' (perhaps that is an
>excessively Aussie phrase, but hopefully you get it) and go for the
>win. Then you have an easy round to recover. Using this technique you
>are hoping to work within the scoring structure to improve your
>chances.
>
>Same sort of thing here, as I described in some detail, further
>up-thread.
ok, but it has been decided by those that write the rules that, for
vtes, tournaments should only test your ability to play individual
games of vtes. it is not to test your overall tournament strategic
ability.
i happen to agree with the tournament rules designers' view on this.
>Which brings me to a similar point to the previous one. Apparently it
>is legal for me to transfer all but one blood and then tap my vampires
>out (say, hunting, even if they don't need to hunt), then discard my
>only wake up, and say, 'Your turn'. How is this significantly
>different? How is this any more 'Sportsman-like'?
more sportsmanlike than what, exactly?
it is only legal to do the above if it helps you to get a game win.
if, regardless of what you did, you reasonably can't expect a game
win, you could do the above if you thought it would maximise your vps.
if you were reasonably sure you couldnt get any more vps at all, then
you can do whatever the hell you want. you could just transfer all
your pool away and be done with it, rather than just setting yourself
up for being ousted. you'd get to pack up a smidge earlier and maybe
grab some extra snacking time between rounds. :)
note: not only to you have to be fairly certain of your own expected
GW/VP gaining ability, you have to be able to convince the judge if
needed.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
James Coupe
<TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Is it the 'object of the game' (in a tornament) to win a game (thus
>>maximising VP's)
>
>You may not play for any out of game considerations.
>You must play to win the current game.
True for the earlier rounds.
During a final, players may make deals which split tournament relevant
prizes e.g. if the organiser has said the winner will get a a box of
boosters, two players may make a deal to split the boosters. However,
they could not organise such a split based on 'unofficial' prizes e.g. a
player has been running a book on who's going to win.
The Judges Guide [161] makes it clear that this is acceptable, similarly
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DFF1F14.7855221C%40white-wolf.com
and the accompanying thread.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
Curevei
That I often preach this may sabotage any attempts to disagree with you about
playing to win tournaments v. winning games. Wait, when were tournaments ever
fun? I might have found my loophole.
>If your cross-table "ally" is trying to knock you out because your rating is
>high and your predator is trying to transfer out on purpose so he can help
>get
>his predator into the finals because he knows he can beat his predator's
>deck,
>and your grand prey has flown into town to make sure you don't qualify for
>the
>national championships.... Basically the one "normal" player at the table
>who
>just wanted to play a fun game of V:TES is leaving disgusted because the rest
>of you are playing different games.
If someone is playing in a tournament, I expect the person to be trying to win
it (even if it doesn't always happen). So, in theory (if not in practice),
everyone should expect people to play in the way that most benefits the chances
of winning a tournament and accept that that will produce game distortions.
Okay, so playing to win tournaments may screw up games, but playing to win
games may screw up tournaments. Really, if people care that much about
individual games they shouldn't be playing tournaments or should campaign for
single round/single elimination tournaments. There's something severely wrong
with penalizing people for playing smart.
My tournament win percentage is significantly higher than my game win
percentage (one of *my* reasons I argue against the current ranking system).
Amazingly enough, I prefer that to the reverse (something to do with how prizes
tend to be alloted).
Robert Goudie
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message
news:20030625160712...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> >Individual games aren't fun if players aren't playing toward the same goal.
>
> That I often preach this may sabotage any attempts to disagree with you
about
> playing to win tournaments v. winning games.
Just pick a different point to disagree with. :)
> Wait, when were tournaments ever
> fun? I might have found my loophole.
Even players who play hyper-competitive V:TES are doing so to satisfy their
own, possibly twisted, sense of fun.
> >If your cross-table "ally" is trying to knock you out because your rating
is
> >high and your predator is trying to transfer out on purpose so he can help
> >get
> >his predator into the finals because he knows he can beat his predator's
> >deck,
> >and your grand prey has flown into town to make sure you don't qualify for
> >the
> >national championships.... Basically the one "normal" player at the table
> >who
> >just wanted to play a fun game of V:TES is leaving disgusted because the
rest
> >of you are playing different games.
>
> If someone is playing in a tournament, I expect the person to be trying to
win
> it (even if it doesn't always happen). So, in theory (if not in practice),
> everyone should expect people to play in the way that most benefits the
chances
> of winning a tournament and accept that that will produce game distortions.
It all comes down to how much "game distortion" you are willing to accept.
How closely does each distorted game of V:TES resemble the V:TES that you
prefer? How closely does the game of "V:TES Tournaments" resemble the "V:TES"
you prefer?
Also, I think you are only addressing perversions of the individual V:TES game
that occur when people play to win the tournament at the cost of the current
game. What about people playing for ratings or for helping their chances at a
Continental Championship? Those motivations can hurt the individual game and
the individual tournament.
That said, I have less of a problem with playing to win the tournament vs.
playing to win the individual game than I used to. Since changing to the Game
Win system, the goals of the individual game and the goal of winning the
tournament are much more closely related. In the past, the goal of "win the
tournament" nearly ruined the individual game because it was in everyone's
best interest to split VPs at every table.
It is worth noting as well that the "play to win" rule doesn't just apply to
people playing toward the meta goals of tournament wins, ratings, qualifying
positioning, etc. It also applies to the people who are playing toward goals
that are less than trying to win the current game. For example, playing to
"roleplay" at the expense of the current game. This produces game and
tournament distortions.
> Okay, so playing to win tournaments may screw up games, but playing to win
> games may screw up tournaments. Really, if people care that much about
> individual games they shouldn't be playing tournaments or should campaign
for
> single round/single elimination tournaments. There's something severely
wrong
> with penalizing people for playing smart.
But that has to be balanced with the quality of the individual games. You are
happy playing toward the "win the tournament" goal because you don't dislike
the individual games played under that system. Some people find there to be
too much game distortion at this level.
The best way to deal with these distortions is to create tournament rules that
minimize or eliminate the distortion of the individual game. We've made great
strides toward that goal. There's always room for improvement, though.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
Emmit Svenson
> If you
> can't get any VPs, and only have enough blood just to transfer out on
> your turn, I believe in my moral/sportsmanship decision to transfer
> out in these circumstances:
YMMV, but after looking at your list of circumstances, I can think of
instances when someone, sometimes myself, has taken one or more
victory points after being in just the circumstances you describe.
Things are seldom hopeless when there are more than two players in the
game. There are too many variables. One well-timed play can completely
change table balance--Life Boons, seat switchers, votes that damage
pool based on minion count...my favorite example of one play that
changed everything was a Justicar Retribution that killed three Inner
Circle members, shutting down a deck that looked unstoppable. If you
have the tenacity to stick out a tough situation, you just might come
out on top. Those are the most memorable games, the ones people are
likely to remember and laugh about.
We also have to recognize that no one likes a quitter. The person who
benefits from your quitting isn't going to respect you any more for
taking yourself out, and the other people at the table are likely to
be upset. Unless you're in a three player game, people other than the
one you're trying to educate are also hurt by your quitting. What
you're really doing is teaching the other people in the game that they
can't rely on you when the going gets tough. Is the the bittersweet
satisfaction of quitting to spite someone for playing a way you don't
appreciate really worth the strained tempers? After all, is there any
style of play that everyone in the Jyhad world would approve of?
The only time I would consider quitting, or advise someone else to do
so, is in casual play when there are other players about to start a
second game. No one wants to sit around waiting for a game to open up.
But that's not really a strategic decision; it's a out-of-game
courtesy.
Don't go gentle into that good night, people. Even the slightest
chance of a victory point is worth biting and scratching for. See that
chance, and fight to make it happen.
Legendre
> chance of a victory point is worth biting and scratching for. See that
> chance, and fight to make it happen.
I typically would agree with this: always play to win. But sometimes
your position gets so bad that all you can do is wring assistance from
reluctant hands by threatening to kill yourself.
I still remember the shock that set it the first time I did that. I
was getting mauled up and down by a bruise-bleed deck. My Telepathic
Counter/Majesty deck was getting Euro-Brujahed into dust. After a
particularly weak turn, I looked to my prey and grandprey and said "If
you all don't do something to get this guy off my back right NOW, I'm
going to kill myself." I let them know that I wasn't doing it to be a
bad sport, but because it was all I had left.
They ignored me, laughed at me even. I transferred out.
They didn't laugh when my predator swept the table two turns later.
The next time I threatened to do that, people listened. Every now and
then your back gets up against the wall and the only value you have to
anyone is that you're still around soaking up your predator's bleeds.
It's a last-ditch defense, but from time to time you have to follow
through on your threats otherwise it never works.
So killing yourself isn't always just "quitting," sometimes it's
perfectly rational game theory for using your last remaining asset:
yourself.
-Legendre
LSJ
> I typically would agree with this: always play to win. But sometimes
> your position gets so bad that all you can do is wring assistance from
> reluctant hands by threatening to kill yourself.
>
> I still remember the shock that set it the first time I did that. I
> was getting mauled up and down by a bruise-bleed deck. My Telepathic
> Counter/Majesty deck was getting Euro-Brujahed into dust. After a
> particularly weak turn, I looked to my prey and grandprey and said "If
> you all don't do something to get this guy off my back right NOW, I'm
> going to kill myself." I let them know that I wasn't doing it to be a
> bad sport, but because it was all I had left.
>
> They ignored me, laughed at me even. I transferred out.
>
> They didn't laugh when my predator swept the table two turns later.
>
> The next time I threatened to do that, people listened. Every now and
> then your back gets up against the wall and the only value you have to
> anyone is that you're still around soaking up your predator's bleeds.
> It's a last-ditch defense, but from time to time you have to follow
> through on your threats otherwise it never works.
>
> So killing yourself isn't always just "quitting," sometimes it's
> perfectly rational game theory for using your last remaining asset:
> yourself.
Just because establishing a reputation as a player willing to engage
in unsportsmanlike behavior produces out-of-game (e.g., "next game")
effects that are desirable doesn't make the behavior sportsmanlike.
If you throw a game now to establish yourself as a player who is capable
of following through with a threat to oust oneself, that doesn't make
throwing the game legal.
If the self-ousting was legitimate, it doesn't matter whether the threat
was made or what effect the self-oust had on future games. The self-ousting
has to be legitimate in the current game in and of itself (i.e., is only
legal when you have no chance of getting more VPs or when it ousting
yourself still leads to a game win).
If it doesn't qualify, it's unsportsmanlike, and illegal. In that case,
it will still be so even if you declare that you aren't doing it to be
a bad sport.
I'm not saying that what you did was unsportsmanlike. I wasn't there.
The justification you provide seems flawed, that's all. If you were
really "up against the wall" to the point where you couldn't get
any more VPs, then self-ousting (even with no previous threat to do
so) is a valid choice among all the choices that lead to you collecting
your 0 VPs.
--
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/
Legendre
makes me shake my head at the whole "mandate to play your game a
certain way" thing. I'm going to try to explain what I said in a more
lucid manner.
First, let's just get one fact straight:
THERE IS NO WAY EVER EVER EVER EVER TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU STILL
HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING.
Ever.
You can have a really good idea, but you can never know. Somewhere in
between 99.999999% certainty that you will get 0 VPs, and, say, a
vague suspicion that this game may not turn out to well for you, lies
your average everyday Jyhad game.
It's a question of judgment. That's why we have (gasp) judges! But
the judge - unless he looks at everyone's hand and maybe their library
- doesn't know any more than the player. He or she is simply
disinterested. What's more, the judge should be making the decision
on whether a self-ousting is "legal" based on the particular player's
knowledge.
Putting aside for a moment facile ruminations about how if something
is illegal, then it's illegal, but if it's legal, it's not illegal
(Which remind me of something I once said about "card text"), let's
concentrate for a moment on the act of Jyhad seppuku, and why it might
be a good idea to blackmail people with your own death.
No one can force you to sit in place with zero minions and die like a
slug. They can feed you pool with life boons, the succubus club (I
did that once - an outright gift of four pool!), or whatever other
ingenious methods they have. But they cannot force you to live.
Let's say that you have zero minions, and are dying like a slug. What
do you do? You can't do much - you're dying like a slug. The only
actual positive thing you can *do* is to kill yourself. Otherwise you
sit there. And die like a slug.
But why oh why shouldn't you be able to use the one thing you can DO
for a little leverage? You don't know that you're going to die for
certain. As I mentioned earlier, you can't know that. Maybe the
whole table will come rushing to your aid. Maybe they'll rescue your
vampires from torpor, and beat up on your predator. Maybe they'll
give you more pool than mere subsistence.
But why would they do these things? What can you give them? Well,
the only thing you can do is kill yourself, or refrain from kill
yourself. So you announce it. "Unless you all get this guy off my
back and rescue my minions, I'm killing myself."
So here's what LSJ said:
"The justification you provide seems flawed, that's all. If you were
really "up against the wall" to the point where you couldn't get
any more VPs, then self-ousting (even with no previous threat to do
so) is a valid choice among all the choices that lead to you
collecting
your 0 VPs."
But I'm not talking about the situation where you */couldn't/* get any
more VPs. That situation doesn't exist. It's a question of judgment.
LSJ and the rest seem to live in this binary world where either you
have a chance or you don't. That's all very nice for computer
modeling, but it doesn't do much with respect to the real world.
What I'm talking about the situation where you don't think you can get
more VPs unless help comes your way, a situation where help will only
come your way if everyone thinks that you are seriously going to kill
yourself if it doesn't, thus screwing up everyone's carefully crafted
game timetables.
My point is that suicide-blackmail is a perfectly legitimate tactic,
even in a tournament setting. It's legitimate because you're playing
to maximize your VPs.
It seems like a contradiction -- you are threatening to kill yourself,
something supposedly not allowed unless you are absolutely destined to
lose. But you are doing so as part of your plan to get more VPs....
but if there's a plan to get more VPs, then you can't kill yourself.
But if you can't kill yourself, then there is NO WAY that your threats
are credible. Suicide would be illegal. But if you can't threaten
your neighbors into helping you out, then there's no chance to get
VPs. So there's no chance to get VPs, so you can kill yourself. But
if you're actually allowed to kill yourself, then you might be able to
blackmail some VPs out of this yet - your threats are credible. But
if there's a plan to get more VPs, then you can't kill yourself.
You see where this is going.
But to do the Jyhad Seppuku thing, to be able to maximize your VPS,
you need to be able to kill yourself. And the rules, as demonstrated
above, simply aren't up to coping with this situation.
-Legendre
Snapcase
mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu says...
> But I'm not talking about the situation where you */couldn't/* get any
> more VPs. That situation doesn't exist.
Sure it does. You were in it in the example a few posts above. Your
minions were hosed, and you were basically a meat shield for your prey.
You made a last ditch effort and tried to solicit aid by threatening to
self-oust. The table declined your offer. Thus you */were/* in a
situation where no more VPs were attainable.
> It seems like a contradiction -- you are threatening to kill yourself,
> something supposedly not allowed unless you are absolutely destined to
> lose. But you are doing so as part of your plan to get more VPs....
> but if there's a plan to get more VPs, then you can't kill yourself.
Sure you can. If the plan fails (like yours did), you no longer have
any way of attaining any VPs (since by your own admission, help from
others was the only way you were going to get VPs). Therefore the most
VPs you could get was 0. You are then allowed to die in any manner you
see fit. Spite would seem to be allowed under that umbrella.
--
-Snapcase
Wes
"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote
>
> Sure you can. If the plan fails (like yours did), you no longer have
> any way of attaining any VPs (since by your own admission, help from
> others was the only way you were going to get VPs). Therefore the
most
> VPs you could get was 0.
If a game times out though, you get 0.5 VPs for surviving to that point.
Since 0.5 is greather than 0 VPs, then it seems there is at least *one*
way for that player to get more VPs than by committing "seppuku", ie
pray for a time out.
(Which is not to say that they should be stalling :)
Cheers,
WES
Timlagor
Assume no time limit/sufficient time. If you have an hour to go, there is no
way your predator can legally leave you in the game to time out. Obviously
if you have 2 minutes it might be worth a try -hell you could spend that
time trying to persuade someone to bring one of your vampires out of torpor!
Remember it's "no *reasonable* chance" and LSJ has refused to provide even a
vague guideline figure for reasonable though someone suggested 5%-10%;
around 5% sounds about right to me. (obviously you can never put a precise
figure on it in a game but you can tell approximately). Don't forget that
your predator must play to win as well and very rarely does that involve
keeping their prey in the game more than a turn or two to set up (only vote
decks?).
LSJ
> See, this is the sort of metacognitive dogmatic formalist crap that
> makes me shake my head at the whole "mandate to play your game a
> certain way" thing. I'm going to try to explain what I said in a more
> lucid manner.
>
> First, let's just get one fact straight:
>
> THERE IS NO WAY EVER EVER EVER EVER TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU STILL
> HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING.
>
> Ever.
>
> You can have a really good idea, but you can never know. Somewhere in
> between 99.999999% certainty that you will get 0 VPs, and, say, a
> vague suspicion that this game may not turn out to well for you, lies
> your average everyday Jyhad game.
>
> It's a question of judgment. That's why we have (gasp) judges! But
> more VPs. That situation doesn't exist. It's a question of judgment.
> LSJ and the rest seem to live in this binary world where either you
> have a chance or you don't. That's all very nice for computer
> modeling, but it doesn't do much with respect to the real world.
I have repeatedly said that the numbers cannot be known, and that
"reasonable" is always part of the judgment.
Legendre
> Legendre wrote:
(snip)
> >
> > It's a question of judgment. That's why we have (gasp) judges! But
> > But I'm not talking about the situation where you */couldn't/* get any
> > more VPs. That situation doesn't exist. It's a question of judgment.
> > LSJ and the rest seem to live in this binary world where either you
> > have a chance or you don't. That's all very nice for computer
> > modeling, but it doesn't do much with respect to the real world.
>
> I have repeatedly said that the numbers cannot be known, and that
> "reasonable" is always part of the judgment.
OK, fair enough. Although it may "seem" that way from your posts on
this thread, I will take your word for it that you don't believe there
objectively is a point at which you couldn't get any more VPs.
Please consider the following sentences revoked from my post:
"LSJ and the rest seem to live in this binary world where either you
have a chance or you don't. That's all very nice for computer
modeling, but it doesn't do much with respect to the real world."
As for the rest of my argument, it doesn't actually matter if the
standard is objective or reasonable-subjective. The rules are
ill-equipped for the idea of using your own survival as weight in a
bargain -- something which, because of the structure of the game, is a
very very real characteristic.
Snapcase raised a good point though: "Sure you can. If the plan
fails (like yours did), you no longer have any way of attaining any
VPs (since by your own admission, help from others was the only way
you were going to get VPs). Therefore the most VPs you could get was
0. You are then allowed to die in any manner you see fit. Spite
would seem to be allowed under that umbrella."
Sure, but that more or less falls back on LSJ's earlier response that
if killing yourself is allowed under the rules in a particular
situation, then it's allowed under the rules. Tautology at its best.
The thing I'm concerned with though is the credibility/legality of the
threat itself.
Obviously you couldn't threaten in-game to physically shoot someone.
Not only is that illegal at law, but it is also against the tournament
rules. For my purposes, the only thing that matters is that it's
against the tournament rules. (Probably 5.2)
Likewise, you couldn't threaten to show your cards to someone else at
the table. It's also almost certainly against Rule 5.2.
So can you threaten to kill yourself if there's still a chance of
victory? I would posit that under the rules as currently written, it
is /illegal/ to threaten to kill yourself if you believe that, by so
threatening, you have a chance at grabbing more VPs. THere's still a
chance, and you know it. Therefore ousting yourself is an illegal
act, therefore /threatening/ to oust yourself is an illegal act, as
threatening to do anything that's not allowed under the rules would
almost certainly fall under Rule 5.2.
Now this could be resolved simply by fiat. Someone, LSJ or the judge
at a tournament, could simply state that there is an exception for
Jyhad Seppuku Threats. But that just takes us into the never-ending
realm of epicycles.
I know I'm going on and on about this, but I think this is
/important/, because it shows why rules that second guess what you're
doing are silly. And I guarantee you that there is at *least* one
player (that I can think of) in Los Angeles who would complain
(loudly) to the Judge(s) if her or his predator threatened him or her
with self-ousting.
And s/he would have a point. A very technical and obscure point, as I
hope I've demonstrated here and in the posts above, but a point
nonetheless.
-Legendre
Emmit Svenson
> your position gets so bad that all you can do is wring assistance from
> reluctant hands by threatening to kill yourself.
Ever see "Blazing Saddles?"
"I'll kill him! I swear I will! I think he means it!"
Timlagor
> fails (like yours did), you no longer have any way of attaining any
> VPs (since by your own admission, help from others was the only way
> you were going to get VPs). Therefore the most VPs you could get was
> 0. You are then allowed to die in any manner you see fit. Spite
> would seem to be allowed under that umbrella."
That was my point but he'd already made it ;-/
(probably did it better too)
> The thing I'm concerned with though is the credibility/legality of the
> threat itself.
> Likewise, you couldn't threaten to show your cards to someone else at
> the table. It's also almost certainly against Rule 5.2.
I believe there is an explicit rule against showing your cards.
> So can you threaten to kill yourself if there's still a chance of
> victory? I would posit that under the rules as currently written, it
> is /illegal/ to threaten to kill yourself if you believe that, by so
> threatening, you have a chance at grabbing more VPs. THere's still a
> chance, and you know it. Therefore ousting yourself is an illegal
> act, therefore /threatening/ to oust yourself is an illegal act, as
> threatening to do anything that's not allowed under the rules would
> almost certainly fall under Rule 5.2.
You can make a deal and break it. Therefore you can legally threaten
anything you like -however you cannot actually carry through if there is
still (the threat having presumably failed) a reasonable chance of more
VPs.
I don't see how this is a problem. We have however already established
(LSJ in a previous thread on deals) that you cannot keep a threat that
would be against the 'to win' rule *even as part of a deal*.
I don't think (idle/illegal to deliver) threats are unsporting but I can
see why others might disaggree.
I wanted to put a penalty clause into my deal: "I agree to do X and in
return you will do Y or you willbreak this deal and I will do Z" where Z
is to throw the game/self-oust/ devote myself to wiping you out at any
cost. Of course you can still damage someone consierably while claiming
you are trying to win so long as you don't suicide in the process -after
all you are trying to make sure that the rest of the table won't
doublecross you in a later deal ;-)
> Now this could be resolved simply by fiat. Someone, LSJ or the judge
> at a tournament, could simply state that there is an exception for
> Jyhad Seppuku Threats. But that just takes us into the never-ending
> realm of epicycles.
Not needed as threats are perfectly legal (to make though not
necessarily to keep). Naturally your opponents can demand a ruling on
whether it owuld be legal to carry out the threat if they think it
isn't.
Of course making a threat you can't deliver on would be silly (usually).
Snapcase
says...
> If a game times out though, you get 0.5 VPs for surviving to that point.
> Since 0.5 is greather than 0 VPs, then it seems there is at least *one*
> way for that player to get more VPs than by committing "seppuku", ie
> pray for a time out.
>
> (Which is not to say that they should be stalling :)
Well, yeah. If it's going to time out without people rushing their
turns it's one thing. Stalling's about as lame as you can get though.
--
-Snapcase
Snapcase
> The thing I'm concerned with though is the credibility/legality of the
> threat itself.
There's no rule allowing or prohibiting in-game threats. My guess is
they'd be treated the same as deals (in which case you are allowed to
propose pretty much anything you want). You still have to /play/ by the
actual rules though.
> Likewise, you couldn't threaten to show your cards to someone else at
> the table. It's also almost certainly against Rule 5.2.
Actually, I don't see why not. You can bluster on about it all you
want. You'd probably get cheerfully ignored, too. Actually SHOWING the
card is illegal, even if people call your bluff. Transferring yourself
out in the situation you gave in above posts was not illegal, since
there was no reasonable way for you to obtain any more VPs and/or a game
win.
--
-Snapcase
LSJ
> OK, fair enough. Although it may "seem" that way from your posts on
> this thread, I will take your word for it that you don't believe there
> objectively is a point at which you couldn't get any more VPs.
Of course, even transferring out will not objectively get you to a point
at which you couldn't get any more VPs. Someone could always Life Boon
you.
> As for the rest of my argument, it doesn't actually matter if the
> standard is objective or reasonable-subjective. The rules are
> ill-equipped for the idea of using your own survival as weight in a
> bargain -- something which, because of the structure of the game, is a
> very very real characteristic.
Using the threat of throwing the game is not a very [...] real
characteristic, since it is illegal.
Using the threat of acquiring your 0 VPs (when 0 is the most you
could reasonably get your your current position) in this way or
that way (whether it involves you surviving for eight more turns
or taking an early out) is allowed, though.
> The thing I'm concerned with though is the credibility/legality of the
> threat itself.
The threat is completely unregulated. You can make any threat (of in game
action) you like.
You can only follow through on such threats when the activity involved in
"following through" is legal.
> Obviously you couldn't threaten in-game to physically shoot someone.
> Not only is that illegal at law, but it is also against the tournament
> rules. For my purposes, the only thing that matters is that it's
> against the tournament rules. (Probably 5.2)
Correct.
> Likewise, you couldn't threaten to show your cards to someone else at
> the table. It's also almost certainly against Rule 5.2.
You can threaten to show you cards. Actually showing your cards is
illegal.
> So can you threaten to kill yourself if there's still a chance of
> victory?
Sure. You can threaten it on your first turn. You just can't do it
until you're in a position where you cannot gain any more VPs (or
when you still win the game even by ousting yourself).
> I would posit that under the rules as currently written, it
> is /illegal/ to threaten to kill yourself if you believe that, by so
> threatening, you have a chance at grabbing more VPs. THere's still a
> chance, and you know it. Therefore ousting yourself is an illegal
> act, therefore /threatening/ to oust yourself is an illegal act, as
> threatening to do anything that's not allowed under the rules would
> almost certainly fall under Rule 5.2.
Not as a general rule.
You could threaten to rush someone's vampire even if you have no
rush actions available (which would make it illegal to actually
rush someone), for instance.
> Now this could be resolved simply by fiat. Someone, LSJ or the judge
> at a tournament, could simply state that there is an exception for
> Jyhad Seppuku Threats. But that just takes us into the never-ending
> realm of epicycles.
No exception.