Q LSJ: Play to win and self oust

107 views
Skip to first unread message

Sten During

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 5:42:04 PM1/13/08
to
A question arose during our last tournament whether or not
it was allowed to self oust. The ruling was against and of
course the tournament proceeded according to the ruling made
by the judge.

However, after the tournament, the ruling was disputed as
such. Not primarily for the tournament in question, but if
the same ruling should be applied to all upcoming tournaments
or not.


Q 1: Is self ousting ALWAYS explicitly forbidden, no matter
the circumstances?

Problem with affirmative answer: Three players left. A with
2 VP, B and C with 0 VP each. Less than a minute left before
time out. Player A at 4 pool, zero ready minions. Player B at
10 pool, 2 ready minions. Player C at 2 pool, 1 ready minion.
Player A at influence phase looks at resources controlled by
B and C respectively and comes to the conclusion that a self
oust will prevent both B and C from ousting each other before
game times out if A self ousts and adds 6 pool to C.
In fact, NOT self ousting might very well be illegal as A
puts a guaranteed GW in hazard, and doing so violates 4.8.

I can actually see a judge forcing A to transfer out here,
after A verbally has confirmed that he indeed is aware of
the situation (ie it is no longer a matter of unskilled play).


Q 2: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not technically
get any more victory points or a GW?

Problem with affirmative answer: Two players left. Two minutes
left. A in a clearly and immediate losing position. The only
remaining way to force a time out is to use actions to search
the library for cards that A already knows does not exist
there any longer. By searching several times and using the
allowed time for reshuffling A could achieve this. However,
player A also believes this would be unsportsmanlike in the
extreme and wants to concede.
Using 3.5 COULD violate 4.8, but applying 4.8 could reasonably
be seen as violating 5.2 and 5.3.


Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably
get any more victory points or a GW?

Example 1 A: A at 1 pool, zero ready minions, three torporized minions
and in influence phase. A asks if anyone on the table is willing to
rescue minions or in any other way attempt to prevent predator from
ousting during his/her turn. Each player declines to help. A announces
that he intends to transfer out if no one intends to help. Again all
decline, but this time B calls the judge to prevent A from self
ousting, stating that as there is a theoretical possibility that A
could survive, because one player could, for example, change his mind
about coming to help.

Example 1 B: Situation above. Judge asks players if they plan
to rescue A. They all decline and as judge starts giving the go ahead
to A for transferring himself out B again protests, this time promising
to rescue one of A:s minions, thus theoretically giving A a chance to
survive. Judge then forces A to stay in the game. B ends his turn having
renegaded on the promise.
Should B be congratulated for good playing, or should the judge report
B for violating 5.2?

Time left both examples above well over 30 minutes.

Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A get
the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.

Should the judge forbid A from self ousting? Should the judge also
report A for violating 4.8 (disabling the table from generating a GW
could be seen as an out of game consideration, and even though player
A did not mention doing so it is obviously what he is thinking)?

Should the judge allow A to self oust? Not only has A already won
the maximum number of VPs possible, but sharing the table with B is
indeed a better result for A personally, something reflected in that
A will get a higher TP result for this game, which in turn makes it
an in-game consideration.

Should the judge FORCE A to self oust? Even though both paths will
lead to 2 VP (unless player C violates 4.8 by rescuing A:s vampires)
it is indeed desirable to maximize TP after VP already are at maximum.

Example 3: Player A has 16 pool left. Each turn prey attacks a vampire
and successfully puts it in torpor. Each turn predator successfully
plays Graverobbing on that vampire.
A declares that either B stops rushing backwards or A will indeed spend
whatever is left of the game by maximizing the speed A looses pool. B
declines but also calls the judge to force A to stay in the game as long
as possible. Questioned by the judge B confirms that he intends to
attack every vampire A puts in play.

Should the judge give A a go ahead to attempt to self oust?

Should the judge force A to stay in the game as long as possible
because, theoretically, something could happen later in the game which
gives A a chance to get a VP?

Sten During

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

LSJ

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 7:34:29 PM1/13/08
to
Sten During wrote:
> A question arose during our last tournament whether or not
> it was allowed to self oust. The ruling was against and of
> course the tournament proceeded according to the ruling made
> by the judge.

It is mechanically legal to do so (the game mechanics allow it).

In some cases, though, doing so violates the sportsmanship rule (specifically
the Play to Win portion).

> However, after the tournament, the ruling was disputed as
> such. Not primarily for the tournament in question, but if
> the same ruling should be applied to all upcoming tournaments
> or not.
>
>
> Q 1: Is self ousting ALWAYS explicitly forbidden, no matter
> the circumstances?

No.

> Problem with affirmative answer: Three players left. A with
> 2 VP, B and C with 0 VP each. Less than a minute left before
> time out. Player A at 4 pool, zero ready minions. Player B at
> 10 pool, 2 ready minions. Player C at 2 pool, 1 ready minion.
> Player A at influence phase looks at resources controlled by
> B and C respectively and comes to the conclusion that a self
> oust will prevent both B and C from ousting each other before
> game times out if A self ousts and adds 6 pool to C.

Certainly, playing to get the GW does not violate the Play to Win rule.

> In fact, NOT self ousting might very well be illegal as A
> puts a guaranteed GW in hazard, and doing so violates 4.8.
> I can actually see a judge forcing A to transfer out here,
> after A verbally has confirmed that he indeed is aware of
> the situation (ie it is no longer a matter of unskilled play).

Perhaps. It's rarely the purview of the judge to dictate a specific play, however.

> Q 2: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not technically
> get any more victory points or a GW?

No.

> Problem with affirmative answer: Two players left. Two minutes
> left. A in a clearly and immediate losing position. The only
> remaining way to force a time out is to use actions to search
> the library for cards that A already knows does not exist
> there any longer. By searching several times and using the
> allowed time for reshuffling A could achieve this. However,
> player A also believes this would be unsportsmanlike in the
> extreme and wants to concede.
> Using 3.5 COULD violate 4.8, but applying 4.8 could reasonably
> be seen as violating 5.2 and 5.3.
>
>
> Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably
> get any more victory points or a GW?

No.

> Example 1 A: A at 1 pool, zero ready minions, three torporized minions
> and in influence phase. A asks if anyone on the table is willing to
> rescue minions or in any other way attempt to prevent predator from
> ousting during his/her turn. Each player declines to help. A announces
> that he intends to transfer out if no one intends to help. Again all
> decline, but this time B calls the judge to prevent A from self
> ousting, stating that as there is a theoretical possibility that A
> could survive, because one player could, for example, change his mind
> about coming to help.

It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.

> Example 1 B: Situation above. Judge asks players if they plan
> to rescue A. They all decline and as judge starts giving the go ahead
> to A for transferring himself out B again protests, this time promising
> to rescue one of A:s minions, thus theoretically giving A a chance to
> survive. Judge then forces A to stay in the game. B ends his turn having
> renegaded on the promise.

A player is never compelled to accept a deal (or a promise) or otherwise trust
another player to do or not to do anything. The judge erred in this case.

> Should B be congratulated for good playing, or should the judge report
> B for violating 5.2?
>
> Time left both examples above well over 30 minutes.

It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.

> Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
> zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
> minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
> Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
> B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
> Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
> stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
> A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
> from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
> has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
> may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
> also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
> makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A get
> the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.
>
> Should the judge forbid A from self ousting? Should the judge also
> report A for violating 4.8 (disabling the table from generating a GW
> could be seen as an out of game consideration, and even though player
> A did not mention doing so it is obviously what he is thinking)?

It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.

> Should the judge allow A to self oust? Not only has A already won
> the maximum number of VPs possible, but sharing the table with B is
> indeed a better result for A personally, something reflected in that
> A will get a higher TP result for this game, which in turn makes it
> an in-game consideration.
>
> Should the judge FORCE A to self oust? Even though both paths will
> lead to 2 VP (unless player C violates 4.8 by rescuing A:s vampires)
> it is indeed desirable to maximize TP after VP already are at maximum.

PTW doesn't involve TPs. Just as it does not involve VPs for the player who has
the GW.

> Example 3: Player A has 16 pool left. Each turn prey attacks a vampire
> and successfully puts it in torpor. Each turn predator successfully
> plays Graverobbing on that vampire.
> A declares that either B stops rushing backwards or A will indeed spend
> whatever is left of the game by maximizing the speed A looses pool. B
> declines but also calls the judge to force A to stay in the game as long
> as possible. Questioned by the judge B confirms that he intends to
> attack every vampire A puts in play.
>
> Should the judge give A a go ahead to attempt to self oust?

It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.

> Should the judge force A to stay in the game as long as possible
> because, theoretically, something could happen later in the game which
> gives A a chance to get a VP?

It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.

ira...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 4:31:59 AM1/14/08
to
On Jan 13, 4:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Sten During wrote:
> > A question arose during our last tournament whether or not
> > it was allowed to self oust. The ruling was against and of
> > course the tournament proceeded according to the ruling made
> > by the judge.


Great examples, Sten. Thanks for posting these. In his answer, LSJ
wrote this a bunch of times:

> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.

This is just a friendly reminder that the word "reasonably" in LSJ's
answer is defined by whatever the judge deems reasonable. For
instance, if the judge thinks you have a 99% chance of not getting any
more VPs, and 1% chance of getting an extra 0.5 VPs, a judge might
deem that "no reasonable chances to get more VPs," and allow you to
self-oust.

Also, it's important to know that the special phrase, "reasonable
chances," includes risk analysis. Consider these cases:
a) 20% chance at a GW, and 80% chance at 0 VPs.
b) 20% chance at a GW, and 80% chance at 2 VPs.

For case A, a judge might allow the player to take a deal that gets
him only 2 VPs (and no GW.) For case B, that wouldn't be
"reasonable."

Of course, it's possible (and completely within the tournament rules)
for two different judges to define "reasonable chances" in different
ways, depending on their personal judgment.

Since I think it's a good goal to have consistent judging, it's
important that different judges make the same ruling (given the same
information.) It's possible for different judges to make different
rulings that are both correct (since judgment differs), but it would
be ideal if different judges made the same rulings.

Therefore, one of the best ways to achieve consensus on rulings is to
do case studies. You'll notice that LSJ didn't actually answer your
questions yes/no, he simply reminded you that it's the judge's
judgment that should determine the answer. For what it's worth, here
is my judgment (which is correct, though you could rule differently
and also be correct.)

> > Problem with affirmative answer: Three players left. A with
> > 2 VP, B and C with 0 VP each. Less than a minute left before
> > time out. Player A at 4 pool, zero ready minions. Player B at
> > 10 pool, 2 ready minions. Player C at 2 pool, 1 ready minion.
> > Player A at influence phase looks at resources controlled by
> > B and C respectively and comes to the conclusion that a self
> > oust will prevent both B and C from ousting each other before
> > game times out if A self ousts and adds 6 pool to C.

I would allow A to self-oust in this situation, though it's a close
call depending on the minions. With a mere 1 minute left, depending
on the minions in play and the decks, it's possible that A could
survive to time and get 2.5 VPs instead of only 2 VPs. This is where
risk analysis comes in. If it's possible for A to ensure C's survival
by self-ousting, taking the safer 2 VPs, instead of risking it for 2.5
VPs, that's a risk analysis.

But the bottom line is in the situation you describe, I'd let A self
oust (though it was a bit of a hard decision because of the small
amount of time left and the potential benefit of 2.5 VPs instead of 2
VPs if A lives.)

> > In fact, NOT self ousting might very well be illegal as A
> > puts a guaranteed GW in hazard, and doing so violates 4.8.
> > I can actually see a judge forcing A to transfer out here,
> > after A verbally has confirmed that he indeed is aware of
> > the situation (ie it is no longer a matter of unskilled play).

There is absolutely NO WAY I would force A to self-oust. I honestly
cannot imagine any situation where, as the judge, I would dictate to a
player that they had to self-oust. That would be a very bad judgment,
in my opinion.

> > Problem with affirmative answer: Two players left. Two minutes
> > left. A in a clearly and immediate losing position. The only
> > remaining way to force a time out is to use actions to search
> > the library for cards that A already knows does not exist
> > there any longer. By searching several times and using the
> > allowed time for reshuffling A could achieve this. However,
> > player A also believes this would be unsportsmanlike in the
> > extreme and wants to concede.
> > Using 3.5 COULD violate 4.8, but applying 4.8 could reasonably
> > be seen as violating 5.2 and 5.3.

If A wants to concede (believing himself to be in a lost position), as
long as I don't believe there's any collusion, I would allow it. The
only way a judge would even be called over is if some spectator
pointed it out.

> > Example 1 A: A at 1 pool, zero ready minions, three torporized minions
> > and in influence phase. A asks if anyone on the table is willing to
> > rescue minions or in any other way attempt to prevent predator from
> > ousting during his/her turn. Each player declines to help. A announces
> > that he intends to transfer out if no one intends to help. Again all
> > decline, but this time B calls the judge to prevent A from self
> > ousting, stating that as there is a theoretical possibility that A
> > could survive, because one player could, for example, change his mind
> > about coming to help.

I would allow A to self-oust in this situation, since it sure sounds
like he has no reasonable chances for more VPs (since he's on 1 pool
and no ready minions.)

If there was an Anarch Revolt in play, and his prey was on 1 pool,
then I wouldn't allow it (unless his prey had a ready Anarch, of
course.)

> > Example 1 B: Situation above. Judge asks players if they plan
> > to rescue A. They all decline and as judge starts giving the go ahead
> > to A for transferring himself out B again protests, this time promising
> > to rescue one of A:s minions, thus theoretically giving A a chance to
> > survive. Judge then forces A to stay in the game. B ends his turn having
> > renegaded on the promise.
>
> A player is never compelled to accept a deal (or a promise) or otherwise trust
> another player to do or not to do anything. The judge erred in this case.

Without more information, I'm not convinced that the judge made a
mistake. If A had a "reasonable chance" for more VPs in the judge's
opinion, then it was a correct ruling (as far as I understand.)

That said, in the situation you describe, it certainly seems like A
didn't have a reasonable chance for more VPs, so I would have allowed
A to self-oust if that's what he wanted to do.

> > Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
> > zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
> > minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
> > Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
> > B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
> > Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
> > stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
> > A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
> > from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
> > has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
> > may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
> > also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
> > makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A get
> > the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.

I'm confused by two things in your example:
1) How can A eagle sight block if A has no ready minions?
2) How does A self-ousting give B 2 VPs? If A self-ousts, that gives
C 1 VP.

If you can clarify the example, I can give you my judgment, but in the
edge, it's really simply a question for the judge: does A have a
reasonable chance at more VPs? If yes, stay in the game. If no, do
whatever you want (including self-oust.)

> > Example 3: Player A has 16 pool left. Each turn prey attacks a vampire
> > and successfully puts it in torpor. Each turn predator successfully
> > plays Graverobbing on that vampire.
> > A declares that either B stops rushing backwards or A will indeed spend
> > whatever is left of the game by maximizing the speed A looses pool. B
> > declines but also calls the judge to force A to stay in the game as long
> > as possible. Questioned by the judge B confirms that he intends to
> > attack every vampire A puts in play.
>
> > Should the judge give A a go ahead to attempt to self oust?

There isn't quite enough information in this example for me to make a
confident judgment, but based on what you wrote, I'd say that 16 pool
is probably too early to self-oust. That said, if A wanted to self-
oust, he'd probably spend pool to bring up minions. As the judge, I
wouldn't stop him from doing that. Maybe he'd spend some pool on
locations or equipment. I wouldn't stop him from doing that, either.
At some point, if he tries to do something that's not Play to Win,
like oust himself, I'd look at the situation and see what his chances
were.

The judge only needs to be called over when the player is actually
trying to do something that's not PTW.

> > Should the judge force A to stay in the game as long as possible
> > because, theoretically, something could happen later in the game which
> > gives A a chance to get a VP?

I don't have a concept of "stay in the game as long as possible."
There are certain actions that a player may try to take that I would
prohibit (like spending his last pool) if I thought he still had
reasonable chances. But I'd like him play his game as he wants.

I hope my answers will help other judges make similar decisions, or if
they disagree, discuss why their judgment differs from mine.

Ira

Alex Ek

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 8:34:14 AM1/14/08
to
LSJ skrev:

>
> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>
> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>
> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>
> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>
> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>

Being ousted == a certain 0 % chance of getting another vp.
Being in the game == having a chance, being however small to obtain
another vp.

How can the PTW rules allow you to make a possible chance a 0 % chance??


My ruling were based on posts in the 2008 tournament rules thread.

"With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place, no
matter how slim, is better than self-ousting.
That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you go
for the 0.001% shot."

Regards
Alex Ek
VEKN Prince of Gothenburg

LSJ

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 8:46:40 AM1/14/08
to
Alex Ek wrote:
> LSJ skrev:
>>
>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>
>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>
>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>
>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>
>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
> >
>
> Being ousted == a certain 0 % chance of getting another vp.
> Being in the game == having a chance, being however small to obtain
> another vp.
>
> How can the PTW rules allow you to make a possible chance a 0 % chance??

Self-ousting != being ousted.

There is a change, being however small, that the person self-ousting will not be
ousted, thanks to various boons or other interventions possible.

But that's beside the point. PTW includes "reasonable".

> My ruling were based on posts in the 2008 tournament rules thread.
>
> "With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place, no
> matter how slim, is better than self-ousting.
> That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you go
> for the 0.001% shot."

Well, you didn't say the game was a final.

Anyway, that's a different topic. See the thread surrounding that post.

Alex Ek

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 9:19:36 AM1/14/08
to
LSJ skrev:

> Alex Ek wrote:
>> LSJ skrev:
>>>
>>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>>
>>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>>
>>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>>
>>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>>
>>> It is legal to self-oust if the player cannot reasonably get more VPs.
>>
>> Being ousted == a certain 0 % chance of getting another vp.
>> Being in the game == having a chance, being however small to obtain
>> another vp.
>>
>> How can the PTW rules allow you to make a possible chance a 0 % chance??
>
> Self-ousting != being ousted.
>

Oh, I'm sorry. Having successfully self-ousted == Being ousted == A
certain 0 % chance of getting another VP.

The only point I had was that you're quite dead and out of the game when
you've successfully selfousted :D.

> There is a change, being however small, that the person self-ousting
> will not be ousted, thanks to various boons or other interventions
> possible.
>

Even though there is no such concept as "no chance" I think you know
what I meant. When you're selfousting you are aiming on succeeding at
it. How can you even have the intension to self-oust when there still is
a chance of a VP however slim. It is that intension I question, not
wheter you're successful or not.

> But that's beside the point. PTW includes "reasonable".
>

Yes, but shouldn't any chance however small be reasonable? If there's a
chance then PTW should force you to take it? Slim chance to get a VP >
No chance (according to you (the player)) to get a VP.

>> My ruling were based on posts in the 2008 tournament rules thread.
>>
>> "With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place,
>> no matter how slim, is better than self-ousting.
>> That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you
>> go for the 0.001% shot."
>
> Well, you didn't say the game was a final.
>
> Anyway, that's a different topic. See the thread surrounding that post.

I don't think it's a different topic. In the finals you play for the
win. In a qualifying round you play for the win, or atleast for vp's.
Thus I think anything forcing you to try to take the GW in a finals
should force you to try to take a vp in a qualifying round. Don't you agree?

LSJ

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 9:33:15 AM1/14/08
to
Alex Ek wrote:
> Thus I think anything forcing you to try to take the GW in a finals
> should force you to try to take a vp in a qualifying round. Don't you
> agree?

Not getting a VP by self-ousting vs. not getting a VP by floundering around for
a while is not a choice to be forced by the judge.

Alex Ek

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 9:51:54 AM1/14/08
to
LSJ skrev:

Well. While floundering you still have a possible chance of a VP. One
never knows what can happend. While dead you don't have that chance.

Also, if I understand the other thread correctly, you will have to
flounder in the finals but if I understand what you say here correctly
you don't in a preliminary round.

Matthew T. Morgan

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 10:40:02 AM1/14/08
to
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, ira...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jan 13, 4:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> Therefore, one of the best ways to achieve consensus on rulings is to
> do case studies. You'll notice that LSJ didn't actually answer your
> questions yes/no, he simply reminded you that it's the judge's
> judgment that should determine the answer. For what it's worth, here
> is my judgment (which is correct, though you could rule differently
> and also be correct.)

I'm going to have to disagree with you a couple times here.

>>> Problem with affirmative answer: Three players left. A with
>>> 2 VP, B and C with 0 VP each. Less than a minute left before
>>> time out. Player A at 4 pool, zero ready minions. Player B at
>>> 10 pool, 2 ready minions. Player C at 2 pool, 1 ready minion.
>>> Player A at influence phase looks at resources controlled by
>>> B and C respectively and comes to the conclusion that a self
>>> oust will prevent both B and C from ousting each other before
>>> game times out if A self ousts and adds 6 pool to C.
>
> I would allow A to self-oust in this situation, though it's a close
> call depending on the minions. With a mere 1 minute left, depending
> on the minions in play and the decks, it's possible that A could
> survive to time and get 2.5 VPs instead of only 2 VPs. This is where
> risk analysis comes in. If it's possible for A to ensure C's survival
> by self-ousting, taking the safer 2 VPs, instead of risking it for 2.5
> VPs, that's a risk analysis.

You would be in error to force A to stay in the game to attempt to earn
2.5 VPs instead of 2. It's the player's choice. There is no requirement
to maximize VPs in victory. If the game is won, that's enough.

>>> In fact, NOT self ousting might very well be illegal as A
>>> puts a guaranteed GW in hazard, and doing so violates 4.8.
>>> I can actually see a judge forcing A to transfer out here,
>>> after A verbally has confirmed that he indeed is aware of
>>> the situation (ie it is no longer a matter of unskilled play).
>
> There is absolutely NO WAY I would force A to self-oust. I honestly
> cannot imagine any situation where, as the judge, I would dictate to a
> player that they had to self-oust. That would be a very bad judgment,
> in my opinion.

Yeah, at that point you might as well sit down and play the player's deck.

<snip>

>>> Example 1 B: Situation above. Judge asks players if they plan
>>> to rescue A. They all decline and as judge starts giving the go ahead
>>> to A for transferring himself out B again protests, this time promising
>>> to rescue one of A:s minions, thus theoretically giving A a chance to
>>> survive. Judge then forces A to stay in the game. B ends his turn having
>>> renegaded on the promise.
>>
>> A player is never compelled to accept a deal (or a promise) or otherwise trust
>> another player to do or not to do anything. The judge erred in this case.
>
> Without more information, I'm not convinced that the judge made a
> mistake. If A had a "reasonable chance" for more VPs in the judge's
> opinion, then it was a correct ruling (as far as I understand.)

Judges can't force players to accept deals because the deal offered could
be reneged at any point. I guess I'm just restating what LSJ wrote. How
could the judge not be in error here?

<snip>

>>> Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
>>> zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
>>> minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
>>> Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
>>> B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
>>> Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
>>> stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
>>> A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
>>> from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
>>> has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
>>> may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
>>> also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
>>> makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A get
>>> the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.
>
> I'm confused by two things in your example:
> 1) How can A eagle sight block if A has no ready minions?

It's a special technique we in the business like to call "cheating."

> 2) How does A self-ousting give B 2 VPs? If A self-ousts, that gives
> C 1 VP.

It forces a 2-2-1 split as opposed to 3-2 with B taking the game win.
B is expected to oust C, even after C takes a VP. C probably won't be
able to rally very effectively with 6 pool and no minions.

<snip>

>>> Example 3: Player A has 16 pool left. Each turn prey attacks a vampire
>>> and successfully puts it in torpor. Each turn predator successfully
>>> plays Graverobbing on that vampire.
>>> A declares that either B stops rushing backwards or A will indeed spend
>>> whatever is left of the game by maximizing the speed A looses pool. B
>>> declines but also calls the judge to force A to stay in the game as long
>>> as possible. Questioned by the judge B confirms that he intends to
>>> attack every vampire A puts in play.
>>
>>> Should the judge give A a go ahead to attempt to self oust?
>
> There isn't quite enough information in this example for me to make a
> confident judgment, but based on what you wrote, I'd say that 16 pool
> is probably too early to self-oust. That said, if A wanted to self-
> oust, he'd probably spend pool to bring up minions. As the judge, I
> wouldn't stop him from doing that. Maybe he'd spend some pool on
> locations or equipment. I wouldn't stop him from doing that, either.
> At some point, if he tries to do something that's not Play to Win,
> like oust himself, I'd look at the situation and see what his chances
> were.
>
> The judge only needs to be called over when the player is actually
> trying to do something that's not PTW.

Probably a good example of the behavior Sten meant to describe is
something like influencing out an expensive vampire that has already been
Graverobbed. This is obviously a losing proposition, since that vampire
cost the predator nothing. At any rate, as you note, there isn't much for
a judge to do here because the player could just as easily say "contesting
Arika is my only chance to win" and the judge would have to allow it.

<snip>

Matt Morgan

Damnans

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 10:41:14 AM1/14/08
to
Alex Ek escribió:

> LSJ skrev:
>> Alex Ek wrote:
>>> Thus I think anything forcing you to try to take the GW in a finals
>>> should force you to try to take a vp in a qualifying round. Don't you
>>> agree?
>>
>> Not getting a VP by self-ousting vs. not getting a VP by floundering
>> around for a while is not a choice to be forced by the judge.
>
> Well. While floundering you still have a possible chance of a VP. One
> never knows what can happend. While dead you don't have that chance.

Yeah, yeah :P Didn't you know of the existence of walking dead? ;) They
are dead anyway.

Also take into account that bad play isn't illegal.

[...]


--
Damnans

http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

Johannes Walch

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 11:20:07 AM1/14/08
to
Alex Ek schrieb:

All of those situations could be easily solved by generally disallowing
intentional self-ousting. That would remove all kinds of nasty
situations and threatening we have to face. The downside would be that
you will have to sit it out sometimes, but you can´t leave in a soccer
match either, even if the score is 30:0. That is called sportsmanship.

To avoid situations were players try to be clever by self-ousting not by
influence but by playing of cards to make it look unintentional I would
establish a rule that laying a card that costs you all your pool would
count as intentional and therefore be declared illegal play in the
circumstances.

I have always thought of self-ousting as poor sportsmanship and I have
threatened to do it many times but never actually did (also considering
the 0.00001% chance Alex mentioned). I sometimes do it in friendly games
just so everybody can have the next game, but those do not fall under
the tournament rules.

My 2 cents.

--
Johannes Walch

Damnans

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 11:30:26 AM1/14/08
to
Johannes Walch escribió:

> Alex Ek schrieb:
>> LSJ skrev:
>>> Alex Ek wrote:
>>>> Thus I think anything forcing you to try to take the GW in a finals
>>>> should force you to try to take a vp in a qualifying round. Don't
>>>> you agree?
>>>
>>> Not getting a VP by self-ousting vs. not getting a VP by floundering
>>> around for a while is not a choice to be forced by the judge.
>>
>> Well. While floundering you still have a possible chance of a VP. One
>> never knows what can happend. While dead you don't have that chance.
>>
>> Also, if I understand the other thread correctly, you will have to
>> flounder in the finals but if I understand what you say here correctly
>> you don't in a preliminary round.
>
> All of those situations could be easily solved by generally disallowing
> intentional self-ousting. That would remove all kinds of nasty
> situations and threatening we have to face. The downside would be that
> you will have to sit it out sometimes, but you can´t leave in a soccer
> match either, even if the score is 30:0. That is called sportsmanship.
>
> To avoid situations were players try to be clever by self-ousting not by
> influence but by playing of cards to make it look unintentional I would
> establish a rule that laying a card that costs you all your pool would
> count as intentional and therefore be declared illegal play in the
> circumstances.

To a dark and slipery place that would lead.

A judge should not inferfere with bad play.

For instance, it is playing to win when player A has bled his prey
(player A) to 1 pool and there is an Anarch Revolt in play. Player A is
confident player B will be ousted during his next untap phase, but he
forgets he (player A) has 2 pool left, 2 vampires in torpor and there is
a Dragonbound in play, so he is ousted before his prey is.

Leaving a Methuselah in a desperate situation may lead to bad play.

Jyhad

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 12:02:47 PM1/14/08
to
I've been in and seen many situations in this game where a Methuselah
has had absolutely no chance of gaining more VP than he or she already
had at that time, if any at all. In all of those situations, I see no
reason why you can't self oust. Especially if it helps you by having
the most VPs in a given round. Go for it.

However, because of the "play to win" and the arguement that there is
always a "chance" people don't like others self ousting and possibly
ruining their chance to capture a GW. I'm sorry, but when you play
with good players that know this game. There will be situations upon
situations where you are SOL.. Unless of course, they make some really
foolish mistakes. And I don't really see that happening. Occasions do
occur where you can't do anything more. It's just as much a part of
this game and making and breaking deals.

ira...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 1:15:30 AM1/15/08
to
On Jan 14, 7:40 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Problem with affirmative answer: Three players left. A with
> >>> 2 VP, B and C with 0 VP each. Less than a minute left before
> >>> time out. Player A at 4 pool, zero ready minions. Player B at
> >>> 10 pool, 2 ready minions. Player C at 2 pool, 1 ready minion.
> >>> Player A at influence phase looks at resources controlled by
> >>> B and C respectively and comes to the conclusion that a self
> >>> oust will prevent both B and C from ousting each other before
> >>> game times out if A self ousts and adds 6 pool to C.
>
> > I would allow A to self-oust in this situation, though it's a close
> > call depending on the minions. With a mere 1 minute left, depending
> > on the minions in play and the decks, it's possible that A could
> > survive to time and get 2.5 VPs instead of only 2 VPs. This is where
> > risk analysis comes in. If it's possible for A to ensure C's survival
> > by self-ousting, taking the safer 2 VPs, instead of risking it for 2.5
> > VPs, that's a risk analysis.
>
> You would be in error to force A to stay in the game to attempt to earn
> 2.5 VPs instead of 2. It's the player's choice. There is no requirement
> to maximize VPs in victory. If the game is won, that's enough.

You are right - my mistake. Since A already has the GW (given the
time left on the clock), he is welcome to do what he wants with the
remaining VPs.

As a player in A's situation, though, I'd stay in the game to get the
extra 0.5 VP.

> >>> Example 1 B: Situation above. Judge asks players if they plan
> >>> to rescue A. They all decline and as judge starts giving the go ahead
> >>> to A for transferring himself out B again protests, this time promising
> >>> to rescue one of A:s minions, thus theoretically giving A a chance to
> >>> survive. Judge then forces A to stay in the game. B ends his turn having
> >>> renegaded on the promise.
>
> >> A player is never compelled to accept a deal (or a promise) or otherwise trust
> >> another player to do or not to do anything. The judge erred in this case.
>
> > Without more information, I'm not convinced that the judge made a
> > mistake. If A had a "reasonable chance" for more VPs in the judge's
> > opinion, then it was a correct ruling (as far as I understand.)
>
> Judges can't force players to accept deals because the deal offered could
> be reneged at any point. I guess I'm just restating what LSJ wrote. How
> could the judge not be in error here?

The judge could be in error if there are non-deal considerations, like
A's prey has 1 pool, and A has an Anarch Revolt in his hand, and his
crosstable ally is playing AUS with Eagle's Sight, and A has Brother's
Grimm with 4 counters on it, and A has a Dummy Corp in play, and...

Maybe if all of those were true, I might consider A to still have a
reasonable chance of getting more VPs, and rule that he cannot legally
self-oust.

Regarding considering the deal, I completely agree that it shouldn't
weigh on the decision. My reply was focused on the non-specified
aspects of the table, like the state of A's prey and predator.

As the judge in that situation, I would never ask anyone at the table,
"Do you plan to rescue A?" because it's not binding, and shouldn't
calculate into the risk analysis.

> > 2) How does A self-ousting give B 2 VPs? If A self-ousts, that gives
> > C 1 VP.
>
> It forces a 2-2-1 split as opposed to 3-2 with B taking the game win.
> B is expected to oust C, even after C takes a VP. C probably won't be
> able to rally very effectively with 6 pool and no minions.

I see. Well, hopefully by now we all understand that a player can
legally self-oust whenever they have no reasonable chances of more VPs
(or they already have the GW.) The point of my reply was to try to
give case-study feedback so that more judges can have consistent
judgment.

In this example, there isn't enough information provided to determine
if A indeed has reasonable chances to get more VPs. Apparently he has
at least one ready minion, so who knows what that minion is (Arika?
Smudge?).

Ira

ira...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 1:26:54 AM1/15/08
to
On Jan 14, 6:51 am, Alex Ek <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> Well. While floundering you still have a possible chance of a VP. One
> never knows what can happend. While dead you don't have that chance.

Alex, consider this situation:
30 minutes left on the clock, down to a two player game. Player A has
2 VPs, Player B has 1 VP. Player A has 10 pool, and Fredrick the
Weak. Player B has 1 pool, no minions, and is decked. It's Player
B's turn.

Would you allow Player B to transfer out? That is, as the judge,
would you say that "Player B has no reasonable chances for more VPs?"

Obviously it's possible that Player A might get a phone call and leave
for 30 minutes, thus allowing the game to time out and B gets an extra
0.5 VP. But, in your personal opinion, would you call that a
*reasonable* chance?

In *my* opinion, Player B does not have a reasonable chance of more
VPs, and thus I would allow him to transfer out.

The question isn't whether there is any chance, it's whether there is
a *reasonable* chance, in the eyes of the judge.

Of course, you see that judges are human, and have many different
definitions of the word "reasonable." So even if you and I both agree
that someone has a 0.01% chance of more VPs, you might consider that
"reasonable" and I might not. And we would both be correct in our
rulings!

So, if the goal is to get judges across the world to make consistent
rulings given the same situation, it's useful to show some examples of
what a "reasonable" chance is. That's why I liked Sten's examples,
and I encourage anyone who judges to go back and think about them, and
decide what you think is "reasonable" and what isn't.

Alex, it sounds like you would consider any non-zero chance
reasonable. Personally, I wouldn't consider a 0.0000001% chance a
"reasonable" chance.

> Also, if I understand the other thread correctly, you will have to
> flounder in the finals but if I understand what you say here correctly
> you don't in a preliminary round.

Regarding the finals, a player doesn't have to flounder in the finals
if they don't want to. It's simply that there's no benefit to the
player to giving up, since they get 2nd regardless.

Ira

Johannes Walch

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 2:19:52 AM1/15/08
to
Damnans schrieb:
> (player B) to 1 pool and there is an Anarch Revolt in play. Player A is
> confident player B will be ousted during his next untap phase, but he
> forgets he (player A) has 2 pool left, 2 vampires in torpor and there is
> a Dragonbound in play, so he is ousted before his prey is.

The example has nothing to do with my proposed rule. It would not be
illegal play under my definition. He isn´t playing a card that
immediately ousts him and he doesn´t take transfers to get ousted so
everything is fine. Player A is ousted on the verge of ousting player B.

> Leaving a Methuselah in a desperate situation may lead to bad play.

Right. But like I said, all that would be forbidden through the proposed
rule is

- taking transfers to be ousted

- playing a card which costs would oust you, assuming the state of the
game at the moment when playing the card: playing a pentex subversion or
a concealed magnum while being on 2 pool is forbidden. playing a domain
challenge that would oust yourself is not, since you could always vote
it down, play bribes and so on. the ousting has to be the immediate
effect of playing the card.

Johannes

ira...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 3:18:00 AM1/15/08
to
On Jan 14, 11:19 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Right. But like I said, all that would be forbidden through the proposed
> rule is
>
> - taking transfers to be ousted
>
> - playing a card which costs would oust you, assuming the state of the
> game at the moment when playing the card: playing a pentex subversion or
> a concealed magnum while being on 2 pool is forbidden. playing a domain
> challenge that would oust yourself is not, since you could always vote
> it down, play bribes and so on. the ousting has to be the immediate
> effect of playing the card.

What is wrong with the current rules that govern this behavior? Even
at the most competitive levels, VTES is still a game. If a player
wants to be done playing that game because he has no reasonable chance
of getting more VPs, I see nothing wrong with the current rule (and in
fact, I think it's a good rule, because forcing a player to stay in a
game that he doesn't want to play is bad for that player in both the
short term and the long term.)

Ira

Sten During

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 11:47:14 AM1/14/08
to
Matthew T. Morgan wrote:

>
>>>> Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
>>>> zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
>>>> minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
>>>> Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
>>>> B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
>>>> Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
>>>> stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
>>>> A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
>>>> from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
>>>> has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
>>>> may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
>>>> also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
>>>> makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A
>>>> get
>>>> the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.
>>
>> I'm confused by two things in your example:
>> 1) How can A eagle sight block if A has no ready minions?
>
> It's a special technique we in the business like to call "cheating."
>
>> 2) How does A self-ousting give B 2 VPs? If A self-ousts, that gives
>> C 1 VP.
>
> It forces a 2-2-1 split as opposed to 3-2 with B taking the game win. B
> is expected to oust C, even after C takes a VP. C probably won't be
> able to rally very effectively with 6 pool and no minions.
>

Error of mine. A has one empty vamp with SUP AUS and three in torpor.

Sten

Sten During

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 8:08:17 AM1/15/08
to
Johannes Walch wrote:

>
> Right. But like I said, all that would be forbidden through the proposed
> rule is
>
> - taking transfers to be ousted
>
> - playing a card which costs would oust you, assuming the state of the
> game at the moment when playing the card: playing a pentex subversion or
> a concealed magnum while being on 2 pool is forbidden. playing a domain
> challenge that would oust yourself is not, since you could always vote
> it down, play bribes and so on. the ousting has to be the immediate
> effect of playing the card.
>

Ok, this is marginally off topic, in as much as I asked for yes or no
answers rather than a rationale or a preferred different rule.

I personally happen to be in favour of players being allowed to self
oust in a lost position for the simple reason that it makes it possible
to screw up table split deals.

Now, what I personally prefer and how I rule during a tournament are not
the same thing. As a judge I attempt to interpret the rules as neutrally
as possible. After doing so I can take part in a conversation about how
much I like the rule or how much I hate it, but my opinion should, if
at all possible, never impact on how I rule a situation.

As for self ousting, I much prefer if you're either allowed to do so
openly (actively paying pool cost to get you out o the game) or you're
not allowed to do so by any means (including deliberately bad play). But
these are opinions only.

Sten

Sten During

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 5:03:59 AM1/14/08
to
ira...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>>> Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
>>> zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
>>> minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
>>> Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
>>> B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
>>> Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
>>> stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
>>> A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
>>> from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
>>> has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
>>> may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
>>> also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
>>> makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A get
>>> the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.
>
> I'm confused by two things in your example:
> 1) How can A eagle sight block if A has no ready minions?
> 2) How does A self-ousting give B 2 VPs? If A self-ousts, that gives
> C 1 VP.
>

Sorry, the block results in the last (fourth) minion being binned.
Even with 6 additional pool given to C, B will steamroll right over C
well within 25 minutes. End result: A 2 VP, B 2 VP, C 1 VP. If A does
NOT self oust (or is forbidden to do so) the game ends: A 2 VP and B
3 VP 1 GW.

Sten

Sten During

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 7:57:05 AM1/15/08
to
ira...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
>>> Example 2: Time left 25 minutes. Three players left. A at 2 VP 4 pool
>>> zero ready minions four vampires in torpor, B at 0 VP 8 pool 4 ready
>>> minions, C at 2 pool two ready minions two vampires in torpor.
>>> Dragonbound in play. B plays intercept deck.
>>> B is bleeding C. A declares block with Eagle's Sight and plays
>>> Disguised Weapon for a Flamethrower. Judge is called to force A to
>>> stop getting the weapon as the pool cost would oust A.
>>> A argues that it is unlikely that his predator will rescue A:s vampires
>>> from torpor in order to prevent prey from being ousted, and that A thus
>>> has no reasonable chance of getting any more VPs. A also argues that he
>>> may decide himself the manner in which he gets those zero extra VPs. A
>>> also, wisely, declines to say anything about self ousting effectively
>>> makes A share the table with B at 2 VP each and thus not only does A get
>>> the maximum VP viable but the table does not generate a GW.
>
> I'm confused by two things in your example:
> 1) How can A eagle sight block if A has no ready minions?
> 2) How does A self-ousting give B 2 VPs? If A self-ousts, that gives
> C 1 VP.
>
> If you can clarify the example, I can give you my judgment, but in the
> edge, it's really simply a question for the judge: does A have a
> reasonable chance at more VPs? If yes, stay in the game. If no, do
> whatever you want (including self-oust.)
>

That's a very rare type of game mechanics based on the writer of the
case study not checking the case first :)

Player A has three vamps in torpor and a midcap, empty, ready vamp
with sup AUS. Player B plays multi minion permacept.

Anyway, LSJ has made it abundantly clear that you're allowed to get
out of a obviously lost position any way you want. You are not forced
to stay in the game and wait for a miracle, which was one of my primary
questions.

Sten

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages