What do you do when you will get 0 vp's?

Squidalot wrote:

LSJ's advice to me and others that I always had was it's an out game consideration full stop.

You can choose to die how you want if you're going to get zero sure but that doesn't change the fact that explicitly you shouldn't be thinking about tps, players who you don't like etc, removing players who have earlier gws etc as that's still all covered by unsportsmanlike play or potentially cheating depending how they do it (e.g. i'm going to get zero but i can make sure my buddy qualifies).

You're allowed - but not compelled - to maximize your tournament points. Tournament points are an in-game consideration, in the same way that the Game Win and VPs are - they all three help you qualify for later rounds, but are awarded based on your performance in this round.

The main reason that the tournament rules don't compel you to maximize TPs (in the Play-to-Win rule) is that you then run into the issue that players would then be compelled to do stupid things cross-table. e.g. if I'm maxed out at 1 VP, it's in my interests to make sure that the rest of the table is swept so it's 4-1, not 3-1-1, so I do counterintuitive things to make that happen. Similarly, I should play for a sweep because it maximized my TP advantage (60 vs three lots of 30, rather than anyone getting 48 for coming second). Currently, you just have to get the GW.

People can potentially do the same behaviour, though - but the judge isn't compelled to force them to do weird, unintuitive things.


What you can't do is play to exclude someone else based on how it will impact their tournament standing - that's an out-of-game consideration. The usual examples involve someone saying "If I self oust now, I'll make the finals because [weird coincidence of GWs vs VPs vs TWs on the leaderboard]... But I can still probably get a VP in this game, but then the table won't collapse in the way I need it to, because my predator will get ousted without that extra pool." And that's an out-of-game consideration. However, if you can't reasonably get any more VPs, you are free to choose between your various options, whilst behaving in a sportsmanlike fashion and not breaking any other rules.

On the flip-side, though, the more control a player has over TPs on the table, the more they may not be in a lost position (or a no-more-reasonable-VPs position). If I can cross-table oust someone unintuitively, I might well be able to make a deal with them that keeps me alive. Obviously, this isn't always the case - but a judge should be alert to someone with pseudo-kingmaking potential who is skipping the reasonable chance that provides.

Squidalot wrote:

@ Aaron C I've never seen him post that explicitly.

LSJ's advice to me and others that I always had was it's an out game consideration full stop.

Here is the link:

groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/402706518305641d/40f1405664913166?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=aaron+clark+lsj#40f1405664913166

The salient text:

> Is it not therefore true that if you can only play for 0 VPs, then you
> are free to do whatever you want to help or hurt another player based
> on your personal relationship with him or her, and this is acceptable
> according to the rules as written?
> Is it not therefore true that you are free to punish or reward another
> player based on your opinion of his or her choice of deck when you can
> only play for 0 VPs?

> I know that you are not supposed to play based on another player's
> tournament ranking, but besides that I see no official guidelines that
> govern this situation.


Yes.

groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f489...

James totally get that.

Aaron - yes well LSJ can be wrong too. His point seems to be that if you have no reasonable chance to get any vps then all considerations can be considered out of game as you have no game anyway seems a bit simple.

I still think the out of game considerations + sportsmanlike play + cheating take jurisdiction meaning that you can of course count TPs etc but I don't think you should ever give that as a reason for doing something.

This is pretty similar to the perspective that you can justify anything you want under PTW pretty much as it's such a vague definition!

Mind you I see the Judge Guidelines are pretty out of date (still refers to finalists dealing for prizes)

Hugh, I agree with your line of thinking. I don't know if it is evident in my discussion with LSJ, but I was pretty horrified by this revelation. However, LSJ was not "wrong". Since he made the rules and was also the head judge, he was by definition, "right." He still is right, actually. We are still expected to abide by all of the declarations he made on the Google group. Because of that post, if I am about to be ousted, I can use by last bleed flick to target another player because of his nationality, because she is a woman, or because three years ago he was rude to me at another tournament.

I think that the judges' guide should be updated. They were written in 2004 and were based heavily on the then-current tournament rules for Magic the Gathering. I think that the definitions of unsportsmanlike conduct should be fleshed out. The rulebook could be more rigorously complete: I reference here the thread in which Dave Litwin (Pagan) pointed out that Maleficia and Striga aren't covered in the rulebook. I think that all the rulings that govern VEKN events should be on the VEKN website, under "All Rulings", but that is not the case. (By the way, there is a nearly complete list of rulings on the French VTES website parts of which I translated and submitted to the Rules Director, and that I would be happy to continue working on if I were asked by VEKN to do so and if the work would be used to update the All Rulings page.)

I have stated on the LA VTES newsgroup VEKN events don't seem legitimate since event entrants do not have access to all the governing rules and guidelines. Many judges' guidelines are transmitted orally and regionally, and many, many rulings and judges' guidleines are only to be found through laborious searches through the old Google newsgroup, and even some guidelines such as "Points of Light" are no longer available there.

There is room for reform, but not a culture of reform. Look at any poll proposing a change to a card or rule, and a majority or large plurality of players always vote "NO CHANGE". Those who see a need for change can't agree on the change, thus no change. Perhaps things run smoothly enough that reform is not needed. However, the scene is not friendly to new players who are not "in the know", since so much is transmitted orally and not readily available in writing.

My personal response has been to try to learn the rules as LSJ legislated them as opposed to what I assume they are or what my playgroup tells me they are.

AaronC wrote:

My personal response has been to try to learn the rules as LSJ legislated them as opposed to what I assume they are or what my playgroup tells me they are.

In what way has your playgroup been incorrect on the rules they have told you to play by?

KevinM wrote:

AaronC wrote:

In what way has your playgroup been incorrect on the rules they have told you to play by?

There is no reason to go into particulars. Sometimes, and I mean rarely, I have discovered that people in my playgroup play something one way when the rulings say it is another way. It's not as though I don't make mistakes myself, either. There are a lot of details in the game, and as I noted above, all the rulings and current play guidelines are not listed in one central location. There have also been a couple of procedures concerning how to handle play errors or game state correction that aren't in the Judges' Guidelines or tournament rules. Such procedures are needed, but I am always curious about what is "official".