Reins of Power and Ancient Influence rewording

Kraus wrote:

If a player gets killed by Reins of Power, they have the choice of not choosing a vampire (even if they could). The ‘play to win’ rule does not force them to gain the maximum effect. This leads to players giving their prey 6 pool sometimes randomly, sometimes out of spite, sometimes our of lulz, which makes the Meth. playing Reins in great disadvantage compared to a situation where their grand prey would rather be weakened.

You could say that this is just a part of the game, sure, but these things happen randomly. Random actions of spite happen, but probably should not be allowed so freely. I mean this is not just something like, “I’m pissed at you so I’ll play Fame backwards and rush!”, which happens. People tilt. That is a counter action, which requires the player to play recklessly with their own cards.

None of this happens randomly. It happens based on specific decisions made by players. Can the acting Methuselah control those decisions? No. That doesn't mean it's random.

V:TES politics is supposed to represent the political struggles of a world which is subtle, cut-throat, devious, nuanced and ancient. It is not supposed to be Gideon Fontaine issuing diktats and controlling every last element of it - that politics can often be a little too straightforward for its own good is a flaw in the execution of V:TES.

From a design point of view, making people pick known vampires isn't a good thing. Ancient Influence and Reins of Power have the ability to create or destroy more counters than most votes can - even Parity Shift. Yes, there are options like Consanguineous Boon or Revolutionary Council, but those generally require much more significant investment in resources and strategy, whereas these are literally just "I'm playing a politics decks where this won't excessively hurt me most of the time, so I'll toss a copy in." (Tossing either into your weenie vote deck, not so much.) Having things be potentially unpredictable - though not random - is a useful way of giving the acting Methuselah an extremely powerful tool, but one they need to be careful with.

If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge. If it's based on an in-game consideration, then what was it that caused it? Did a deal get broken, and now there are repercussions to that? Consider that a player make seek revenge on you next time you break a deal. Is a player in a lost position, with no reasonable chance at any more VPs, and so they can choose to lose in any form they want? Consider helping the player so that they aren't in a lost position and can still reasonably play the game, right until you move in for the kill. Is the player seeking to maximise their Tournament Points from this round by doing something you didn't initially expect? That's something they're allowed to do (but not compelled to do) under Play to Win, and is not at all random. The bottom line is that you're playing a multiplayer game, and other players' choices may be to their benefit (or what they see as their benefit, since they are not psychic and may not make the same decisions you would regardless).

Mechanically again, I've already mentioned Parity Shift, and it's worth thinking about it. Parity Shift is one of the best cards in the game, I don't think anyone would doubt that. If you can play Ancient Influence and/or Reins of Power and predict the outcomes infallibly, you can potentially cause several massive pool shifts - which can then be followed up with Parity Shift(s). Why wouldn't I want to get the maximum amount of pool out of Ancient Influence? Because my copy of Lutz vs your cheaper Princes puts me in range of your Parity Shift. So I'd rather choose one of my smaller vampires, get less pool, but then not have it stolen from me and given to you. Then obviously you say "Well, sometimes it'll go the other way and the consequences will help someone else more than it helps me, the Methuselah playing it, and might stop me playing the Parity Shift at all!" Yes, that's certainly possible - you look at the table and know your predator will do really well out of it assuming everyone makes the most obvious decisions. But as the Methuselah whose card it is, you have the choice to play it or not: a) you help yourself but help someone else more and accept that as the price of doing business, for whatever reason; b) you delay until a later point, at the cost of keeping the card in your hand; or c) you decide it's not going to be worth your while, so you pitch the card somehow (on a cardless referendum, discard phase, The Barrens, whatever). But: large, completely predictable pool swings can make Parity Shift much better, using resources such decks have in abundance - the ability to pass votes. So a double whammy: 1) the acting Methuselah gets much more control of what happens because they know who will be chosen if the action is successful, and 2) that control can help you line up Parity Shift, potentially for more than one Methuselah because you're affecting the pool totals of everyone on the table. If a proposal potentially makes Parity Shift better, that's not usually a good thing.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge.

Even when play-to-win rule is not broken?

Bloodartist wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge.

Even when play-to-win rule is not broken?

Judges can check for other rule violations too.

Playing spitefully based on out-of-game considerations may violate the sportsmanslike conduct rule generally. Play-to-win is one aspect of sportsmanship - it wasn't originally codified separately (but now is). If a player is trying to harm you because of out-of-game considerations, it is certainly something many judges would want to be aware of - it may in fact (in their opinion) violate the requirements for sportsmanlike conduct now, or if not it might be something the judge bears in mind later on if they see a pattern of such behaviour emerging, but felt at this point it was a bit sketchy.

Additionally, trying to affect spite by changing two cards is a Sisyphean task. The same player could try to oust you by choosing you as the target of Deflection, not the more obvious choice of his prey. A vampire could bleed you cross-table with a variety of bleed cards. They could Mind Rape your vampire and yank its blood.

If there is a problem with titled players doing things spitefully, changing two cards is like trying to stop a tsunami by putting on galoshes.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Bloodartist wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge.

Even when play-to-win rule is not broken?

Judges can check for other rule violations too.

Playing spitefully based on out-of-game considerations may violate the sportsmanslike conduct rule generally. Play-to-win is one aspect of sportsmanship - it wasn't originally codified separately (but now is). If a player is trying to harm you because of out-of-game considerations, it is certainly something many judges would want to be aware of - it may in fact (in their opinion) violate the requirements for sportsmanlike conduct now, or if not it might be something the judge bears in mind later on if they see a pattern of such behaviour emerging, but felt at this point it was a bit sketchy.

The play to win rule is only violated if the spite move is from old spite.
If your demise is certain, hurting a prey who broke a deal or your predator who wouldn't negotiate are factors in a calculated risk they took.
Your choice is you maximizing your 0 vp as you see fit.
Obviously, " you kindred spirits bled me for an oust cross table at a continental championship 3 years ago" is an out of game reason, but something that happened in that table your being ousted from is all part of what led to your oust potentially.

Bloodartist wrote:

I am not a fan of the "play-to-win" rule, but its not being broken in this case.

PTW was cvcreated for a purpose.

Try playing, say in the Last Chance Qualifier of EC in a table where you have three buddies from same country. perhaps one of them is not qualified yet. You might be encvountering quite a lot of kingmaking in a table such as that without PTW...