How do you deal with people leaving the table before ousted
NO ONE should be punished for not wanting to play anymore. Disqualifying someone and not allowing him to keep playing in the tourneament is ridiculous.
We need a concede rule. Not jury-rigging adhoc solutions. A solution that could make a player leave in a harmless and fair manner, not forcing to keep him playing with reckless and disruptive actions. Even sitting in the table to wait for your turn to self oust is usually annoying.
I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish
Bloodartist wrote: I don't remember it being mentioned in the rules that you are allowed to self-oust.
It's mechanically possible in the rules to oust yourself - transferring out, paying all your pool for a card etc.
In terms of its interaction with play-to-win, many rulings on play-to-win have been issued over time. Pascal briefly reversed the ability to self-oust, which Ankha restored (and is still pending a firm ruling, I believe): www.vekn.net/forum/event-reports-and-twd/75796-ec-2017-questions-to-judges?start=18#86405
As things stand, in tournament play:
- In the preliminary rounds, if you can reasonably get a Table Win, you must play for the Table Win. It does not matter how you get the Table Win, so you can play for an easier 3-2 split, rather than a difficult 5-0 sweep, if you prefer.
- In the preliminary rounds, if you cannot get a Table Win, you must play for as many VP as you can reasonably get. This includes playing for 0.5 VP for a timeout. You cannot play slowly in the sense of illegal play, but you can make choices that are purely defensive and lead to you getting that VP from a timeout, rather than futile aggression that will oust you.
- In the preliminary rounds, if you cannot reasonably get any more VPs (a 'lost' position), you can get zero VPs in any way you want, including self-ousting. A common question at this point is "Does that mean I can screw up someone else?" If you have the capacity to screw someone else's game up, that generally means that you are not in a lost position. For example, you may well be able to extort deals from them to not do that. ("Hey, you know how you're leaving me here on 1 pool so that my prey can't announce blocks of your political actions? But what if I self oust? Oh, you wouldn't like that? Well then. How about you....") It also generally means that it's not in another player's interests to leave you in a 'lost' position, right up until they oust you. A rush deck killing all your minions and not allowing you to do anything at all is potentially playing sub-optimally.
- In the preliminary rounds, you can maximise your tournament points on a given table, but you are not required to do so.
- In the preliminary rounds, you are allowed to use risk assessment when choosing your way forward. Consider: you have a way forward that will, as definitely as you can imagine, get you 2 VPs. You have an alternative way forward that has a very tentative way to get a Table Win, but it's extremely risky, and your judgement is that if it goes badly wrong, you'll get zero VPs. You are allowed to make a risk assessment and choose the reasonable way forward, not the one-in-a-million, the Archangel Gabriel descends from heaven and hands you a table win way forward.
- Why do all the above say "In the preliminary rounds"? Because things change in the final. In the final, you come first or you come joint second. If you come second with 1 VP or second with 0 VP or second with 0.5VP, it doesn't matter - you come second. You can't make your situation worse and, unlike in the preliminary rounds, there isn't an incentive to play for a solid 1 VP rather than a one-in-a-million 3VP. Self-ousting in the final is therefore less likely to make sense, because if you are in the game, you can improve your position. Of course, you're not required to lunge for the final win now, and can bide your time - but you should be playing for the final win at all times.
- You can declare plays that will self-oust you, on the reasonable assumption that the cost will never be paid. For example, it may be a terrible idea for your predator to let you oust yourself, so you might see that they can declare a block and have some standing intercept, or whatever. Of course, that might not work out the way you think it might, because cross-table shenanigans might ensue (e.g. a DI of a card play, some unexpected cross-table meddling with stealth/intercept etc.).
- You might also self-oust yourself accidentally, by declaring something that is legal but that you don't realise is dumb. You shouldn't fake dumbness to self-oust at a point when it violates play-to-win, and the judge might intervene. In the absence of psychic probes, they might make mistakes, but they might genuinely think that you're doing something that is so obviously stupid that you're violating play-to-win rather than being stupid (or vice versa).
First section, striving for the table, I've taken all VPs on the table with Cock Robin combat before, but the planets aligned to make it happen. Ot is far more likely in combat and wall decks that you get stuck aiming at the maximization of your own vps depending on seating. Now, most decks like that exist are built (deliberately or not) in a way that will aim at letting 2 vps fall and taking the tables remainder In the endgame. BUT. Situations arise where table poison imbued or turbo nergal beast or turbo Arika will collapse the table in a manner where you will be knowingly doing things simply to remove one threat, even at the cost of actions to take the table. These sorts of things make your primary objectives switch abruptly.
All PTW rulings will be primary guidelines that judges will have to utilize when player intent is challenged.
Charles_Bronson wrote: We need a concede rule. Not jury-rigging adhoc solutions. A solution that could make a player leave in a harmless and fair manner, not forcing to keep him playing with reckless and disruptive actions. Even sitting in the table to wait for your turn to self oust is usually annoying.
Please provide, in detail, the rule that you are proposing. If we need this, you need to provide it. As another player on the table (particularly your predator or prey), if it renders any of my decisions invalid about what actions to take, what preparations to make, what cards to discard, what equipment to bring into play, which minions to banish etc., then it will be harming me. However, you are clearly certain that a method of correcting for this that is harmless exists, and that it can be with absolutely no ad hoc solutions.
I therefore look forward to studying your rules change proposal that requires no ad hoc actions, no discretion, and no judgment, but completely corrects for all the decisions I've taken in a fashion that is entirely harmless and fair to me and everyone else on the table.
But just to go back to this...
Charles_Bronson wrote: not forcing to keep him playing with reckless and disruptive actions.
If you can disrupt the table, you are very often in a position to negotiate. This may well give you a reasonable way to get VPs, and thus self-ousting is a bad thing to be doing.
It's not my job to lose gracefully to help anyone else.