file Choosing between grand-prey and grand-predator

01 Jun 2016 11:57 - 01 Jun 2016 11:58 #77057 by Ankha
Considering a 5-player game A > B > C > D > E

Early in the game, C and D have both a vampire, and D can diablerize C's vampire.

A has the final decision about the blood hunt.

1/ if asked before the diablerie, what should be A's decision (or table talk) before the diablerie happens
2/ nonetheless, D diablerizes C. Should A stick to his or her previous decision (whatever it was), or reconsider?

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 01 Jun 2016 11:58 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 11:58 #77058 by Ankha
My opinion about the subject, if I were A:
It's not good to have 2 weak grand-prey, grand-predator. I'd rather have one of the two in a strong position, preferably my grand-predator because:
1/ it means that my grand-prey C has to defend himself, presumably against B, my prey. Anything against B is good for me
2/ my grand-predator is strong, with little pressure, and therefore can put pressure on E, my predator, leaving me more space to oust my prey.

Now, if asked before the diablerie, I'd say to D to do as he wants, but in any case I won't burn him because it would mean that both my "allies" would be weakened: my prey can go forward, my predator has no pressure.
And I'd stick to this position because burning the diablerzing vampire would only help my predator (since C loses his vampire anyway).

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 12:12 #77059 by Yomyael
I'd make it dependent on what sort of deck I was playing. If I was playing a deck capable of ousting fast, I'd definitely allow D to diablerize C's vampire and live on, for the same reasons you stated. If I was playing a deck that planned to win on the long run, I'd say D his vamp would burn. If he diablerized nonetheless, I'd probably let his vamp live, because I want pressure on my predator.

Prince of Bonn, Germany

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 15:28 #77060 by elotar
You grand prey has to die, but killing him crosstable at the beginning of the game is not my cup of tea.

He got vampire in torpor so he is quite weaked already - if you deny diablery than you grand predator will presumably go forward (good) instead of loosing action on it giving your predator free reign(bad).

If D will diablerise, knowing that you promised to burn him, than in most situations I'll burn him - it may look bad to have two weak crosstable allies, but having strong crostable unresonable player is, imo, much worse.

:splat: NC Russia
:DEM::san::nec::cap4:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 18:57 #77062 by Dorrinal
How much pool did C invest in his vampire? D?

What is A's win condition? How do C and D's vampires interact with it? (for example: cross-table votes, disruptive combat, etc.)

1. Depends on the answers to those questions above. However,
2. You should always break your deals.

:trem:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Jun 2016 21:34 - 01 Jun 2016 21:46 #77063 by Ankha

You grand prey has to die, but killing him crosstable at the beginning of the game is not my cup of tea.

Maybe, but then you don't decide. You decide only whether your grand-prey burns also a vampire, or not.

He got vampire in torpor so he is quite weaked already - if you deny diablery than you grand predator will presumably go forward (good) instead of loosing action on it giving your predator free reign(bad).

But by burning your grand-predator's vampire, don't you give "free reign" to your predator for more than one turn?

If D will diablerise, knowing that you promised to burn him, than in most situations I'll burn him - it may look bad to have two weak crosstable allies, but having strong crostable unresonable player is, imo, much worse.

Is it reasonable to burn a vampire, knowing it won't benefit you? I've never seen truly "unreasonable" players, except one or two, but it's very rare.

Anyway, I'm no big fan of "I do things because I said to, even if it turns out badly for me because of my pride (or whatever)" , but that's only how I see things.

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Last edit: 01 Jun 2016 21:46 by Ankha.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.081 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum