Timeouts are boring

Did you notice wall decks being more aggressive in backousting? I would do it if there was no risk of losing a timeout to my grand-predator.

I did not see anyone doing that, you still have to get 2 v.p. Going up stream is harder for me than you, apparently.

Wedge wrote:

Did you notice wall decks being more aggressive in backousting? I would do it if there was no risk of losing a timeout to my grand-predator.

I did not see anyone doing that, you still have to get 2 v.p. Going up stream is harder for me than you, apparently.

A wall deck only needs 1 VP to have multiple paths to winning. In a typical finals scenario, a wall deck has to be careful to stay alive, but it must prop up its predator until it gets a VP or it could lose when time is called (1.5 to 0.5). That's not a risk under your rules because the game is guaranteed to finish with last man standing - which, in the wall player's view, will be the wall deck.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's a consequence of the rule. On the other hand, more finals should time out in my favor with Fred Scott 5 seconds away from winning.

Wedge wrote:

While I like the idea of last man standing, a game can end with 2/2 split and not have one. i.e. votes or fame/tension

There could be no last man standing at the end of a game. If this is the case, then I do suppose this would be a time that an out of game consideration (i.e. preliminary standings) should be factored into the results.

dorrinal wrote:

A wall deck only needs 1 VP to have multiple paths to winning. In a typical finals scenario, a wall deck has to be careful to stay alive, but it must prop up its predator until it gets a VP or it could lose when time is called (1.5 to 0.5). That's not a risk under your rules because the game is guaranteed to finish with last man standing - which, in the wall player's view, will be the wall deck.

While wall decks do have ultimate survivability in mind, also consider that the game can conclude with a victor without a last man standing. But, it just means that you *must* have 2 VPs and more than anyone else to win. I suspect a 2.5 / 0.5 / 0.5 / 0.5 result would become the normal timeout result. I have no problem with this. If the wall deck isn't fast enough, that's their own fault.

Dorrinal wrote:

A wall deck only needs 1 VP to have multiple paths to winning. In a typical finals scenario, a wall deck has to be careful to stay alive, but it must prop up its predator until it gets a VP or it could lose when time is called (1.5 to 0.5).

I don't understand you logic. Unless the wall deck is the first seed, why is it worse to lose 1.5 to 0.5 than to lose with 0.5 to everyone? If anything, the table is less likely to time out with one less player.

I like this proposal immensely. I had no idea people were playing with it in the last session because I came late and was 3 games in before I heard about, did not affect my play at all. But one thing I can conjecture is that there will be no reason to get in that end game tizzy where one tries to rush other people's play because you need another turn before time (which just seems to waste more time due to their reactions). Plus, any type of stalling will not be necessary as the time won't stop the game if inconclusive. I do not agree with the Last Man Standing idea, however, since part of the point of being higher or top seed is to have an advantage in the final. It is possible for a player to win a game of VTES without being LMS so I see no reason for the final to be any different. It encourages more aggressive/effective play and evens out the slight advantage to wall type/survival decks that this format could allow. Frankly, if a deck cannot go forward, or drop the table properly, it will not win. This proposal allows just that without the use of stalling for time as a strategy.