Play to win

I am a self ousting player.
I did it. ONCE. in 16 years I play this game.
I was so pissed off by my prey just beating my vampires all the game with no Real purpose and no gain that i did it. I would be ousted in my predator turn anyway, so I bled my prey for 8, and ousted myself. Then, after the game, I had the chance to explain my prey my reasons, and he agreed with me.

The day after, he brought me a present (a beer, for what is worth) and we exchanged friendly opinions about each other decks and strategy. And I think I have made a new friend (in the WORST GAME I've had in 10 that was my EC).

Maybe it's only my opinion, maybe it was only luck... but just consider that behind French, italian, Spanish, or venusian players, we are all players. Every player plays at his best. If you are smarter, or they are dumber, or just brought a knife a gunfight... it's just a game.

The people I did the worst things in game, are really true friend. If they weren't before the game, they are after. That's what make the game worth to play.


For me.

Tadori wrote:

So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting

Roughly speaking, if the player's best outcome is not getting any more VP, it doesn't matter why they choose to do it. They've maximized their VPs.

It may also be better for them in terms of maximizing their TPs for the round. If everyone gets zero VPs, I get more TPs out of the round. (Edit to add: mild brain fart here as self-ousting obviously means someone gets 1 VP, but the general point is sound. Self-ousting may mean that table dissolves in a way that maximizes your TPs, such as letting your predator roll the table, rather than two people getting 1 VP each - and two people tying reduces my TP. End edit.) See 3.7.3 of the tournament rules. You are allowed to maximize your TPs as part of play-to-win, but are not required to(*) - with Game Wins and VPs counting higher as normal. (Except in the final, where TPs don't matter.)

There are some important caveats to the above:

1) Hanging on for a timeout 0.5 VP is play-to-win. If you can reasonably try to hold on for it, this is play to win. This includes playing in ways that slow the game down. You still have to play in a timely fashion, but you can take steps that lead to the game carrying on, acting purely defensively, generating pool etc. If there's no reasonable chance of you getting an oust (or VP via some other route), self-preservation to get the timeout 0.5 VP is absolutely fine.

2) If this is part of some other cheating scheme, it is part of some other cheating scheme. You can't collude. You can't artificially work yourself into a "Oh no, I can't get any more VPs" position so that if you self-oust it means that that other deck can't get into the final, or your buddy will get into the final. Cheating is still cheating.

But self-ousting is not in itself cheating.


Additionally:

3) If you do not want someone to be in a position where self-ousting may be reasonable, make sure they don't get into such a crappy position that it's reasonable for them to . Toss them some in a Con Boon. Rescue that vampire. Bounce a bleed at someone beneficial to that player. Do something that upsets their predator just a little. Don't kill them so hard that they can't do anything, but their predator (your grand-predator) wants them to stay on the table. If them self-ousting will upset your game plan, helping them stay on the table can perfectly legitimately be play-to-win. This isn't "I can do anything I want to help my mate stay on the table", it still has to be in your self-interest - getting the Game Win, maximizing your VPs, optionally maximizing your TPs. But maybe having that extra player on the table with a Sens Depped bishop and a vote from Vox Senis is just helping you scrape some votes through.



(*) If you were required to maximize TPs, this leads to some unwanted behaviour such as - on a table near timeout - a player with 1 VP (and no other VPs on the table) being forced to intervene and stop the player opposite them getting an oust, because it reduces their TPs by tying for first place.

cordovader wrote:

Well, I think you are quite disappointed about someone doing this to you

No one ever did it to me. I was not aware that this rule existed until last week.

thelonius wrote:

I am a self ousting player.
I did it. ONCE. in 16 years I play this game.
I was so pissed off by my prey just beating my vampires all the game with no Real purpose and no gain that i did it. I would be ousted in my predator turn anyway, so I bled my prey for 8, and ousted myself. Then, after the game, I had the chance to explain my prey my reasons, and he agreed with me.

The day after, he brought me a present (a beer, for what is worth) and we exchanged friendly opinions about each other decks and strategy. And I think I have made a new friend (in the WORST GAME I've had in 10 that was my EC).

Maybe it's only my opinion, maybe it was only luck... but just consider that behind French, italian, Spanish, or venusian players, we are all players. Every player plays at his best. If you are smarter, or they are dumber, or just brought a knife a gunfight... it's just a game.

The people I did the worst things in game, are really true friend. If they weren't before the game, they are after. That's what make the game worth to play.


For me.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's not about player behavior it's about existing an unnecessary rule that creates a lot of shady actions.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

) If this is part of some other cheating scheme, it is part of some other cheating scheme. You can't collude. You can't artificially work yourself into a "Oh no, I can't get any more VPs" position so that if you self-oust it means that that other deck can't get into the final, or your buddy will get into the final. Cheating is still cheating.

But self-ousting is not in itself cheating.

Do you know a saying "opportunity creates a thief". There may be no scheme at a beginning of the game but there may be a situation on the table where you can freely decide who will win,have a GW or create a tie just because of your personal agenda. It's completely unnecessary in competitive game.

Tadori wrote:

There may be no scheme at a beginning of the game but there may be a situation on the table where you can freely decide who will win,have a GW or create a tie just because of your personal agenda. It's completely unnecessary in competitive game.

This is nothing to do with self-ousting. V:TES is a multiplayer game. Your successes are not solely down to your own actions. There will always, always, always be situations where a third player on the game can king-make.

Situation: the outcome of this political action will decide who wins the game. If Val passes this Parity Shift aimed at me, Val will get a Game Win. If this PS fails, the game will continue through me. I can't do much but am banned from self-ousting, because that's the way the game works. Sam has several Army of Rats in play, which will oust Val. Therefore, Sam will win. I have a political action card in my hand, or I have a card like Ventrue HQ in play. The vote is tight, but I can decide whether it passes or fails, and therefore who wins. It makes absolutely no difference to my chance of a GW or VP either way.

Even though you have banned self-ousting, the same "problem" exists.

This happens everywhere:

- two players on the table offer me a deal. Both deals are good for me (and them), but I can't take both deals. Which deal do I take?

- looking at the table, I can see two paths to victory. One involves me sweeping 5-0, which is possible but a bit annoying and risky. The other involves getting that other deck off the table while it's still cross-table and can't block me, which turns this into a 4-1 or maybe 3-2 situation, such as helping my grand-prey oust my (annoying) grand-predator. My actions strongly influence whether my grand-prey finishes with 0VP or 1-2VP.

- any player offers me a deal. There is no competing offer, it's just that player wants me to help them. With my help, that player will probably get at least a VP, maybe more. They're offering something good in return, but this player has a reputation for reneging on deals. Or perhaps they backstabbed me earlier this round. So I choose not to help them. Or maybe I choose to take the risk.



It is nigh-on impossible to eliminate king-making from a multi-player game. If you want your chances of success to be only dependent on your actions (plus luck of the draw):

a) that's what two player card games are for, and
b) consider stopping the player getting into a reasonable self-oust position as being something you can do. If they're alive, with healthy minions, it is much harder to convince a judge that there's no reasonable prospect of VPs. They can strike deals with people, they can assist people. They can burn the Pentex off your minion as a trade for you smacking their prey with ConAg. Whatever.

Maybe in fact political action example is the closest to self-ousting.. But in this case all player make a decision by voting and can affect the referendum by using cards. In self-ousting no one else can influence your decision with cards

In other examples player takes an action/deal to get VP or get ahead in self-ousting you have no gain.

As I said before Ankha presented and official ruling I accept it (i still dont agree it should be like this) and hope it will be revised in the future.