file Play to win

20 Aug 2019 11:52 - 20 Aug 2019 11:59 #96383 by Tadori
Replied by Tadori on topic Play to win

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

Well, someone could play a Life Boon...

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.

I've thought about it, but it's hard to find a right answer.

In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not:

"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted."


It's a great proposal, I hope it will go through.

Ok you can play 1 card :)
Last edit: 20 Aug 2019 11:59 by Tadori.

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

More
20 Aug 2019 13:33 #96388 by cordovader
Replied by cordovader on topic Play to win

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

Well, someone could play a Life Boon...

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.

I've thought about it, but it's hard to find a right answer.

In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not:

"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted."


I guess this should be translated to : you cannot transfer your last pool.

Because in any case, under how much pool are you going to forbid people from transferring?

Is it possible to bleed with govern + conditioning + daring while having a fame and 3 pool? Are you allowed to vote for a vote that would oust you (and expect a cross-table life boon)?

Honestly for once it would be nice to have a modification that wouldn’t be subject to interpretation.

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

More
20 Aug 2019 13:49 #96389 by PetriWessman
Replied by PetriWessman on topic Play to win

In november 2018, I had this kind of proposal, but it has to get through NCs to see if it's supported or not:

"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible, and if no more Victory Point are possible, not being ousted."


That would be a fantastic change. It would also remove a ton of judge headaches around this, since it removes a lot of the gray areas and is clear to enforce. No more self-ousting just to spite someone (or to get your friend into the finals, or crap like that).

1. Go for the GW
2. If that is not possible, go for max VPs
3. If no more VPs seem possible, go for the 0.5VP you get for surviving until the end.

Clear and simple. I like it. Sure, it's still possible to play in a stupid manner and intentionally get ousted, but that's better than a direct self oust -- at least there your predator has to do some work for that VP.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, Kraus, Trochomancy

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

More
20 Aug 2019 14:24 #96392 by elotar
Replied by elotar on topic Play to win
Crap, this zombie was reanimated after all :lol:

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

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

More
20 Aug 2019 14:31 #96394 by drnlmza
Replied by drnlmza on topic Play to win

1. Go for the GW
2. If that is not possible, go for max VPs
3. If no more VPs seem possible, go for the 0.5VP you get for surviving until the end.


But this is already what the current rules require, since 0.5 VP for reaching the time limit is more than 0 VPs for being ousted. Self-ousting when there's a reasonable chance of holding on to the timeout is a violation of PTW.

Also, does anyone actually expect this sort of change to somehow stop these arguments? The point of every argument against player Z self-ousting is that, for some reason, someone other than the predator of the Z should be able to benefit from Z getting ousted, usually by having Z be ousted by a different player later.

The arguments will just shift to other decisions which have the same effect: "My grand-prey Z transferred down to 4 pool to bring out an extra minion, but then couldn't block that bounced bleed - clearly they were violating the PTW rules because they weren't playing conservatively to stay alive"

--
National Coordinator
South Africa

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

More
20 Aug 2019 14:40 #96397 by Pyrocuror
Replied by Pyrocuror on topic Play to win
Yes ... Also players getting killed by their predator after tapping out all their minions for no reason is also a violation of the PTW in that case, and that's fairly usual.
If we go down this rabbit hole we can go really far ...
A player, let's say at one pool with no ready minions have no reasonable way to do anything else in a game. If he doesn't self oust, it benefits to someone. If he self-ousts, it benefits someone else. Whatever you do, it will benefit to someone. You should have the liberty to do so.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.114 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum