Play to win

Except you're removing a teaching tool by eliminating that.

Example: I was in a three-player with 1 VP and my predator had 1 VP and my prey had 0 VPs. I told him that if I am ousted he cannot win the table, that it's in his interest to let me rescue my vampire and perhaps rescue one himself. He torporized the vampire trying to rescue, leaving me with no ready minions.

I transferred out. If he's not going to play to win and he's taken away my ability to win, I see no reason I should have to sit in that game. I doubt he learned any lesson whatsoever.

again, the rules should not be here to prevent bad play.

And I disagree you should have self ousted.

Every one see the things differently.

And IMO, a rule preventing anybody to use his last pool no matter how is not a bad thing, I saw too many self oust out of spite for no other reason that the player had a bad game.

And if the rules would have prevented you from self ousting, the play you are talking about would not necessarily be a bad play because he could have the opportunity to prevent your death with rush/eagle's sight/other thing and could have killed the 2 remaining players and secure a GW.

Timo wrote:

...for no other reason that the player had a bad game.

It's the most important reason, IMO. The most loud opponents of self-ousting are players, who prefer to play with decks, which deny others an ability to play by blocking everything/rushing all minions to torpor or something similar.

elotar wrote:

Timo wrote:

...for no other reason that the player had a bad game.

It's the most important reason, IMO. The most loud opponents of self-ousting are players, who prefer to play with decks, which deny others an ability to play by blocking everything/rushing all minions to torpor or something similar.

Absolutely! Amongst the playerbase there can easily evolve a gentlemen's agreement kinda thing... the most obscene decks tend to be gotten rid of... hey player A, are you playing Nana weenie animalism in a table where Meths want to actually play the game? Bye!
One does not even have to actively hurt player A, merely denying help. Also 2 D combat decks sitting allied position in a 4 player table will split the table almost instantly by demolshing vamps backwards...

kschaefer wrote:

Except you're removing a teaching tool by eliminating that.

Example: I was in a three-player with 1 VP and my predator had 1 VP and my prey had 0 VPs. I told him that if I am ousted he cannot win the table, that it's in his interest to let me rescue my vampire and perhaps rescue one himself. He torporized the vampire trying to rescue, leaving me with no ready minions.

I transferred out. If he's not going to play to win and he's taken away my ability to win, I see no reason I should have to sit in that game. I doubt he learned any lesson whatsoever.

You chose to collect your 0 additional VPs as you saw fit, you were still playing to win (er..... as much as one can)
Since you aren't going to draw a card that says "master: move a vampire from torpor to its controllers ready region with 3 blood from the blood bank" no other factors would change the outcome for you. Your prey was ostensibly not playing to win by not abiding the simple math of 1vp<2vp. In a tournament setting, depending on who is situated where on VPs, it may make sense to have the guy tied with you going into round 2 get less VPs, but that's a stretch.

Learning experiences aside, your VPs are to your left, the only reason to go to your right (or cross table) should be to advance you ousting of the person to your left (staying alive furthers this, wrecking your predator to the point t of them having no game typically makes you a bad predator yourself).

Playing combat well requires being aware of how to imbalance the table in your favor.

I draw the line on ptw at plays directly leading to an ousting of not your prey.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

I draw the line on ptw at plays directly leading to an ousting of not your prey.

But there are lots of reasons to oust cross table to improve the table situation for yourself.

Examples off the top of my head:
*) A vote deck may oust a wall deck cross table because it will be able to sweep the rest the table easily if it doesn't have to worry about the wall deck blocking it later.
*) Ousting some variety of gehenna event deck cross table might be needed to remove various events from play before doing a lunge.
*) Ousting a fast bleed deck cross table might be the only way it stop it getting the GW.

Nothing is ever completely black and white, and always depends on the decks, the exact table situation and judgment calls by the players involved.

This is also why it can be incredibly hard to judge PTW issues for someone who hasn't been observing the table.