Play to win

self wrote:

Vaughnad wrote:

I'm ok with all of those, my problem is with self ousting by influencing, if you read my description of the table i played, you'll see that allowing someone to just influence his last 4 pool out of nowhere at the end of the turn is way to easy to affect the vps in the table, the other methods that involving actions i'm not oposing those.

In my experience, any player who is in such a position that transferring out seems like the best option for them, they should be allowed to do so because clearly they are not having any fun playing the game. Any sort of promise that one might get that their Predator might run out of Conditionings or Governs and then end up not winning the game if you make them play the cards feels bad if you've already been ousted.

Some people will gleefully go all in on a Pyrrhic Victory, and good for them, but saddling players with the obligation to make their predator play as many cards as possible to oust them can be just as much 'Kingmaking' as transferring out is; just in the other direction.

To put it another way: If you're complaining that you could have won the game, if an already ousted player made their predator play cards... that feels like a reach, and maybe you should "build better decks."

As i said before, in my example, my prey was almost dead: 1 pool, no blocks and i had 3 untaped nosferatos and a creeping sabotage on the table. my prey was not doing anything to my crosstable for a few rounds, then he ousted himself after he was not able to oust his prey on his round, just to prevent me from winning vps, and he adimitted that latter on.
He was in no danger to be ousted in the next few rounds, he had a bloot deck so i might even die to my predator before i was able to take him out, but he would probably not be able to take his prey out (tyz wall). still he did that to prevent me from even having a chance of collecting vps or maybe a gw if i was able to take him out. and i repeat he did admitted that later.

Vaughnad wrote:

then he ousted himself after he was not able to oust his prey on his round, just to prevent me from winning vps, and he adimitted that latter on.

You get the VP and pool if your prey is ousted, period. It doesn't matter how the ousting happens.

self wrote:

Vaughnad wrote:

then he ousted himself after he was not able to oust his prey on his round, just to prevent me from winning vps, and he adimitted that latter on.

You get the VP and pool if your prey is ousted, period. It doesn't matter how the ousting happens.

LOL, as i said please read my report on a previous post.
There was 4 on the table the one that selfousted was my crosstable to give pool to my prey, and it was on a tournament, please stop making assumptions base on one commment alone.

Vaughnad wrote:

Thats the thing, i was not the cause of the demise of my crosstable, two of those him was having a hard time even with my help and decided to drop, the judge said him had no real change of removing his prey (a wall deck in the 3 cases).
In the last one it pissed me off cause i was playing with my cross the entire game,
them when my prey was amosted ousted he started aiming kines on both his prey and me, so ok, no more aliance...
then on the turn i was going to get my vp he had 4 pool and 3 vamp, called 2 kines, but his prey stoped him both times and sended one of the vamp to torpor
and he did all of these without consunting anyone.. then he just freak drive his vamp and tried to leave torpor, his prey was suffering the entire game and had also only 4 pool, he blocked the attemp and asked if i would vote for him to burn if he diableri the vamp, i said i would not vote for him to burn since my cross started the agression agains me and he had the votes to control the table (and on my turn he would become my prey), and then he ousted him self
it was very clear to everyone the table that him was doing it to prevent me from getting my VP, so i called the Judge, and he started lying, saying he was playing against the entire table and that he could not gain the table.
i was very pissed of cause of the lies, he had an easy game cause his prey a wall deck had a problem with contesting the first vamp, so he started the game to late, and his deck was a deck with bloot and kiss of ra (the prey did not have fort), his predator was dead, i was with a nosferatu without bleed, so there was plenty of time for him to be able to take his prey ousted, but the judge ruled that his hand was bad and he could not get passed the deck in front of him.

the first two times a few months ago it was kinda ok, but was still frustrant anyway...
But this last time it was very clear that the player who did it was just trying to make me lose the game and affect the points which it did. the player was catch on his lyies later and even adimited that he did this to prevent me from getting VPs.

But the judge still say that if the user cant resonable get anything from that table, he can do WHATEVER he wants.
I see two problems:
One Juding if someone is not able to do anything.
Two Allowing someone to do kingmaking as he pleases.

Vaughnad wrote:

Thats the thing, i was not the cause of the demise of my crosstable, two of those him was having a hard time even with my help and decided to drop, the judge said him had no real change of removing his prey (a wall deck in the 3 cases).
In the last one it pissed me off cause i was playing with my cross the entire game,
them when my prey was amosted ousted he started aiming kines on both his prey and me, so ok, no more aliance...
then on the turn i was going to get my vp he had 4 pool and 3 vamp, called 2 kines, but his prey stoped him both times and sended one of the vamp to torpor
and he did all of these without consunting anyone.. then he just freak drive his vamp and tried to leave torpor, his prey was suffering the entire game and had also only 4 pool, he blocked the attemp and asked if i would vote for him to burn if he diableri the vamp, i said i would not vote for him to burn since my cross started the agression agains me and he had the votes to control the table (and on my turn he would become my prey), and then he ousted him self
it was very clear to everyone the table that him was doing it to prevent me from getting my VP, so i called the Judge, and he started lying, saying he was playing against the entire table and that he could not gain the table.
i was very pissed of cause of the lies, he had an easy game cause his prey a wall deck had a problem with contesting the first vamp, so he started the game to late, and his deck was a deck with bloot and kiss of ra (the prey did not have fort), his predator was dead, i was with a nosferatu without bleed, so there was plenty of time for him to be able to take his prey ousted, but the judge ruled that his hand was bad and he could not get passed the deck in front of him.

the first two times a few months ago it was kinda ok, but was still frustrant anyway...
But this last time it was very clear that the player who did it was just trying to make me lose the game and affect the points which it did. the player was catch on his lyies later and even adimited that he did this to prevent me from getting VPs.

But the judge still say that if the user cant resonable get anything from that table, he can do WHATEVER he wants.
I see two problems:
One Juding if someone is not able to do anything.
Two Allowing someone to do kingmaking as he pleases.

The way I see this is you have trouble with cross table players influencing themself out, more then once. My question to you is, why you don't use tools in the game available to prevent that? Life Boon exists for a reason and it does not require the methuselah in question to accept.

Or is this more about not wanting to use the tools already provided in your deck and instead seeking the easier way out by limiting other players options as opposed your own? Or perhaps you've missed that such card with that interaction existed in the first place?

As for having trouble with rulings made by a tournament judge, in the past it was bit harder to handle as judging is akin to football where calls on the field stay. But since BCP and VEKN made their www.vekn.net/images/stories/downloads/VEKN_Code_of_Ethics.pdf a thing and it includes play to win you're free to follow it's procedures. Or if the proceedings are not to your liking, well, create and maintain your own event with your own rules. It does not need to be sanctioned for people to have fun, after all that should be behind this hobby. This is not some "pack up and leave" remark and instead I'm trying to convey a message where you determine the enjoyment and limits. Heck there was a time when restricted list for certain tournaments existed, no more then 6 earth melds was a tactical possibility you could plan for. V:EKN did not agree and made their own rules, with blackjack and hookers! There's nothing to prevent you from doing the same to have fun.

Incidentally the homebrew tournament rules play is a way to limit kingmaking to a degree you feel is adequate, as discussed earlier, drawing the line on where the kingmaking starts is tad hard and varies. To me you were the kingmaker in your example by not having Life boon in your deck and thus allowing your grand prey to oust themself. You feel it was your grand prey that was the kingmaker. Who's correct or is it a case where we both are? When you are the one choosing the rules, it's much easier to limit options you dislike. Like V:EKN did with the 6 card restricted list, or the 40% Jyhad requirement, or playing for real ante in a sanctioned tournament table or... You get the idea. The Reason I recommend that course for players is the easiness of it. Changing existing rules and rulings will be met with for and against discussion aplenty, while you only need to get few other people to tag along to have your own fun. And if it's truly fun, you'll attract more and if not, then some introspection with new perspective might bring new conclusions to old questions.