file Play to win.

01 Sep 2021 11:50 #103022 by estelmatiazi
Replied by estelmatiazi on topic Play to win.

Some years ago there was a player in my playgroup who was a good one, during the game the other players agreed that he must be the first in being ousted and through the time that player lost interest in the game and quit. According to what I have understood it was correct to ousted him because he was the best player and he used to sweep the whole table.


Ganging up/ playing against the most experienced player just because she is participating sounds to me like bad form.

True, she is probably most likely to win, but still trying to rid the table of a player just because she is way more proficient than any other player is bad form in my book. After all the type of deck she is playing should be the top concern in such matters. Even if a master player will be the most likely to dominate the table even with way inferior deck to the others.

"Hey, player X is on the table, let's gang up on her so someone else will win the game" is a bad argument in trying to frame someone as the Table Threat #1 and will most likely just net the game to her Predator. Or Prey. Even if that person might be someone fro, say, top 20 of the Hall of Fame or whoever.


This is kinda weird to me too. A newbie with a giovanni powerbleed can do much more damage than the top player of the planet with some janky tech that he is figuring out. 

Here in Brazil its common for very experienced players to try to shift the table towards someone else (usually predator) saying that they are very dangerous and will sweep the table if left unchecked, but its a strategy that people pick on quickly and learn to ignore. 
Feels like the entire group trapped themselves in that mindset and the game lost a player because of it.

From the replies in this thread I get the feeling that OP's group is super competitive and that this might be causing issues for them even outside of tournament play. I wish that they would try playing some jank, weird decks that have one chance in 100 of working but will be amazing when they do. When I started doing this with friends from my discord server the game got a life of its own and we started enjoying it a lot more. I know that this is a mindset that many won't enjoy because the games are long and sitting there for 2 hours with something that doesnt quite work can be frustrating, but I wish that people would try it more. 


Lasombra Archbishop of São José, SC, Brazil.

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

01 Sep 2021 13:34 - 01 Sep 2021 13:36 #103024 by Kilrauko
Replied by Kilrauko on topic Play to win.

Some people do not wish play to win arguments from tournament scene to invade their games . I consider myself to be one of them and I have no need to hide it. Who are we to attempt to enforce such on them if we have trouble handling our own playgroups social norms? 

It can't be possible to invade casual game scene with the 4.8 rule, because it is a tournament rule and only can be applied on a tournament.

With this I was referring to lip's earlier post where

I often see people invoke the PtW rule on casual tables (and even tournaments) to contest a play on the table. ....

Your response on it not being possible and his view where it is seen "often... in casual tables (and even tournaments)..." highlight in my opinion excellently how different normal groups and their social norms are. What is impossible for some, is happening often for others. Thanks to social norms and negotiation tournament rules have been bleeding to normal play ever since they were penned down and it's up to each group and it's individuals how they handle that.

If we're on the path of enforcing uniformity, shouldn't we start by rewording the golden rule for cards and instead switch it to "Whenever card text in the card list in VEKN site contradicts the rules or the card text, the card text in the card list in the VEKN site takes precedence?"Just pointing out the big can of worms with anything apart from careful rewording of existing terminology to mean the same with different words.

As a judge is it ok to me that exists a place where I can consult questions that I am not sure about. In one hand I will be given my players a rightful and honest  solution to dissolve any inquiry, on the other, in the other hand I will be ok knowing that what I have done was ok although the players don't agree. And rewording an existing terminology for one that is clearer is ok, the easier the merrier.  Which means in lesser timing finding out what they want to say, above all for players whose english may be suited por improvement the lesser timing i will expend arguing about something, the more I will spend playing vtes. 

And that's where we're in agreement, tournament rules need to be as precise, easy to understand and consistent as the tournament players wish. That's what they are there for. My argument is against changing the rulebook, not tournament rules.

Do not fix what is not broken, if there's trouble in tournament play, fix tournament rules, if that requires laid out examples, include them to the tournament rules. If there's trouble in "casual" play, talk with the group and either agree or agree to disagree or disagree and choose not to play with that group. But trying to fix a local group issue, by modifying rules referenced by nearly *all* players everywhere when play to win is never once mentioned in the rulebooks most of them use? Do not use cannon to kill the fly.

I disagree with you because if something is not broken but may be improved why wont do it? 

I was referring to some form of inclusion to Rulebook about play to win when in my opinion it's a issue that can and should be solved by tweaking tournament rules. I'm trying to highlight the separation of the two to ensure any changes made only target those who most benefit and are affected by it. It was not argument that no changes at all should be made, just that the rulebook seems to be fine regarding play to win.

Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
Last edit: 01 Sep 2021 13:36 by Kilrauko. Reason: added lip quote

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

01 Sep 2021 17:32 #103027 by Tzimiakira
Replied by Tzimiakira on topic Play to win.
So how can I promote a motion to improve the 4.8 rule, I think it may be clearer to write it as follows, personal questions  and suggestions are written in green: 

This rule stands to avoid deals or behavior to intentionally modify the results of a tournament in favor or against a certain player, which is considered a non sportsmanlike conduct. Players must not play toward objectives that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence  held by rival Methuselahs" (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing ( I have a question lets suppose that we have a table with a fast clowncar ravnoz deck, this person is one of the top players and because his deck is faster than all the decks on the table the other players decided to ousted him first by calling referendums, bleeding cross table and so on, in such case applies or doesn't the "play to win" rule ?), (I suggest to include more examples, they would be useful to underestand what this rule is about, maybe a short list with more examples) etc.).
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.Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course).During the finals, playing to win means playing to finish as tournament winner (as defined in 3.7.5).Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.

In advance thank you for your support :).

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

Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.082 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum