file Play to win.

31 Aug 2021 16:50 #103010 by Tzimiakira
Replied by Tzimiakira on topic Play to win.
So far I have read all the comments in this post and I like to thank you all for your answers.  What I can see here is that this rule has lead to a several misinterpretations, resulting from slowing the game to even severe arguments on the table, deviating the main purpose's game which is to get fun. 

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 firs 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. The first time I read the rule i thought it was done to avoid that way of behavior. 

With all before mentioned makes me think that may be an opportunity to improve this rule by rewriting it mentioning its main objective and setting the scenarios where it may be applied and where it may not. 

Is there a way to call a referendum for doing so?

Thanks for your support :).

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

More
31 Aug 2021 20:14 #103011 by Kilrauko
Replied by Kilrauko on topic Play to win.

So far I have read all the comments in this post and I like to thank you all for your answers.  What I can see here is that this rule has lead to a several misinterpretations, resulting from slowing the game to even severe arguments on the table, deviating the main purpose's game which is to get fun. 

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 firs 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. The first time I read the rule i thought it was done to avoid that way of behavior. 

With all before mentioned makes me think that may be an opportunity to improve this rule by rewriting it mentioning its main objective and setting the scenarios where it may be applied and where it may not. 

Is there a way to call a referendum for doing so?

Thanks for your support :).
 

Please do not assume the following is some direct counter on you as a person, in my opinion it applies to all in similar situation and I try my best to argue the point.

Seeing how all judge calling, play to win resolutions and so forth seems to stem from tournament rules reading portion of the playerbase, I personally see no reason why that portion could not make recommendations and discuss how they wish to change tournament rules 4.8 www.vekn.net/tournament-rules/4-tournament-game-rules

Now if on the other hand players have trouble with play to win and feel the need to include it some form or another to the Rulebook for VTES, that I have much distaste for. After all, the 4.8 references object of the game that is clearly stated in the rules already. I'm quite certain players outside the tournament play are quite ready and able to monitor and enforce their own understanding of the object of the game as stated, without it needing to be spelled out more clearly. After all, what different words one could use that make: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs." less likely to be misunderstood?

Tournaments by their nature need regulation to be adequately comparable between each other. For rankings and such to have any meaning, players need to be sure same rules and their interpretations align from one VEKN tournament to another, regardless what country, language or culture it is hosted in.

For normal play, such restrictions matter little as by the nature of human interaction, groups are bound to form their own way. I keep bringing up example how there can be players still playing and enjoying ante rules, even decades after they've been banned from tournament play and purged from rulebook as irrelevant relics of the error made in past. Or how some might still play the cards *as they're printed* even if there's conflicts between the card list.txt and the physical copies? The Cards exist, and rules say cards go before rules. And that is fine, it is their group.

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? 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.

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.

If tournament rules bleeding into normal play cause conflict in the group, perhaps some sensible discussion is in order locally, after all it's much easier to communicate one's viewpoint that way then via a proxy (rulebook). Much faster as well.

Please do not take this as "no discussion, end nao!" comment, on the contrary, I applaud and wish for further discussion, it's in the start. But my arguments here are what goal that discussion should and should not have and why. People are free to agree/ignore/disagree of course, I just hope they provide good reasoning for themself when they do.

Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.

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

More
31 Aug 2021 20:23 #103012 by smeeag
Replied by smeeag on topic Play to win.
>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.
Most likely it was not true for ALL players on the table, but those who benefit from his outs (his predator, maybe prey, etc) pushed idea that it's first priority for everybody to oust him regardless of everything else (his/others decks, seating, etc).

While I'm not arguing people may BELIEVE (and it's their right, this does not break PtW rule) it's best for them to oust that skilled player, I'm sure with time (and gained experience) most of them will understand that even if initial chances on the table are let's say 40-15-15-15-15% in favour of skilled, after him ousted first the rest could become like 0-60-5-10-25% or so - clearly not benefiting everybody.

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

More
01 Sep 2021 01:12 #103015 by Tzimiakira
Replied by Tzimiakira on topic Play to win.
"Please do not assume the following is some direct counter on you as a person, in my opinion it applies to all in similar situation and I try my best to argue the point." 
-It is ok, I bring this discussion here because as a tournament organizer, as a Prince, as a judge and mainly as a player, I want the game ruling becomes clearer, not only to my local community but for all the players. 

"Seeing how all judge calling, play to win resolutions and so forth seems to stem from tournament rules reading portion of the playerbase, I personally see no reason why that portion could not make recommendations and discuss how they wish to change tournament rules 4.8  www.vekn.net/tournament-rules/4-tournament-game-rules

Now if on the other hand players have trouble with play to win and feel the need to include it some form or another to the Rulebook for VTES, that I have much distaste for. After all, the 4.8 references object of the game that is clearly stated in the rules already. I'm quite certain players outside the tournament play are quite ready and able to monitor and enforce their own understanding of the object of the game as stated, without it needing to be spelled out more clearly. After all, what different words one could use that make: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs." less likely to be misunderstood?"

Now that you have explained it, that seems ok, but I would change what is already written in VKEN by including what you have quoted. I wrote in red what I would include on the current text and in green what i think.4.8. Play to WinFirst I would include the rule's purpose:
This rule stands to avoid deals to intentionally modify the results of a tournament in favor or against a certain player which is considered a non sportsmanlike conduct(That is what I understand for the play to win rule now, please let me know if I am wrong and "the play to win rule" means something else),One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals 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.(I get it, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about minions, locations, equipmanet or any other permanent card, so it is ok to do cross table as long as it helps me to either have a game win or may victory points as I can.) (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing (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 ?)(more examples would be useful maybe a short list with more examples) etc.). For tournaments (4.8 applies only for tournaments, since it is not set on the core rule book), 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."Tournaments by their nature need regulation to be adequately comparable between each other. For rankings and such to have any meaning, players need to be sure same rules and their interpretations align from one VEKN tournament to another, regardless what country, language or culture it is hosted in.

Agree

"For normal play, such restrictions matter little as by the nature of human interaction, groups are bound to form their own way. I keep bringing up example how there can be players still playing and enjoying ante rules, even decades after they've been banned from tournament play and purged from rule book as irrelevant relics of the error made in past. Or how some might still play the cards *as they're printed* even if there's conflicts between the card list.txt and the physical copies? The Cards exist, and rules say cards go before rules. And that is fine, it is their group."
It is ok, I have nothing against casual game, even so home rules may apply and so on, there is a card editor to make your own card designs and playing with your friends. But the "Play to win rule " applies only during a tournament. 

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.
 
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. 

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?

If tournament rules bleeding into normal play cause conflict in the group, perhaps some sensible discussion is in order locally, after all it's much easier to communicate one's viewpoint that way then via a proxy (rulebook). Much faster as well.

Please do not take this as "no discussion, end nao!" comment, on the contrary, I applaud and wish for further discussion, it's in the start. But my arguments here are what goal that discussion should and should not have and why. People are free to agree/ignore/disagree of course, I just hope they provide good reasoning for themself when they do.

Thanks for your answer, take  care!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bloodartist

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

More
01 Sep 2021 06:31 #103016 by Bloodartist
Replied by Bloodartist on topic Play to win.


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

 


This.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Tradition​​​​​​​

A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.
—Gotthold Ephraim Lessing



The following user(s) said Thank You: Kilrauko

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

More
01 Sep 2021 08:43 #103020 by Lönkka
Replied by Lönkka 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.

Finnish :POT: Politics!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lech, Kilrauko

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

  • Lönkka
  • Lönkka's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Antediluvian
  • Antediluvian
  • War=peace, freedom=slavery, ignorance=strength
More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.108 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum