Is revenge a valid reason of violating PTW?

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
just to make things clear for my playgroup.

Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
such behavior be legal?
Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?

Thanks in advance,
Ector
72 answers Last reply
More about revenge valid reason violating
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    The answer to your question: *BY THE RULES*, in this specific case, the
    judge should punish the avenging player.

    My personal opinion: break the neck of the F%$#ING traitor :)

    Dragos


    Ector wrote:
    > I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
    > just to make things clear for my playgroup.
    >
    > Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
    > enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
    > can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
    > such behavior be legal?
    > Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
    > to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
    > to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
    > and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
    > for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
    >
    > Thanks in advance,
    > Ector
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 1 Jun 2005 08:56:06 -0700, "Ector" <Ector@mail.ru> wrote:

    >I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
    >just to make things clear for my playgroup.
    >
    >Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
    >enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
    >can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
    >such behavior be legal?
    >Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
    >to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
    >to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
    >and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
    >for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
    >Thanks in advance,
    >Ector

    I've asked something similar a few weeks before, with just a little
    more emphasis on the dealbreaking and personal grudges issue.

    As far as I understood from long-time judges and LSJ's responses in
    that thread, 'revenge' alone is not an acceptable reason for violating
    the PTW rule. The complications on the issue lay on determining what
    is indeed playing to win in that particular case. Rushing a minion
    cross-table is not a violation of the PTW rule per se as many players
    believe - it's the table situation that matters. But most of the time
    a player will have an acceptable reason for the rush other than mere
    'revenge' - and judges can't legislate against stupid play (man, how I
    like this motto ;-)

    Even if the double-crossed player openly admits that he's going for
    pure revenge, the circumstances of the broken deal could make the play
    reasonable - like a PTO on a key vamp when leaving it alone was part
    of the deal. How could torporizing the Inner Circle offender could NOT
    be playing to win, even cross-table?

    If the judge suspect there's more involved, like a personal grudge or
    collusion, that's another matter. And a very difficult one to discern,
    I must say. Ultimately, only table analysis can offer reliable
    guidance in the issue - there's no "ideal formula" to sign on to.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 1 Jun 2005 09:54:18 -0700, "Dragos" <dragos@uol.com.br> wrote:

    >The answer to your question: *BY THE RULES*, in this specific case, the
    >judge should punish the avenging player.
    >
    >My personal opinion: break the neck of the F%$#ING traitor :)
    >Dragos

    Top-posting and schizophrenia: that's the Tzimisce way :-D

    >Ector wrote:
    >> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
    >> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
    >>
    >> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
    >> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
    >> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
    >> such behavior be legal?
    >> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
    >> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
    >> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
    >> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
    >> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance,
    >> Ector


    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:

    >If a legal deal was broken, can the "victim" violate
    >PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would such
    >behavior be legal?

    I'm not sure what the answer to your question is.
    However, your play group should know that the
    ultimate way to avenge such treachery is to earn
    the Game Win in spite of it.

    Jay
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Stefan Ferenci wrote:

    > if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
    > and not try and win it.
    > if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
    >
    > stefan

    Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
    tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal. Really
    dead situations aren't very frequent, and if you still can *avenge*
    somebody, you're obviously not dead yet :)
    What do you think about this?

    Ector
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:
    > I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
    > just to make things clear for my playgroup.
    >
    > Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
    > enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
    > can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not? Would
    > such behavior be legal?
    > Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
    > to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
    > to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
    > and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
    > for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
    >
    > Thanks in advance,
    > Ector
    >


    if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
    and not try and win it.
    if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game

    stefan
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Stefan Ferenci wrote:
    | Ector wrote:
    |
    |> Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
    |> to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
    |> to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
    |> and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
    |> for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?
    |
    | if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
    | and not try and win it.
    | if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game

    And if someone breaks a deal with you and still leaves room for you to
    conduct any sort of effective "revenge" against them, then they made a
    really stupid play by breaking the deal... cf. Machiavelli's _Prince_.
    If you're going to kick people in the nuts, KICK, don't just wave your foot.

    In the above situation, I'd (at least temporarily) disallow the action
    and say "no,... play to win." Nothing like having the player outright
    admit that he's violating the rules to make things simple for the judge.
    ~ =)

    That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
    ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
    justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
    vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
    to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.

    Sadly, the situation is never actually this cut-and-dried.

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCnjvKtQZlu3o7QpERAuVdAKDeZvo9ynZ1h0mk8Iy58U6Y+pv6vQCdE5OK
    6qJc5O0dsni3mvy4oTpOzTo=
    =u1mG
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Derek Ray a écrit :

    > That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
    > ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
    > justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
    > vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
    > to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.

    I sens hatred i you ...
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector a écrit :
    >
    > Stefan Ferenci wrote:
    >
    >
    >>if you still have a chance to win the game, why would you be sostupid
    >>and not try and win it.
    >>if you have no chance to win, its up to you how you "leave" the game
    >>
    >>stefan
    >
    >
    > Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
    > tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.

    Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
    i doubt so :)
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <429e9c94$0$22368$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda
    <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >Ector a écrit :
    >> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
    >> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
    >
    >Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
    >i doubt so :)

    If your baseline is attacking for revenge and going out with zero VP,
    then one VP is, at least, less stupid. Certainly, it could easily be
    the tie-breaker that lifts you out of a mass of 0Vps into the 1, 2 or 3
    VP (across multiple rounds) area that gets you into the final in a small
    tournament.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht
    news:sG94HUNdLrnCFweE@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
    > In message <429e9c94$0$22368$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda
    > <true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
    >>Ector a écrit :
    >>> Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
    >>> tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal.
    >>
    >>Mmm is obtaining only one VP a clever deal ?
    >>i doubt so :)
    >
    > If your baseline is attacking for revenge and going out with zero VP,
    > then one VP is, at least, less stupid. Certainly, it could easily be
    > the tie-breaker that lifts you out of a mass of 0Vps into the 1, 2 or 3
    > VP (across multiple rounds) area that gets you into the final in a small
    > tournament.
    >
    Well, often a deal of 1 VP for you, one for me can be very good in a
    tournement. Especially on a slow table, and sometimes tables can 'lock
    down'. the 1-1 deal can both speed up the game and get the table out of
    such a lock. It's also a good way of removing decks you can't handle by
    yourself.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1117690890.745728.147520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Ector <Ector@mail.ru> writes:
    >Unfortunately, most of our players aren't very experienced and they
    >tend to overlook ways to get at least 1 VP with a clever deal. Really

    Take a pad. Make some notes. Go back over the situation afterwards,
    and discuss what different people thought should happen.

    Many players will not improve (as rapidly) if they're just putting decks
    together and playing them. Having some sort of critical dialogue about
    a situation, seeing what different people's views are, seeing why they
    make the decisions they do, could be useful.

    Be wary of teaching people that 1VP is a "good" outcome, though.
    Typically, they should be playing for table-wins, not a single easy VP.
    If you get into the mindset of "Wow, a VP!" it can be difficult to move
    on. You can often build a deck which will be practically guaranteed one
    VP, but which won't get any further, which can halt the learning curve
    rather rapidly.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Johannes Walch wrote:

    > What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    > your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    > after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    > allowed.
    >
    > --
    > johannes walch

    Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
    deal? And why do you think that you can "keep your part of the deal"
    when it's already broken? BTW, do you really WANT to play a game where
    each deal would have threats of both sides?
    LSJ, if you are reading this, please provide a clear answer to Johannes
    Walch, since the same suggestion was proposed in my playgroup.

    Thanks in advance,
    Ector
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:
    > Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
    > deal?

    Making deals and making threats are both methods of playing to win.
    Neither would be a good tool for influencing other players' decisions
    if the play to win rule forbade following through on deals or threats.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:
    > I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
    > just to make things clear for my playgroup.
    >
    > Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
    > enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
    > can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not?


    Not. (ob English: he would be avenging himself (or his honor), not the
    traitor).

    Would
    > such behavior be legal?

    Only if it conformed to the PTW rule.

    > Let's skip complicated situations and assume that the player is trying
    > to perform an action that makes EVERYBODY suspect that he isn't playing
    > to win, like rushing a cross-table player. Somebody calls the judge,
    > and the player openly admits that he's trying to AVENGE another player
    > for breaking a deal. What should the judge do in this situation?

    If the activity is illegal, the judge should prevent it (correct the
    player and require the player to follow the rules).


    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > Ector wrote:
    >
    >> I apologize for posting a very stupid question, but I have to post it
    >> just to make things clear for my playgroup.
    >>
    >> Honoring a legal deal is a valid reason for "violating" PTW rule (this
    >> enables table-splitting deals and so on). If a legal deal was broken,
    >> can the "victim" violate PTW just to avenge the traitor or not?
    >
    >
    >
    > Not. (ob English: he would be avenging himself (or his honor), not the
    > traitor).
    >
    > Would
    >
    >> such behavior be legal?
    >
    >
    > Only if it conformed to the PTW rule.

    What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    allowed.

    --
    johannes walch
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Johannes Walch wrote:
    > What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    > your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    > after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    > allowed.

    No.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In article <C0Mne.13012$M36.4789@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
    <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:

    >Johannes Walch wrote:
    >> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    >> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    >> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    >> allowed.
    >
    >No.

    How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
    torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
    thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
    always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?

    --
    charles lechasseur - danov@novideospamtron.ca
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Charles Lechasseur" <danov@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message
    news:danov-0206051922530001@192.168.1.4...
    > In article <C0Mne.13012$M36.4789@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
    > <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Johannes Walch wrote:
    >>> What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    >>> your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    >>> after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    >>> allowed.
    >>
    >>No.
    >
    > How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
    > torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
    > thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
    > always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?

    I'm trying to figure out what you're asking, here. Are you trying to
    figure out a way to violate play-to-win by violating it as the payback
    for not being cowed by a threat? Obviously, that doesn't work or it would
    become easy to skirt PTW: "If you don't launch yourself out of that chair
    and touch the moon RIGHT NOW, I will rush and torporize your minion."

    Can we back up a bit and figure out what the issue is? Violating play-to-
    win is not like playing Jeopardy where you simply have to phrase your
    violation in the form of question.

    Fred
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    > "Charles Lechasseur" <danov@novideospamtron.ca> wrote in message
    >>How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
    >>torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
    >>thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks. I've
    >>always thought of it as being a valid strategy. What do you think?
    >
    >
    > I'm trying to figure out what you're asking, here. Are you trying to
    > figure out a way to violate play-to-win by violating it as the payback
    > for not being cowed by a threat? Obviously, that doesn't work or it would
    > become easy to skirt PTW: "If you don't launch yourself out of that chair
    > and touch the moon RIGHT NOW, I will rush and torporize your minion."
    >
    > Can we back up a bit and figure out what the issue is? Violating play-to-
    > win is not like playing Jeopardy where you simply have to phrase your
    > violation in the form of question.

    Correct.

    Threats are not deals.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > Threats are not deals.

    But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
    real is also play to win.

    Example: Randomly attacking your grand preadator, who has not done any
    harm to you, who is not strong and will not easy win the game, would be
    usually not playing to win. But if i threat him, that i will rush him,
    if he will not instantly make pressure on my predator, that would make
    the rush afterwards a play to win strategy even if it is counter
    productive. Because if your play relies on threads, the worst case is,
    that no one believes your thread. So even a absolutely senseless rush
    will become play to win, if it shows that you make your threads real.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <danov-0206051922530001@192.168.1.4>, Charles Lechasseur
    <danov@novideospamtron.ca> writes:
    >How about something like, "If you don't do X RIGHT NOW, I will rush and
    >torporize your minion". Simply an example, but threatening this type of
    >thing is something I've sometimes seen players do with rush decks.

    Possibly the most common example of this is someone talking to a stealth
    bleed predator:

    - Hold off bleeding me for the next two turns, and I won't rush you.

    In both cases, the play could be seen as play-to-win for the rush deck.

    Creating a deal which leads to you not being bled is likely to be a
    strong deal for you. If they are bleeding you, rushing them to get rid
    of them could also be seen as playing-to-win. (It may not be the best
    possible move, since destroying your predator may gift an easy path to
    your grand-predator. But the play-to-win rule in no way legislates
    against tactically questionable way.)


    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    reyda wrote:
    | Derek Ray a écrit :
    |
    |> That said, there are certainly reasons that would make me change my
    |> ruling; Arika PTOs one of my vamps as part of a dealbreak, I'm perfectly
    |> justified in dunking and eating Arika, because I can't win with all my
    |> vamps PTOed. Even if it's not my vamp, it's not TOO hard to make a case
    |> to dunk Arika as long as I control non-Camarilla vamps.
    |
    | I sens hatred i you ...

    Hm? Not especially; I'm not part of the rabid PTO-Must-Die-At-All-Cost
    crowd, although I think it's patently obvious that the effect is
    disproportionate to the cost. It's more of a direct strategy thing...

    1) I have vampires that can be burned with PTO.
    2) I have seen that one deck contains PTOs.
    (2.5) Possibly, one of those PTOs has already been used on me.)
    3) As soon as I become a threat, the deck will PTO at least one of my
    vamps.
    4) I should pre-emptively remove the deck's ability to call PTO.

    Often it's a question of timing. You don't, for example, want to nuke
    your grandpredator's Arika the turn he brings her out. Go ahead and let
    your predator get some whippin' near the start of the game. But don't
    think that Arika isn't going to nuke your Goratrix before she actually
    becomes your predator (so you can't easily block), either -- since you
    know it's going to happen like that, you can take action at the
    appropriate time. Or maybe you can't, in which case you're boned.

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCoE6YtQZlu3o7QpERAtSyAJ9lHjK4OPpCJxPiVH82cLCKOwUcJACg1Iz7
    fgo09skYSnjZkKBkPuGdTcM=
    =gMNc
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    x5mofr@gmx.de wrote:
    > LSJ wrote:
    >
    >>Threats are not deals.
    >
    > But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
    > real is also play to win.

    If the activity is play-to-win in itself, then it is legal to do
    (with regard to the ptw rule) whether you had threatened to do it
    or not.

    It's the non-ptw activity that is under question -- whether
    threatening to do it suddenly grants it immunity from the ptw
    rule. It doesn't.

    > Example: Randomly attacking your grand preadator, who has not done any
    > harm to you, who is not strong and will not easy win the game, would be
    > usually not playing to win. But if i threat him, that i will rush him,
    > if he will not instantly make pressure on my predator, that would make
    > the rush afterwards a play to win strategy even if it is counter
    > productive. Because if your play relies on threads, the worst case is,
    > that no one believes your thread. So even a absolutely senseless rush
    > will become play to win, if it shows that you make your threads real.

    Showing that you are capable of violating the rules doesn't make
    violating the rules legal.

    You could threaten to cheat in other ways as well if he doesn't
    do such-and-such. That doesn't grant you leave to do so (in the
    eyes of the rule you'd be violating) if he doesn't do such-and-such.

    So to ensure that your threats are real, only threaten to do
    what would be legal to do.

    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Ector wrote:
    > Why do you think that your THREAT should be considered a part of the
    > deal?

    If both parties agree on it, it is part of the deal whether it is a
    THREAT or not.

    > And why do you think that you can "keep your part of the deal"
    > when it's already broken?

    Because even if the other one is a measy little traitor I can still be a
    player of great honor ;-)

    > BTW, do you really WANT to play a game where
    > each deal would have threats of both sides?

    Please note that if I ask if something is possible it doesn´t
    necessarily mean that I want to do it or I like it being possible. I
    simply want to get the limits of behaviour clarified.

    > LSJ, if you are reading this, please provide a clear answer to Johannes
    > Walch, since the same suggestion was proposed in my playgroup.

    Well, "No." was a clear answer. ;-)


    --
    johannes walch
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    x5mofr@gmx.de wrote:
    > LSJ wrote:
    >
    >>Threats are not deals.
    >
    >
    > But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
    > real is also play to win.

    People seem to be confused about threat/thread recently. To make it clear:

    Thread: A post on the newsgroup and the related answers.

    Threat: Introducing the possiblity to do something bad to somebody if he
    doesn´t meet a given condition.

    the king of nitpickers ;-)
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    <x5mofr@gmx.de> wrote in message
    news:1117790254.580575.138050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > LSJ wrote:
    > > Threats are not deals.
    >
    > But usually to make a thread is play to win. And so to make the thread
    > real is also play to win.

    Not if following through on that threat would be suicidal.
    A threat of punishment is one thing and a valid tactic.
    Threatening charges that cripple both parties are just tossing a hissy fit
    and childish tactics.


    Think of the Meths as centuries old beings vying for power across cities and
    even countries.
    Are they really going to dump all their empire and probably lose their
    centuries of unlife just because someone else won't do what they want?
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ:

    "> The question is, is an action PTW if not the playing of the cards
    but
    > the psychological effect of the action is PTW?


    The answer is: no.

    Similarly, it is not legal to grab extra pool from the blood bank,
    even if doing so would have this-or-that psychological effect. "

    I find this answer a bit strange.
    I can completely understand when by following up on your threat you are
    giving the game away (or lower your chances of getting a GW) you
    shouldnt be allowed to do so.

    If however following up on your threat does not effect your chances of
    a GW in a fast manner (in the worng direction) i think you should be
    able to follow up on your threat if you wish to.
    Once people know i follow up on my threats they will think twice before
    saying "no" again. Perhaps they still dont listen, but perhaps they
    will. In the last case following up on the earlier threat, even though
    not directly playing to win, has increased my chances of winning. Hence
    was playing to win. Right?

    W
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Wouterkuyper@yahoo.com wrote:
    > LSJ:
    >
    > "> The question is, is an action PTW if not the playing of the cards
    > but
    >
    >>the psychological effect of the action is PTW?
    >
    >
    >
    > The answer is: no.
    >
    > Similarly, it is not legal to grab extra pool from the blood bank,
    > even if doing so would have this-or-that psychological effect. "
    >
    > I find this answer a bit strange.
    > I can completely understand when by following up on your threat you are
    > giving the game away (or lower your chances of getting a GW) you
    > shouldnt be allowed to do so.

    Then you do not find the answer strange at all, as that is exactly
    what the answer is.

    > If however following up on your threat does not effect your chances of
    > a GW in a fast manner (in the worng direction) i think you should be
    > able to follow up on your threat if you wish to.

    Of course. That is a different topic.
    The current topic involves using the threat to circumvent the
    requirement to play to win.

    > Once people know i follow up on my threats they will think twice before
    > saying "no" again. Perhaps they still dont listen, but perhaps they
    > will. In the last case following up on the earlier threat, even though
    > not directly playing to win, has increased my chances of winning. Hence
    > was playing to win. Right?

    If it is playing to win, even if "not directly" (meaning, it is one
    of the myriad of possible choices that conform to play to win), then
    it's play to win.


    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    After some answers of you, i think, in know your opinion. But another
    try to bring it to the point.

    LSJ wrote:

    > If it is playing to win, even if "not directly" (meaning, it is one
    > of the myriad of possible choices that conform to play to win), then
    > it's play to win.

    Is an action that in itself is not playing to win (because it obviously
    gives me some disadvantages by wasting an action, wasting ressources
    and not getting a material benefit by killing pool of my prey, killing
    a bleeding or voting minion of my predator) play to win, if the action
    will change the psychological situation at thze table in a form, that
    it will give me a better chance to win (by showing i will make my
    threats true).

    Or i could ask: Can an action, that is not PTW in a
    ilence-of-Death-tournament be play-to-win in a normal tournament?

    If you say no: why is an action that will make my chances to win better
    (in a psychological sense and VTES is a psychological game) not PTW?
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    I bring out Arika and Tariq. My grand prey is playing vent directorate
    assembly + spawnage. I tell him that if he contest Arika (who hapens to
    be integral to my deck) I can and will annihilate ALL his minions. He
    brings out Arika (you could have guessed this was coming, right? :). My
    prey is sufficiently weakened that culling my grandprey will not give
    prey the win, then PTW is adhered to by wasting my grandprey.

    However, Arika is not yet out. Tariq is out. My prey is fairly strong
    at this point. Grandprey brings out Arika. I at this point (seemingly
    without raeson) annihilate his minons. Is this still legit according to
    PTW? Or would I have to weaken my own strategic position by stating
    that the uncontrolled vamp with 6 blood on it is Arika, my pred having
    previously memories fading glimpsed me?
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    sandmage@gmail.com wrote:
    > I bring out Arika and Tariq. My grand prey is playing vent directorate
    > assembly + spawnage. I tell him that if he contest Arika (who hapens to
    > be integral to my deck) I can and will annihilate ALL his minions. He
    > brings out Arika (you could have guessed this was coming, right? :). My
    > prey is sufficiently weakened that culling my grandprey will not give
    > prey the win, then PTW is adhered to by wasting my grandprey.
    >
    > However, Arika is not yet out. Tariq is out. My prey is fairly strong
    > at this point. Grandprey brings out Arika. I at this point (seemingly
    > without raeson) annihilate his minons. Is this still legit according to
    > PTW? Or would I have to weaken my own strategic position by stating
    > that the uncontrolled vamp with 6 blood on it is Arika, my pred having
    > previously memories fading glimpsed me?

    Here's a question ... could Tariq have annihilated your prey's minions?
    It seems that he's capable of doing it across table, so perhaps he's
    capable of doing it to his own prey.

    This would free up cross-table Arika to put pressure on your predator
    thus giving you a chance.

    D
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Granted he could nail my prey, but i first want my prey to soften my
    grand prey to the point he cannot afford to contest Arika, then bring
    her out, then annihilate my prey. Makes sense?
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Johannes Walch wrote:
    > > What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    > > your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    > > after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    > > allowed.
    >
    > No.

    Why not?
    I can threaten and it can be entirely within the realms of play to win
    if I then rush/bleed/vote or whatever if they don't do what I want.

    This topic has brought up a lot of discussion on our yahoo group
    especially considering there is a continental qualifier coming up this
    weekend. As I said there;

    "I see this as a very real "play to win" attitude. Part of the game
    is obviously the interaction between players. This doesn't always
    have to be mutually beneficial deals. If I can bully other players
    to get the game win I will. It's not the kind of thing that I'd do
    all the time, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.

    Now, if I try to bully a player into doing what I want, and they
    don't, then for the sake of playing to win, I really have no option
    but to carry through the "or else". If I don't follow through with
    it, then the table will see it as an empty threat, which means I have
    very little chance of managing to bully the table in future. If I do
    carry through with it, then conceivably the next time I say "Do this
    or else" it's likely to be viewed more favourably from my
    perspective. Sure, they may not do it, but they deinfately won't if
    the last threat was hollow and had nothing to back it up."

    In social play in our group I constantly try to back up my threats.
    There are some players who play with empty threats and they aren't
    taken seriously. I make it a point, that if I say I am going to do
    something, that I am always able to carry it out, or at least try to.

    Point in case (this happened in a game).

    !Ventrue bleeding OBT/DOM bleed deck bleeding my AUS/pro wall deck.
    I've been hammered early by my predators quick off the mark bleed, but
    I think I can with a little bit more setup. My grand-predator is
    playing a bit of bleed with dominate, but also has 2 guys out with
    Pulses. I ask him not to bleed the OBT/DOM deck this round, coz I'm
    low on wakes. He says sorry but that's what he wants to do. This is
    going to potentially kill me not in his turn, but my predators turn
    (depending upon his card draw). I then tell him in no uncertain turns
    that if he does bleed me, I will have no option but to bin Lazverinus
    and attempt to bin anyone else that tries to bleed me.

    He calls my bluff. He bleeds with his 2 guys, I bin both of them. I
    manage to survive the next round and get set up a little bit more. I
    then ask him if he is going to do that again? He says he's got to go
    for the oust, and I qualify it by asking if he is going to bleed
    heavily again if I don't think I can survive bleeds from 2 players. He
    says most likely. I diablerise one of his vampires with a weenie and
    ask again. He says no.

    I end up winning the game, because I was able to threaten my grand-pred
    into doing what I wanted to do, and carrying through with my threats
    when they weren't enough.

    --> J
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Makes sense, however with the extra 6 pool do you not have a case where
    you could afford the contest initially and then continue with the Tariq
    embargo on Arika at that point?


    David
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    J wrote:

    <snip>

    > Point in case (this happened in a game).
    >
    > !Ventrue bleeding OBT/DOM bleed deck bleeding my AUS/pro wall deck.
    > I've been hammered early by my predators quick off the mark bleed, but
    > I think I can with a little bit more setup. My grand-predator is
    > playing a bit of bleed with dominate, but also has 2 guys out with
    > Pulses. I ask him not to bleed the OBT/DOM deck this round, coz I'm
    > low on wakes. He says sorry but that's what he wants to do. This is
    > going to potentially kill me not in his turn, but my predators turn
    > (depending upon his card draw). I then tell him in no uncertain turns
    > that if he does bleed me, I will have no option but to bin Lazverinus
    > and attempt to bin anyone else that tries to bleed me.
    >

    However in this case you are not going out of your way to rush someone
    for revenge or for no reason at all.

    You have made it clear to them that you can't handle flicked bleeds.
    You don't see yourself has having a chance at even a single VP if this
    happens. You take an action to ensure your VP chances.

    The main argument in this thread is regarding threats as part of deals,
    and rushes (or other actions) as solely revenge.

    For example last evening we had a guy who had lost most of his minions
    (Golconda-ed himself) due to being continuously rushed. The rest of the
    table wasn't doing anything to stop his predator. He wanted to go
    "crazy" and take revenge out on everyone, "deciding" who got his VP.

    When I walked over to the table, I looked at his hand, his situation (1
    single vampire in torpor), and simply stated: have you considered
    asking for a rescue and trying to pull yourself out of this?

    He walked away from the game and I took over, in essence to show the
    playgroup what this thread was about. Although I did not achieve any
    whole VPs, the table did certainly time out because I ensured the
    deck's survival AND the most VPs available (0.5) in this case.

    What changed? Attitude. My attitude was play to win or at least
    maximise my VPs, his attitude was stuff it I'm going to lose, I'll just
    screw the lot of them.

    David
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > However in this case you are not going out of your way to rush someone
    > for revenge or for no reason at all.

    Yes, but what has made the discussions on our yahoo group is LSJ's
    'definitive' "You can't say do X or i'll do Y to you" statement.

    Now we have a prince saying that if Arika hits the table across table,
    we can't take a D action against her because she hasn't done anything
    to us yet.

    'Scuse me, but wtf?

    I think that revenge is poor form, and I've always told players so in
    social games. But I feel that LSJ's comments are now being taken out
    of context. He mentioned them I believe in relation to the subject,
    which is fair enough, but why can't I use threats and back them up, or
    even take pre-emptive cross table actions...?

    I don't know. Sometimes I feel that people just don't understand what
    play to win means. I feel that they are blinded by the predator-prey
    relationship. I can play to win and go outside of that relationship.

    --> J
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    quetzalcoatl a écrit :
    > Makes sense, however with the extra 6 pool do you not have a case where
    > you could afford the contest initially and then continue with the Tariq
    > embargo on Arika at that point?
    >
    >
    > David

    Yes but was he playing to win if he hates mustache and his grandprey has
    one ?
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Johannes Walch wrote:
    > But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
    > people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
    > that players in tournaments show up to win

    Ideally, there'd be no reason for such a rule. Yes, you would think
    that playing to win is so obvious that no rule should be needed.
    Experience tells us otherwise, however.

    For starters, we've come across quite a few people who put "fun" above
    winning. Unfortunately, some people think "fun" and "trying to win"
    are opposite ends of the spectrum. It is not okay to roleplay a
    Malkavian deck and attack somebody just because they control a vampire
    that Anatole had bad dealings with in some WoD novel.

    In addition, while collusion would cover some agreement or conspiracy
    to throw the game to a friend, PTW covers one player from doing it
    without the conspiracy element. For example, after having two bad
    rounds, a player could throw the game to a friend who is on the cusp on
    advancing to the finals (even without the friend being involved in
    collusion).

    >, if not why bother playing
    > tournaments anyway?

    I'm with ya. If you and I were the only ones playing in tournaments
    then I'd be happy to just assume we're both going for the win.

    > It´s just too easy to get around the PTW rule when
    > you really want and the occasional judge decisions whether a deal is
    > legal or not are really pissing me off. We should get rid of the whole
    > PTW rule.

    IMO, it is better to have the rule even though it can be difficult to
    detect violations. There are lots of things that are illegal in the
    real world, for example, that are difficult to detect. But having
    rules tells people what is expected. Even if I could get around the PTW
    rule with a good story, I'm not going to do it. Not having the rule
    opens the door to even the honest players thinking that something is
    allowed (since it isn't disallowed).

    -Robert
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "J" <grail_j@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1118145687.461067.310390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> However in this case you are not going out of your way to rush someone
    >> for revenge or for no reason at all.
    >
    > Yes, but what has made the discussions on our yahoo group is LSJ's
    > 'definitive' "You can't say do X or i'll do Y to you" statement.
    >
    > Now we have a prince saying that if Arika hits the table across table,
    > we can't take a D action against her because she hasn't done anything
    > to us yet.
    >
    > 'Scuse me, but wtf?
    >
    > I think that revenge is poor form, and I've always told players so in
    > social games. But I feel that LSJ's comments are now being taken out
    > of context. He mentioned them I believe in relation to the subject,
    > which is fair enough, but why can't I use threats and back them up, or
    > even take pre-emptive cross table actions...?
    >
    > I don't know. Sometimes I feel that people just don't understand what
    > play to win means. I feel that they are blinded by the predator-prey
    > relationship. I can play to win and go outside of that relationship.
    >

    Here's a proper LSJ quote to bring to your group:

    "If the activity is play-to-win in itself, then it is legal to do
    (with regard to the ptw rule) whether you had threatened to do it
    or not.

    It's the non-ptw activity that is under question -- whether
    threatening to do it suddenly grants it immunity from the ptw
    rule. It doesn't."

    That prince needs to learn _context_. There are reasons why rushing Arika
    cross-table before any action is taken would be legitimate PTW (ie. you've
    seen a PTO in the ash heap, and your're playing Fatima multi-rush). He
    needs to quit with the blanket bans, and _listen_ to player's motivations
    for doing what they choose to do. Make your judge be a judge.

    Stupid sports analogy: PTW rules define a potential set of actions, much
    like the rules for the strike zone in baseball. The written guidelines
    don't account for all instances of play, and how the players are set up can
    influence what is and is not PTW. All of us princes should be trying to get
    comfortable with calling PTW and non-PTW (balls and stikes) on a
    case-by-case basis. The more calls you make, the better you get at making
    calls.
    From the player's side, realize that you will get a bad call from time to
    time. Be an adult, and understand that the ability to overcome occasional
    bad calls is a part of any good player's repetiore (in _any_ game). Make
    your case as best you can, and if the call doesn't go your way, play on.
    Discuss PTW calls as a group with your judge after the game. Don't be
    petty. A post-game discussion is not about who was right, its about
    improving the accuracy of future calls.

    Regards
    DaveZ
    Atom Weaver
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:53:28 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >| 'Scuse me, but wtf?
    >
    >Yeah, that's what I say too. WTF? You aren't psychic; you have no idea
    >what Arika's going to do over there. Maybe she's going to get an
    >Assault Rifle and rush your predator.

    Or maybe Arika would be persecuted by other players at the table,
    mainly her prey and predator, and they are able to take care of her
    before you need to. That's not an unlikely scenario - I'd say even
    very probable. I generally smile when I see my grandpredator
    influencing out Arika; that means at least some turns of peace for me,
    unless Arika is his third or fourth minion in a traditional Ventrue
    vote deck or some one-trick-pony thing. Anyway, I'll need some turns
    to figure it out, and that's good to have some peace from my predator
    during these turns.

    Y'know, Arika is not that good an example exactly because she's a big
    target in all tables. Maybe if we were talking about a vampire that
    affects only you cross-table, like Marianna when you're playing
    Giovanni, that would mean something. No matter how threatening Arika
    usually is, by herself she's only annoying to her prey.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    Giovanni Newsletter Editor
    -----------------------------------------------------
    V for Vendetta on the big screen!
    http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > You can make threats, but if carrying them out wouldn't be PTW, they're
    > empty threats by default.
    >
    > You can make threats that ARE PTW -- for example, "I'm going to call a
    > vote this turn, and Arika can either vote with me or go to torpor where
    > she can't vote against me. Which is it?" But see how this has suddenly
    > become logical? The vote advances your game; you need to take certain
    > actions to help advance your game. It's still probably a bad play,
    > frankly, but at least you're off the "weak-player vendetta" bucket.
    >
    > You can take logical pre-emptive actions. But killing Arika the turn
    > she's influenced by your grandprey is not one.

    Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
    the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
    of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
    table.

    I agree 100% with the PTW threat v the non-PTW threat, and dispise
    vengeance play as sour grapes. However, I disagree with you about
    killing Arika across table. That can be a logical pre-emptive action.

    Maybe the deck bloats like crazy. Maybe your deck calls votes. Maybe
    you want to bring out Arika yourself. Maybe you believe that in a
    couple turns you'll be the predator or prey of that deck and want to
    get a dig in now, especially if you have the cards to do it in your
    hand at the time. Maybe your predator says he won't bleed you for 2
    turns if you kill his predators Arika. Maybe your low on pool and can
    force through an Anathema on the 11 cap and then recoup on it. Maybe
    you've seen what the deck does in a previous round, or in social play
    and know that Arika once setup will dominate the table.

    Saying with absolution that killing Arika across table the turn she is
    influenced out is not a logical, pre-emptive action is a falsehood.

    --> J
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Thank you J. My fave deck revolves around Tariq, multiple IC's, and
    ritual of the bitter rose (I would assume i do not need to mention
    rowan and amaranth, but hey, you never know...:)
    So to me this means that if an IC hits the table, not just Arika, but
    ANY IC, it dies. simply because that fat bastard not being under my
    control is messing with my decks mechanics. No silly vindictiveness or
    anything else that stupid, but straightforward PTW. however trying to
    explain this to a judge when i have Leandro in play and 3 uncontrolleds
    is sometimes a bit tough. Is there not some way of instituting
    something along the lines of :"OK, that might very well seem non-PTW,
    but if I cannot prove in THIS game that it IS ptw, then I get knocked
    out of the tourney?"....
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Derek Ray wrote:
    > 2) Killing Arika cross-table before she looks like a threat is not PTW.
    > ~ Sorry. You can whiny-bitch it up all you want, but you're still just a
    > chump lookin' for an excuse to satisfy a personal vendetta against Arika
    > or the player -- NOT a person attempting to win the game. Worried about
    > your predator Deflecting? Kill his guys with Dominate. Worried about
    > getting a VP? Kill your prey. Looking way into the future about Arika?
    > ~ Man, you got bigger things to worry about right now.

    I prefer killing Arika (or any other IC) with my Enkidu x-xable before a
    PTO kills my Enkidu x-table. Of course I will offer a deal before doing
    so, e.g I don´t rush you, you don´t PTO me, but if he declines I have
    allready warning sirens that he plans on doing so when time is suitable.

    But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
    people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
    that players in tournaments show up to win, if not why bother playing
    tournaments anyway? It´s just too easy to get around the PTW rule when
    you really want and the occasional judge decisions whether a deal is
    legal or not are really pissing me off. We should get rid of the whole
    PTW rule.

    --
    johannes walch
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Y'know, Arika is not that good an example exactly because she's a big
    > target in all tables. Maybe if we were talking about a vampire that
    > affects only you cross-table, like Marianna when you're playing
    > Giovanni, that would mean something. No matter how threatening Arika
    > usually is, by herself she's only annoying to her prey.

    The actual vampire is not important. It could be Arika, Enkidu,
    Hannibal, or even Frederick the Weak. If it hits the table, it should
    be a valid target, (and potentially logical).

    By the same premise. If an IC hits the table, and people say that I'm
    not allowed to rush it, it in turn should not be able to vote I burn in
    a bloodhunt. The principle is the same.

    --> J
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    lol!
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    LSJ wrote:
    > J wrote:
    > > Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
    > > the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
    > > of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
    > > table.
    >
    > I didn't say "you can't say do X or I'll do Y".

    Not so much that you said it, but you said you can't do it;

    I quote from an earlier post...

    ---
    Johannes Walch wrote:
    > What if I state my deals like this "I do X and you do Y, if you break
    > your part I will rush your minions". Then the avange (even if not PTW)
    > after the dealbreak is part of keeping my side of the deal, which is
    > allowed.


    No.
    ---

    Granted, as I mentioned earlier, you have been taken out of context -
    you were specifically dealing with ignorning the PTW rule. But some
    people round here seem to have missed that and just assumed that you
    can't now threaten in game.

    meh!

    --> J
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Morgan Vening wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:54:44 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >J wrote:
    > >> Yes, but because LSJ said "you can't say do X or I'll do Y", even in
    > >> the context of non PTW threats v PTW threats, it has now been taken out
    > >> of context by some people around here that you can't ever threaten the
    > >> table.
    > >
    > >I didn't say "you can't say do X or I'll do Y".
    >
    > I'm curious if a threat IS a permissible (and hence does allow
    > cross-table antics contrary to PTW) as part of a deal IF both sides
    > agree to it.
    >

    I think you will find that an illegal deal (in this case illegal due to
    threats not being deals) is not a deal at all even if agreed to and
    thus there can be:

    1. no claim that the deal was broken (it didn't exist in the first
    place)
    - this should be obvious

    2. it cannot be used to justify bypassing playing to win because it was
    an illegal deal in the first place.
    - this is a required statement because you are 100% allowed to make a
    legal deal that is "at that time" playing to win and stick to that deal
    even if that deal is later not PTW. However in your case the deal
    wasn't legal to begin with so in essence one or both Methuselahs have
    made a silly agreement that has no guarantees or VPs attached.

    David
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <d84cqn$d14$1@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
    <johannes.walch@vekn.de> writes:
    >But the discussion around PTW is really getting annoying, like many
    >people said before, but only because the PTW rule is annoying. I assume
    >that players in tournaments show up to win, if not why bother playing
    >tournaments anyway?

    As multiple newsgroup arguments have shown in the past, a number of
    people believe that some others will throw away their chance to win in
    order to get a friend into the final/qualifiers/championships/whatever.

    There are ample discussions of this type archived on Google.

    Some of this may be best handled as collusion. But collusion also shows
    that not everyone PsTW.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games