What do you do when you will get 0 vp's?

Squidalot wrote:

Robba Yaga wrote: While my truthful answer is closer to what Jeff Kuta posted, isn't the correct answer "I try to make sure someone sweeps the table, gathering all the VPs and therefore maximizing any VPs I will or may have already earned in the tournament."?

RED

No because that explict reasoning is an out of game consideration.

Tournament result (so either vps gained already or tps) are irrelevant to your current game and aren't supposed to imapct your decisioning.
You may get to the same end result in another way however.

The ruling is that you can take out-of-game considerations into consideration when you can no longer earn any VPs.

You are certainly free to try to maximize your table points or otherwise try to enhance your standing in a tournament if you can earn no more VPs. The ruling is icky because it means that you are also free to target players you personally dislike or help players who you are friends with outside the game.

I would love to have the ambition to hunt down the post on Google where I managed to get LSJ to explicitly say this, but I know it's out there along with other rulings saying the same.

Cooper wrote: Suppose you are in a game, and you have no way of getting a VP, you can go out any way you want.

What is the way you want?

If I have absolutely zero chance of a vp, I will try to behave in a sportmanshiplike way. That is: not behaving like an asshole, doing weird stuff, making weird deals, out of game considerations, etc. Many players seem to have problems with this. I don´t know why, bad parenting maybe.

But note: I very seldom find myself in this spot. Vtes is a tricky game, stuff happen that nobody thought about, and oops you´re suddenly a contender again. But I guess that is a tactic also - saying "Look at me, I´m in a lost position, I can do what I like, the air is free, I´m stupid, help me I´m in hell" and so on. Very boring.

I try to stay in the game a long as possible. Even if I know I cannot win it I try to not just roll over and die, something unexpected could always happen.

If there is a dealbreaker at the table I might try to punish him on my way out just because it would feel like the right thing to do, but I have never been in that situation so far.

Cooper wrote: Suppose you are in a game, and you have no way of getting a VP, you can go out any way you want.

To reply very simply: I do whatever I can to change this state of affairs. If that means 'hang on', I'll deny my Predator as long as possible in the hope something goes wrong for my prey and gives me an opening. If it means 'speed up', I'll go balls-out into my prey, and hope he's not got quite the defence it seems.

In quite a lot of cases, players who have 'no way of getting a VP' probably do, they just perceive they don't.

I would also try to stay alive. I can never be sure that I'll get 0 vp's until I'm actually ousted. Cross-table giant's blood, a friendly vote, a torpor rescue... Self-ousting is only guaranteeing that I won't get any VP's.

Mostly when I'm ousted I feel that my predator deserved to get that VP. H*r deck or play was apparently better than mine in that particular game.

@ Aaron C I've never seen him post that explicitly.

LSJ's advice to me and others that I always had was it's an out game consideration full stop.

You can choose to die how you want if you're going to get zero sure but that doesn't change the fact that explicitly you shouldn't be thinking about tps, players who you don't like etc, removing players who have earlier gws etc as that's still all covered by unsportsmanlike play or potentially cheating depending how they do it (e.g. i'm going to get zero but i can make sure my buddy qualifies).

I've got this one where LSJ reminds us that you can do what you want with 0:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/ef28f3429615c08/9211d84178cf9a03?lnk=gst&q=lsj+out+of+game+consideration#9211d84178cf9a03

but also that out of game considerations are illegal (I don't think the one invalidates the other)

there's also this from LSJ (via Ira):

> Let's say I have extremely low chances of getting a single VP (I don't
> want to say zero, but it's extremely unlikely.) If I struggle to stay
> alive, my grandpredator will almost certainly oust my predator, and
> then easily oust me, and get the table win.


> In that situation, can I choose to oust myself (thus helping my
> predator live), with the goal of preventing anyone from getting a
> table win?

If you can convince the judge that doing so doesn't reduce your
chances of getting more VPs.

--
LSJ () V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf,

and also this useful link from LSJ:

groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/4e70505793d9fdb/bfd2d4d870bb00d7?lnk=gst&q=lsj+zero+vp+out+of+game#bfd2d4d870bb00d7

Bit of topic.