Re: Another tournament report, (my view only) Utrecht.

On 3 Dec 2003 04:32:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wouter Kuyper)
scrawled:

[snip]
>Second Round:
>My predator played weenie-dementation-obfuscate...so bye bye pool.
>Again i was able to stay alive for longer than my predator, but again
>time and pool were to short to start on offense. Again i dealt with my
>newborn predator for a VP, this time i got one, and had to give away
>the TW by that...other option was that i died, or stayed alive until
>timeout..if that last happened, there woudl have been no TW...might
>have been better...Again no Anson brought out just Blanche and
>Matthias.

interesting point you inadvertantly raised here.

each player is supposed to be playing for a game win. if they can't
reasonably expect a game win, the should be playing to maximise vps,
EVEN IF it would give someone else the Game Win.

so, if you have a choice between 0.5vps and the table timing out with
no GW awarded, or 1vp, and someone else gets the Game Win, you should
be playing for the latter option.

Playing to maximise vps is NOT the same as playing to minimise
everyone else's vps.

sounds like a neat deck, btw. sort of a modern nights version of
5th-trad bloat.

salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm