TIE VOTES & IMMUNITY PASSING
HOME
The Old Rules
It used to be so simple, but of course from Survivor-Marquesas on this rule has been shown the door. In the first three seasons, if there was a tie vote the player with the most previous votes against was the one who left. This leaves the obvious strategy of targeting players whom you suspect (or know) have the most previous votes on them if you felt a tie was looming. If there was no previous votes against, there was a tribal council quiz between the two tied players, the loser of the quiz being the one that goes. Alas, both the rules are gone.
The New Rules
This is my best guess at what the current rules (as of Survivor-Palau) are regarding ties. Obviously knowing the rules is the first step in know what strategy to take and I do believe (perhaps nievly) that players are made aware of the rules before they get started even though fans are ignorant of them. In Palau with its two ties, and one potential tie, the players didn't seem surprised with what happened and even talked about it before hand.
Purple Rock: This rule doesn't seem to be in effect when there are four or less players in the game. All players besides the one that has immunity much reach into a bag and draw stones. The player that draws the one stone painted purple is the one eliminated regardless if they have any votes on them or not.
Fire Challenge: This happens when there are four players or less in the game. The two players that are tied are faced with the challenge to build a fire the fastest. The loser of the challenge is eliminated from the game.
Don't Be Afraid To Roll The Dice
I think that the most instructive thing to do would be to go through the examples of past ties and potential ties and imagine that the new rules were in play. I'll then make commentary on what I think the best strategy for the players involved would be. Every situation is different, but I would like to add the following bit of general advice: don't be afraid to roll the dice. Quite frankly, there has been far to few ties in this game since Marquesas. There should be more players taking advantage of them, especially in the later stages.
Examples
Survivor–Africa - Opening Phase - Tie at eight: Carl Bilancione, Teresa Cooper, Frank Garrison and Linda Spencer voting Lindsey Richter. Lindsey, Silas Gaither, Kim Powers and Brandon Quinton voting Carl. This vote went to a quiz between Lindsey and Carl (Carl lost by the way) but what if the new rules had been in effect. They would have gone to stones, is the risk worth it. Should any of the players consider changing their vote? The first thing that may be considered is if a third alliance is possible. T-players in each alliance may want to consider reforming into another alliance and avoid the tie altogether. This could be particularly effective if done in secret where a turncoat from one side appears to be the fifth in an alliance but has actually made a final two deal with one of his or her new alliance mates. If there are pig-headed leaders dividing the tribe right down the middle, this might be a good opportunity to get rid of one and hopefully create some social stability. If this could be done, obviously the best thing is to avoid the tie altogether and not go to a revote at all. Another thing to think about is the potential of a swap around the corner. If you feel there is a good chance this is going to happen (ie: you are only a couple of weeks into the game), the T-players really have to ask themselves whether putting their necks on the line for an alliance that very likely may be, at least temporarily, split up anyway. Players also have to ask themselves how effectively they could have played in the T-player roll after the merge. Players that are not physically intimidating and socially adaptable stand a better chance of playing this roll very well. In short, if this tie were to occur in a modern game, players like Teresa, Kim, Brandon and Linda should seriously consider avoiding the tie.
Survivor–Australia - Early-middle Phase - Tie at six: Colby Donaldson, Tina Wesson and Keith Famie voting Mitchell Olsen. Mitchell, Jerri Manthey and Amber Brkich voting Keith. This tie occurred in tribal council four. The alliances were a lock, so making new deals wasn’t going to happen. This all hindges on the possibility of a swap coming. If the answer to that question is no, then taking control of the tribe is worth the risk (check out the success rate of T-players once the hit the merge). If the answer is yes, then avoid the tie. This is especially true considering that Ogakor is going to be down five to seven to Kucha and if there is a swap, they are likely to be in the minority in the mixed up tribes. Once in a minority, it doesn't much matter who your tribemates are so why risk the stones? Of course, the better plan would be to avoid this situation in the first place by making the coup attempt on Mitchell and Jerri a tribal council earlier.
Survivor–Africa - Early-middle Phase - Tie at six: Lindsey Richter, Brandon Quinton and Kim Powers vote Tom Buchanan. Lex van den Burghe, Tom and Kelly Goldsmith vote Lindsey. This tie occurred after a swap in the sixth tribal council. With the merge likely just around the corner, a lot was riding on the outcome of this vote. If Lindsey went, Boran would have the majority in the merged tribe. If Tom went, the two tribes would be tied. Being in the majority after the merge is of such a large advantage that, in this situation, the players are better taking their chances with the stones.
Survivor–Thailand - Early-middle Phase - Potential tie at six: This tie never occurred but was certainly considered with Ghandia Johnson, Jan Gentry and Helen Glover voting Clay Jordan and Ted Rogers, Clay and Brian Heidek voting Ghandia. This occurred in tribal council four with a possible swap coming soon (though, in this case, it didn’t occur). With a likely swap around the corner and the tribe in the minority, going to stones would have been an unnecessary risk. In the end, Helen did the right thing and voted with the men to remove Ghandia.
Survivor–Australia - Early-middle Phase - Tie at ten: Alicia Calaway, Jeff Varner, Elizabeth Filarski, Roger Bingham and Nick Brown vote Colby Donaldson. Tina Wesson, Colby Donaldson, Jerri Manthey, Keith Famie and Amber Brkich vote Jeff Varner. The first thing to consider is the possibility of a new cross tribe alliance. Players like Elizabeth, Roger, Jerri, Amber and maybe Keith and Jeff should look at where they are sitting in their alliance and try and structure a new alliance with them towards the top. If this is at all possible it should be attempted. If it isn’t possible, then the players should take their chances with the stones as the outcome will determine which tribe ends up on top. Switching sides just to be sixth, or at best fourth in the dominant alliance isn’t worth it. Another factor to consider here is who wins immunity. If the immunity winner is in your tribe, the chances of your tribe coming out on top increases from 50/50 to 5 in 9 as the immunity winner cannot be booted. Not much perhaps, but as we go deeper into the game, this change in probability becomes more and more as the next example illustrates.
Survivor-Thailand - Late-middle Phase - Potential tie at eight: Okay, I doubt this possibility was even considered by the players involved, but I'm using it as an example of how a tie can be agressively used by an isolated T-player. N-players: Brian Heidek and Clay Jordan, D-players: Jan Gentry and Helen Glover, T-player: Ted Rogers, M-players: Ken Stafford, Jake Billingsly and Penny Ramsey. Ted is destined to finish fifth in this game, and with Jan and Helen as complete PP-players his hopes of pulling them over into a coup later are virtually nil. Ted should talk to Helen, offer her the opportunity to promise to help take out Brian or Clay at five but she is almost sure to um and aw. He should then approach the M-players about voting Brian and force a tie. At the revote, he shouldn't listen to any deals coming his way as almost any deals from his own tribe will not be honored in the morning. He should let the chips fall where they may and explore his options the next morning. Even if one of his own tribe went, they would still be up four to three and he can remind them of this. He can try saying that he is still loyal to this tribe. He just wants an honest chance in the final four. They may take him back or they may not but it is certainly better than waiting around for your number to come up later.
Survivor-Palau - Late-middle Phase - Potential tie at six: An avoided tie, but a great way how to use the purple rock rule to your advantage. N-players: Katie & Ian, D-players: Gregg & Jenn, T-players: Caryn & Tom. A sudden bit of paranoia (perhaps not unfounded) had Ian worrying that Katie was closer to Gregg and Jenn than she was to him so he hatched a plan to vote Gregg with Caryn and Tom to force a tie. Shortly before tribal council, Ian told Katie this was happening and left her with the choice of risking picking stones or to vote with him. Katie wisely voted Gregg and the tie never occured. Very well done.
Survivor–Borneo - Endgame - Tie at four: Richard Hatch and Rudy Boesch vote Kelly Wigglesworth. Susan Hawk and Kelly Wigglesworth vote Richard Hatch. In this scenario Kelly changed her vote to Susan, thus breaking the tie, but what would have been the best move under the current rules where Richard and Susan would have competed in the fire challenge to see who goes. Kelly had won immunity which pretty much forces Richard's and Susan's votes. In fact, if there is a revote, Richard and Susan do not revote at all. With the immunity necklace on, Kelly has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain with the Richard/Rudy pair broken so her vote should not change. By the way, this is always the situation if a T or D-player wins immunity at this stage: they should always vote for an N-player in the final four and force a tie, but I'll talk more about that in endgame strategy. This leaves only Rudy with a decision to make. Obviously, he's better off with Richard still in the picture, so his best plan is to give him that chance to stay in the game, so he shouldn't change his vote. The tie should stand.
Survivor–Marquesas - Endgame - Tie at four: Paschel English and Neleh Dennis vote Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien. Kathy and Vecepia Towery vote Neleh. Vecepia has immunity. Basically, the exact same situation as the above, so the same thing should happen, the tie should hold.
Survivor-Palua - Endgame - Tie at four: Ian and Katie vote Jenn, Jenn and Tom vote Ian. Tom has immunity. The same situation again with again the right call and, oh my God, Tom won. Are people listening?
So what do we have? Notice how that the later we go into the game, the more it is advantages for the T-players to force a tie vote. In the early stages, other options should be explored and a tie should only be a last resort, but after a swap or merge ties should not be avoided. In fact, forcing a tie should be a potential weapon in the T-player arsnal. The players that should avoid the ties at all costs are the N-players. They are the ones with something to lose if things get shaken up by an unlucky stone.
Whom To Target In A Tie
How does this method of breaking ties affect who should be targeted in a tie vote? First, one needs to consider all the other factors that affect who to vote for. A number of these factors have already been discussed and more of them are still to come. The best scenario in a tie vote situation though is that someone on the other side waffles and changes their vote to favour your alliance and you avoid the stones or fire challenge all together. A PP-player is unlikely to screw over anyone and a AP-player (especially an N-player) will likely realize their best bet is to take their chances with the stones. That means your best candidate to waffle is an egocentric, reckless AU-player who won’t want to take their chances with the stones and convince themselves they are being strategic in screwing over their partners. Don’t target his player in you voting! The players that are involved in the tie can't revote. Instead, target the player that is least likely to waffle - An AP-N-player, especially the less popular one.
More Rules?
Are there other tie-breaker options? Certainly, but what the producers will next pull out of their hats is hard to guess. Personally, I expect stones, or some variation of it, to be in play from here on in. It seems to be popular with the fans and, I think, scares the willies out of most of the players which I believe was part of the intent.
Passing Immunity
While on the topic of rule changes, the other big rule change that was thrown into Survivor–Marquesas was the ability for the player to pass immunity on to someone else. The only situation where I can envision passing immunity is if the previous vote rule were in effect to break ties, there was going to be a tie vote, and the player with the most votes against was in your alliance and the player with the next most votes against was in the other alliance. Basically, the situation would be that you are saving your alliance from sure destruction. This basically was the situation in Survivor–Australia in the tie vote when there were ten players left. Keith Famie had the most votes against for Ogakor and Jeff Varner for Kucha. With this rule, the best thing the immunity winner could do was to pass it on to one of these players which is essentially what Tina did when she stepped out of the challenge to let Keith win.
The thing is, with the vote against rule apparently gone, I would say you should never pass away immunity, period. The amount of deal talking during council revolving around the immunity necklace in Marquesas astounded me. Make your deals before hand folks and the necklace shouldn’t be a part of it. This ain’t Monopoly.