Can I give VP to someone if I will win anyway ? (LSJ)

Hello, I have some questions about the deal making and about the VP maximising. Some situation : A) In a game of 5 players, I oust 3 players and so, it's 3VP for me and I will win the game. Before that and during all that game, the other last player did not do anything to help me and I can oust that player realy fast, but I decide to withdraw and so, win 4 VP and let the last player have 1 VP. Can I legaly do that? It seem to me that I can not since the VEKN tournament rule said : «Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game.» B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP. Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official answer. C) In a game of 5 players, I oust 2 players. After that, I do to the last 2 players the offert to play to the limit of time for the game and so, I will won with 2.5 VP and the last 2 players will have 0.5 VP. I can oust realy fast those last 2 players. Also those players can probably not do more than that 0.5 VP if they dont agree with me. Can I legaly do that offert ? Has for the situation A and B, I think the answer is no, but maybe I'am very wrong. Note : I dont play like that. I always try to win and to have the maximum of VP in a game. I never give VP to someone if I can have them myself. I only ask those questions to clarify the subject since me and some players that I know dont see that the same way. Thanks, Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis VEKN Canada : http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/index_ang.htm

"Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote: > A) In a game of 5 players, I oust 3 players and so, it's 3VP for me > and I will win the game. Before that and during all that game, the > other last player did not do anything to help me and I can oust that > player realy fast, but I decide to withdraw and so, win 4 VP and let > the last player have 1 VP. > > Can I legaly do that? It seem to me that I can not since the VEKN > tournament rule said : «Players must play each game toward the goal > stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the > current game.» You have the most VPs. You win. How you win is up to you. > B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player > oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP. > > Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I > think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official > answer. Yes. You win. So long as you're not working toward out-of-game goals (not being bribed, etc.), how you win is up to you. > C) In a game of 5 players, I oust 2 players. After that, I do to the > last 2 players the offert to play to the limit of time for the game > and so, I will won with 2.5 VP and the last 2 players will have 0.5 > VP. I can oust realy fast those last 2 players. Also those players > can probably not do more than that 0.5 VP if they dont agree with me. > Can I legaly do that offert ? Has for the situation A and B, I think > the answer is no, but maybe I'am very wrong. You still win. How you win is up to you. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

hi : LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB0DCE4...@white-wolf.com>... > "Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote: > > A) In a game of 5 players, I oust 3 players and so, it's 3VP for me > > and I will win the game. Before that and during all that game, the > > other last player did not do anything to help me and I can oust that > > player realy fast, but I decide to withdraw and so, win 4 VP and let > > the last player have 1 VP. > > > > Can I legaly do that? It seem to me that I can not since the VEKN > > tournament rule said : «Players must play each game toward the goal > > stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the > > current game.» > > You have the most VPs. You win. How you win is up to you. but doesn't the rules means that you must try to have the maximum of VP because as it is written i understand that khaleph will have to oust the players and have 5 VP . no ? arwall

"arwall" <arw...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 3c5617c7.01092...@posting.google.com... > but doesn't the rules means that you must try to have the maximum of > VP because as it is written i understand that khaleph will have to > oust the players and have 5 VP . no ? The rules say players must play to win. Having more VP than any other player is a win. I think the expression "VP maximising" is very misleading. It should only say "having more VP than anyone else at the end of the game" IMHO. Stone

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB0DCE4...@white-wolf.com>... > "Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote: > > B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player > > oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP. > > > > Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I > > think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official > > answer. > > Yes. You win. So long as you're not working toward out-of-game goals > (not being bribed, etc.), how you win is up to you. Thank you for the answer, but that put an other question on my mind : How someone can give free VP (without any deal) to an other player without doing this toward out-of-game goals ? Can someone outside of the game can ask for a ruling of the judge about that kind of act ? (Someone that will miss the finale round because of those 2 free VP by example) Thank you again, Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis VEKN Canada : http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/index_ang.htm

"Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB0DCE4...@white-wolf.com>... > > "Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote: > > > B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player > > > oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP. > > > > > > Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I > > > think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official > > > answer. > > > > Yes. You win. So long as you're not working toward out-of-game goals > > (not being bribed, etc.), how you win is up to you. > > Thank you for the answer, but that put an other question on my mind : > > How someone can give free VP (without any deal) to an other player > without doing this toward out-of-game goals ? When faced with two paths to winning, you are free to choose one arbitrarily. > Can someone outside of the game can ask for a ruling of the judge > about that kind of act ? (Someone that will miss the finale round > because of those 2 free VP by example) Sure. It's very hard to fault the winner for not playing to win, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] IMNLSJ but if I understand correctly, you _do_ have to attempt to maximize your number of victory points to the extent that's realistically possible - until you get to three. At that point, you have guaranteed yourself a win and, as Scott said, "How you win is up to you." Fred

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB1DFDD...@white-wolf.com>... > > Can someone outside of the game can ask for a ruling of the judge > > about that kind of act ? (Someone that will miss the finale round > > because of those 2 free VP by example) > Sure. It's very hard to fault the winner for not playing to win, > however. It's not the winner that would necessarily be at fault, but the person accepting 2 VP. Making a deal which would get you 2VP and someone else get 3VP would be fine for the person getting 3VP because they are playing towards a win, but not for the person getting 2VP because they are playing towards a non-win. If one person already has 3VP, that person letting someone else get 2 is ok since the game win is already decided. If they haven't got the 3 yet you should be forced to try and get the 3. Anything less is collusion, and -- if there's enough cross-region play -- will lead to a game where teams donate VP to members to shore up their position in the finals (was a big deal in magic a few years back; and after realising how bad this would be, the DCI canned it). Best to avoid it if possible.

[ quoted text not captured ] Quite right. That's the current rule. The questioner was asking about the winner, not the loser, in the deal. [ quoted text not captured ]