[LSJ] 2 judging questions

Receantly we got this situation and I'm unsure about them: 1. In a four player table, player A (stealth bleed, with vulnerability to grapples) offers to player B, his prey (a rush deck with a lot of grapples), to oust his first prey and then allow him to oust. At that point it was certain that if B got 1 VP he was in the finals and if A got a TW he would have also joined the finals. It was certain that the deal was beneficial for both, but is it legal? 2. Player A (bloat with stealth) hunts Player B (also stealth bloat) hunts Player C (bruise bleed without backward rush) hunts Player D (stealth bleed with deflection and obediences) hunts Player E (rush) hunts Player F (Vote with fortitude and intercept). Player C is dissapointed due to predator and prey and is ceratin that he will lose the game and begins helping in possible way player A (Giants Blood on Minion Tapped vamps, votes with him, etc.). To defend against this and get rid of combat decks, players B/D/F agree to vote together and cooperate against the other three (deflect all bleeds on combat decks and vote against all refs called by A), this would stand until each of them ousted their first prey. Were these two deals (a.A/C and b. B/D/F) legal, should similar instances occur in a tournament? Aris, Prince of Thessaloniki

Uriel wrote: > Receantly we got this situation and I'm unsure about them: > > 1. In a four player table, player A (stealth bleed, with vulnerability > to grapples) offers to player B, his prey (a rush deck with a lot of > grapples), to oust his first prey and then allow him to oust. At that > point it was certain that if B got 1 VP he was in the finals and if A > got a TW he would have also joined the finals. It was certain that the > deal was beneficial for both, but is it legal? If it is "certain" that the deal is beneficial to both in terms of (and only in terms of) the current game, then yes. From the description, it doesn't appear that the deal was beneficial to B - B could've gotten a GW or, if not, then at least more than 1 VP. In which case the deal is not "certainly beneficial" to both, and is actually detrimental to B, and is therefore illegal. > 2. Player A (bloat with stealth) hunts Player B (also stealth bloat) > hunts Player C (bruise bleed without backward rush) hunts Player D > (stealth bleed with deflection and obediences) hunts Player E (rush) > hunts Player F (Vote with fortitude and intercept). 6 players is outside the scope of the V:EKN judging rules, so you're free to play as you like, since this is obviously not an official event. But if "you like" to use the V:EKN rules for games of 6, read on... > Player C is > dissapointed due to predator and prey and is ceratin that he will lose > the game Certainty is a rare commodity in this game, but if you state that it is there, we'll continue with that assumption as a given... > and begins helping in possible way player A (Giants Blood on > Minion Tapped vamps, votes with him, etc.). To defend against this and > get rid of combat decks, players B/D/F agree to vote together and > cooperate against the other three (deflect all bleeds on combat decks > and vote against all refs called by A), this would stand until each of > them ousted their first prey. Were these two deals (a.A/C and b. > B/D/F) legal, should similar instances occur in a tournament? When C is certain to lose (i.e., certain to not get the GW), C is obliged to try to maximize her VP score. It is doubtful that serving as A's lackey is a way to do this, so doing so would be illegal. If it were a way to maximize her VPs, though, it would be legal. B, D, and F are similarly bound - if their "deal" maximizes their GW/VP score, then it is legal. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/