mutual withdrawl situation (LSJ)

Here is a situation I saw at a tournament a while ago. Player A and B are left (with 2 and 1 vp respectively - this does not matter). Player B offers A a mutual withdrawl because he does not think he can win (his minions are very messed up). Player A takes the deal because he does not think he can win (his deck has nearly been exhausted). Naturally at least one of these players has a reasonable chance to oust the other guy, probably both. The questions are: 1) is player A ok to take this deal as it offers him a table win? 2) if the deal would give nobody a table win would the deal be illegal (say B has 1 vp)? 3) is it ok to make a deal if you could resonably get more vps by playing but you want the guarentee at a more moderate amount? Thanks

Jeff Haar wrote: > Here is a situation I saw at a tournament a while ago. Player A and B > are left (with 2 and 1 vp respectively - this does not matter). Player > B offers A a mutual withdrawl because he does not think he can win > (his minions are very messed up). Player A takes the deal because he > does not think he can win (his deck has nearly been exhausted). > Naturally at least one of these players has a reasonable chance to > oust the other guy, probably both. "Naturally" is out of place there. But with that as a stated assumption ... > > The questions are: > 1) is player A ok to take this deal as it offers him a table win? Yes. > 2) if the deal would give nobody a table win would the deal be illegal > (say B has 1 vp)? If the given assumption that at least one of the players has a reasonable chance to oust the other (and therefore get a GW) holds, then yes. > 3) is it ok to make a deal if you could resonably get more vps by > playing but you want the guarentee at a more moderate amount? Judge call. Note that making a deal is not a guarantee in most situations. -- 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/

Jeff Haar expounded: > Here is a situation I saw at a tournament a while ago. Player A and B > are left (with 2 and 1 vp respectively - this does not matter). Player > B offers A a mutual withdrawl because he does not think he can win > (his minions are very messed up). Player A takes the deal because he > does not think he can win (his deck has nearly been exhausted). > Naturally at least one of these players has a reasonable chance to > oust the other guy, probably both. > > The questions are: > 1) is player A ok to take this deal as it offers him a table win? > 2) if the deal would give nobody a table win would the deal be illegal > (say B has 1 vp)? [presumably you mean A has 1VP as well?] I had a similar situation at the UK EC Qualifier. I wanted to withdraw because I thought I would lose -he let me because it guaranteed him the game win and he thought I might get him and draw. (the chance of a time- out was negligible: we were both nearly out and had loads of time and oodles of firepower) It is possible that both players could think they can't win based on what they have seen the other play and what they can see in their own hand (due to false *but reasonable* assumptions on at least one side about the hand of the other). Did B take into acount that A's deck was nearly exhausted in determining that he was unlikely to win? (that was information that he did have) > 3) is it ok to make a deal if you could resonably get more vps by > playing but you want the guarentee at a more moderate amount? Sounds dodgy.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F6F4888...@white-wolf.com>... > Jeff Haar wrote: > > Here is a situation I saw at a tournament a while ago. Player A and B > > are left (with 2 and 1 vp respectively - this does not matter). Player > > B offers A a mutual withdrawl because he does not think he can win > > (his minions are very messed up). Player A takes the deal because he > > does not think he can win (his deck has nearly been exhausted). > > Naturally at least one of these players has a reasonable chance to > > oust the other guy, probably both. > > "Naturally" is out of place there. But with that as a stated assumption ... > I see naturally as a nessicary and obvious assumption. Let me explain why I see it that way. There are two players left. A resonable chance to oust your prey would certainly not require more than 50% odds. If player A has a 49.999% chance to oust B then B has a 50.001% chance to oust A. I must observe that it would be possible for both players to have defensive decks and have low oust chances. That was not the case here. Perhaps I should have noted that explicitly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeff Haar wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F6F4888...@white-wolf.com>... >>Jeff Haar wrote: >>>Here is a situation I saw at a tournament a while ago. Player A and B >>>are left (with 2 and 1 vp respectively - this does not matter). Player >>>B offers A a mutual withdrawl because he does not think he can win >>>(his minions are very messed up). Player A takes the deal because he >>>does not think he can win (his deck has nearly been exhausted). >>>Naturally at least one of these players has a reasonable chance to >>>oust the other guy, probably both. >> >>"Naturally" is out of place there. But with that as a stated assumption ... >> > I see naturally as a nessicary and obvious assumption. Let me explain > why I see it that way. There are two players left. A resonable chance > to oust your prey would certainly not require more than 50% odds. If > player A has a 49.999% chance to oust B then B has a 50.001% chance to > oust A. I must observe that it would be possible for both players to > have defensive decks and have low oust chances. That was not the case > here. Perhaps I should have noted that explicitly. Ah. I was placing the discussion in the context of a tournament since it involved the "play to win" aspect (and since you started off referring to a previous tournament). In a tournament setting, the "naturally" is out of place since it is conceivable that running out of time before either oust occurs has a high probability. With no possibility of running out of time, and with the odds of withdrawing being what they are :-), yes, at least one player must have, in absolute (omniscient) terms, a reasonable chance to get an oust. Even if both players have "defensive" decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > Ah. I was placing the discussion in the context of a tournament since > it involved the "play to win" aspect (and since you started off referring > to a previous tournament). In a tournament setting, the "naturally" is > out of place since it is conceivable that running out of time before > either oust occurs has a high probability. > > With no possibility of running out of time, and with the odds of > withdrawing being what they are :-), yes, at least one player must > have, in absolute (omniscient) terms, a reasonable chance to get > an oust. Even if both players have "defensive" decks. However neeither player is (or is expected to be) omniscient so it is quite possible for both to believe that they don't -except that they woudl have to re-evaluate that in the light of the other person's being prepared to deal... Do you have to consider what the other person being prepared to make such a deal implies about their hand?

Timlagor wrote: > Do you have to consider what the other person being prepared to make > such a deal implies about their hand? No. They could be prepared to break the deal (perhaps by compulsion to adhere to the "play to win" rules, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]