[LSJ] Rules clarification needed: Play to Win and the new rules

Hello, During our last tournament appeared some problems with an interpretation of the new rules. Situation: Player A (Menele combat + weenie dom support: bruise bleed) -> Player B (Ravnos Tumnimos breed + sens.dep. & Edged Illusions) -> Player C (Tupdog archetype) -> Player D (big cap Lasombra combat) During the first few round Tupdogs trampled the Ravnos and after sending lonely Lasombra combatant they started finishing off their prey. "A" seeing it's chance was just pumping up blood and influencing dom weenies with occasionally -almost-always-succesfull dom-bleeding. Ravnos' player had to deal with tupdogs each turn to safe their minions ( "No aggressive actions towards Tupdogs - no combat entering" - with initiative in Tupdogs turn). In the meantime "C" have finished "D's" second big cap and had him leveled down to 6 pool. And now: Players started to chat for a very long time trying to convince each other to share VP's among each other. Offers were first launched by Ravnos player "B" who had lowest chances for a single VP besides the near dead "D". He offered 2-2 table split to his predator and then when he refused, he offered same deal to his prey. "A" realized that the situation is going in the wrong way for him and started to renew the offer - and was offering VP's split to his prey and predator. Situation was somehow funny because 2 players [without D of course] have powers to sweep the third ( tupdog's enter combat, menele combat, Edged Illusions and sensory) and the balance was on a clay legs. Player "C" decided to deal with player "B" ( he said simply that fighting with single Menele is less riskier than trying to kill all the Ravnos before they launch their EI (which Ravnos' player was discarding three in a row) and split the table 2-2 - they knew that the new rule will cause them to cancel the deal when they'll be left to 1 on 1 - so they decided to finish the "D" and "A" with constant self weakening by the "C" player (transfering, moving blood from pool to V via the dools hunting with the rest etc; when "A" was almost dead - "C" was tapped with only 2 minions and 2 VP's and the ravnos finished him easily. So in the end the VP's went as they wished QUESTIONS: .1) Was it legal ? 2) What have to do the judge and what he could do in such situation if it's NOT legal? 3) Was it a violate of the "Play to Win" rule? Or other rules? If the problem can't be solved with these informations about situation - just please write some possibilities. Thanks in advance for your help. regards Naia

[ quoted text not captured ] > ..1) Was it legal ? If it was play to win, sure. That's something for the judge on the the scene to determine. If C's self-weakening was PTW (with the deal in place), then it's legal for him to self-weaken. The B-C 2-2 deal is only legal if neither C nor B had a chance at the GW. > 2) What have to do the judge and what he could do in such situation if > it's NOT legal? Stop the play that violates PTW. > 3) Was it a violate of the "Play to Win" rule? Or other rules? Hard to say. Seems unlikely that no one was in a position to get a GW. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > If it was play to win, sure. That's something for the judge on the the scene to > determine. > > If C's self-weakening was PTW (with the deal in place), then it's legal for him > to self-weaken. > > The B-C 2-2 deal is only legal if neither C nor B had a chance at the GW. Is it players decision (based on their table view, seeing their hand, hearing counter deals of other players to stop him before achieving even 1 vp)? Or judges only? If player is seeing his forthcoming demise and deals with predator with explained way is it still only judge to decide? Even if he didn't see whole game? And what about denying this deal by judge? He comes to the table saying we can't make this deal because in his opinion one of us can get GW. and then player who was denied making this deal is trampled by others because judge was wrong. 0 vp. A player had a good table view but it was denied by judge. If he could be allowed to make a deal he would achieve 2 vps so playing with PTW rule. Is it necessery to completly describe situation on the turn when the deal was made? best regards, P.Kukielczynski

unf wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> If it was play to win, sure. That's something for the judge on the the scene to >> determine. >> >> If C's self-weakening was PTW (with the deal in place), then it's legal for him >> to self-weaken. >> >> The B-C 2-2 deal is only legal if neither C nor B had a chance at the GW. > > Is it players decision (based on their table view, seeing their hand, > hearing counter deals of other players to stop him before achieving > even 1 vp)? Or judges only? The judge's > If player is seeing his forthcoming demise > and deals with predator with explained way is it still only judge to > decide? Yes. > Even if he didn't see whole game? The only history that would be interesting would be reflected in the present game state (including the player's library, since it is assumed the player knows what cards are in his library), so sure -- he doesn't have to witness the whole game. > And what about denying this > deal by judge? He comes to the table saying we can't make this deal > because in his opinion one of us can get GW. and then player who was > denied making this deal is trampled by others because judge was wrong. Not because the judge was wrong, but because the probabilities didn't work out in his favor. The judge doesn't have to step in and guarantee a winner. He just makes a judgment as to whether someone is playing to win. > 0 vp. A player had a good table view but it was denied by judge. If he > could be allowed to make a deal he would achieve 2 vps so playing with > PTW rule. Is it necessery to completly describe situation on the turn > when the deal was made? The deal can be made in any event. It just can't be used as an excuse to violate PTW unless the deal itself is PTW. So you only really have to check with the judge when the player attempts some activity which is not PTW in itself. Probably better to call the judge when the deal is being made, so the judge can work with the best information available.

> > > > The B-C 2-2 deal is only legal if neither C nor B had a chance at the GW. > Argument: I think you could deal for 2-2 in such situation and not violate "Play to Win Rule" if you choose between the very risky try to get GW and almost sure 2 Victory points. Am I right ?

[ quoted text not captured ] First of all thank you very much for your help.! to simplify this questions: Can a player in similiar situation make a deal for sure 2 VP's when he thinks that his chances to get GW are low and the game for him (without a deal) will most likely finish with 0 or 1 VP.

LSJ wrote: > Nya wrote: > > ..1) Was it legal ? > > If it was play to win, sure. That's something for the judge on the the scene to > determine. > > If C's self-weakening was PTW (with the deal in place), then it's legal for him > to self-weaken. > > The B-C 2-2 deal is only legal if neither C nor B had a chance at the GW. You mean "if neither C nor B had a *reasonable* chance at the GW," right? Thanks, Ira

Nya wrote: > Nya wrote: > > > > The B-C 2-2 deal is only legal if neither C nor B had a chance at the GW. > > > > Argument: I think you could deal for 2-2 in such situation and not > > violate "Play to Win Rule" if you choose between the very risky try to > > get GW and almost sure 2 Victory points. > > Can a player in similiar situation make a deal for sure 2 VP's when he > thinks that his chances to get GW are low and the game for him (without > a deal) will most likely finish with 0 or 1 VP. The short answer is Yes. In the end, it's up to the judge's judgement, but LSJ has defined "reasonable chance" to include risk analysis. Therefore, the failure states matter. Here is a good thread on PTW, which also links to the original thread (as far as I know) where LSJ mentioned risk analysis as part of "reasonable chance." http://tinyurl.com/y3496t It seems that the current tournament rules still allow very trustworthy people to make and keep deals like the one you described, but it does make it more risky to do. Therefore, those types of deals are discouraged a bit more, which was a goal of the rules change. Ira

In message <1168290215....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Nya [ quoted text not captured ] Sort of. The deal doesn't just hinge on *you* playing-to-win. The judge may decide that you giving up a very risky GW is reasonable play on your part, but is the *other* player giving up a much easier to gain GW? Also, on a 4 player table, organising a 2-2 split is very hard. You bleed your prey out twice (2VP), and then I oust you and get last man standing (2VP). If we're cross-table, I can't think of an easy way to do it these days (withdrawal is half a VP). The problem is that when it's down to just the two of us, all deals are off. So you have to try your hardest (with 12 extra pool, which is a lot) to oust me. The problem in the stated example was that one player was trying to get around this by intentionally weakening himself. In a real, honest situation, you have to try to oust me and I have to try to oust you. Knowing that, at 2 players, all deals are off, I'd be foolish to make that deal in the first place. It's very likely not a play-to-win deal, because you get 2VP and I get nothing out of the deal. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Sorry for my por English guys but I'm a bit stun by what I read. If a do a loosing deal and call the judge ther is 2 possibilities. 1. The Judge is a better player than I am. He know that I can win. He can see it. But honestly I do not know how to win. The resul instead of taking the VP the actual winner of was gone give me I loose with nothing.... Crap 2. I'm a better player than the Judge. I know I gone loose and 1 VP is better than nothing... But the judge can't see as far as I see... So he said I need to fight for the game win and I loose again because of the Judge. (Bing ranked second player in the world has put me often in this situation). And I don't understand how you do a 2/2 deal knowing that the knew rule force you to play to win as soon as there is only 2 player in the game. And that whatever the deal was?

I don't understand how technicly you do a 2/2 deal? Each player kill his prey and then wath?

In message <1168507605.7...@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, olivier...@gmail.com writes: >I don't understand how technicly you do a 2/2 deal? > >Each player kill his prey and then wath? Potentially: One player could, legitimately, find that he can oust his prey and grand-prey but only if he implodes in the process. Then his predator ousts him. This is much the same as the artificial deals, where a player ousts two preys and then *pretends* to find themselves in unimaginable difficulty, but without the pretending. An example might be having to throw all your vampires at a prey who is a big wall. Some of your vampires get through, but most of them get creamed. By the time you have the pool to bring out new vampires (after the oust), it's too late for you to bring out a new vampire (who might be very big, say) without your predator ousting you. Had you not agreed to this course of action, your predator would have ousted you (but then been blocked by the wall herself). Though all deals would be off once you were down to two players, you would have legitimately improved your standing (2VP rather than zero), and your predator has too (2VP rather than one, when it hit the wall). This would not necessarily have to be a deal. The predator could say "Look, if you don't throw yourself at your prey, I'm just going to oust you right now, and you'll have nothing. Might as well try?" I've certainly seen players control their prey in such a fashion, when they have absolute domination of their prey, but would be creamed by the next one. At this point, it's just strategically good play, potentially. One such example involved a three-player end-game, where a Ravnos weenie breed deck had convinced its prey it was holding Week of Nightmares (which it was), aided by the fact that the prey had seen a similar deck in action before from the same player. Had the prey not gone along with the requests, it would have been ousted the following turn with a swarm of +1 bleeds. The Ravnos deck could then have got through with only one turn of blocking to deal with (damaging a number of vampires), rather than having that happen twice (which would have caused rather more damage). So they prey hung on and did what he was told, in order to try to get the scraps. [ quoted text not captured ]