hi all,
related to Johannes' thread on the issue of deals in 3-player
situation, in some discussions on this recently following issue came
up:
In a 3-player situation, is the fact that the 2 last standing players
will have to break their running deal, a legal argument for them to
be able to agree on an otherwise disputable deal?
Example:say you have player A bleeding player B bleeding player C
A already has 1 VP.
Can A and B agree on a 1,5-1,5 split (they both oust C together, and
then withdraw), which, under the given situation is not "play to win
for A", since he can get more than 1,5VP, but using as an argument
that they will have to break the deal anyway, which will probably
result in 3 VP for A and 1 VP for B? Which obvisouly is play to win if
you take the "forced" deal break into consideration..
Thing to consider is that the 3-1 split is already in a way known and
part of the 2 player deal in a 3-player situation, but even saying
that the deal woul have to be broken, there would be little to do
about it..
So I'd like to hear some opinions on this one, for myself and the
people whom I've discussed this with, it's pretty much in the grey
zone so to speak..
thanks,
jo
Wolflord wrote:
> hi all,
> related to Johannes' thread on the issue of deals in 3-player
> situation, in some discussions on this recently following issue came
> up:
>
> In a 3-player situation, is the fact that the 2 last standing players
> will have to break their running deal, a legal argument for them to
> be able to agree on an otherwise disputable deal?
>
> Example:say you have player A bleeding player B bleeding player C
> A already has 1 VP.
>
> Can A and B agree on a 1,5-1,5 split (they both oust C together, and
> then withdraw), which, under the given situation is not "play to win
> for A", since he can get more than 1,5VP, but using as an argument
> that they will have to break the deal anyway, which will probably
> result in 3 VP for A and 1 VP for B? Which obvisouly is play to win if
> you take the "forced" deal break into consideration..
There's no deal at all after C is ousted (all deals are off once the game is
down to just two players), so it technically not a forced deal break.
> Thing to consider is that the 3-1 split is already in a way known and
> part of the 2 player deal in a 3-player situation, but even saying
> that the deal woul have to be broken, there would be little to do
> about it..
"little to do" other than enforce the rule. That is: prohibit A from withdrawing
and prohibit him from allowing B to withdraw, and prohibit him from activity
which doesn't advance the goal of ousting B.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On May 25, 9:50 am, Wolflord <jo.herroe...@sca.com> wrote:
> hi all,
> related to Johannes' thread on the issue of deals in 3-player
> situation, in some discussions on this recently following issue came
> up:
>
> In a 3-player situation, is the fact that the 2 last standing players
> will have to break their running deal, a legal argument for them to
> be able to agree on an otherwise disputable deal?
>
> Example:say you have player A bleeding player B bleeding player C
> A already has 1 VP.
>
> Can A and B agree on a 1,5-1,5 split (they both oust C together, and
> then withdraw), which, under the given situation is not "play to win
> for A", since he can get more than 1,5VP, but using as an argument
> that they will have to break the deal anyway, which will probably
> result in 3 VP for A and 1 VP for B? Which obvisouly is play to win if
> you take the "forced" deal break into consideration..
They can't get 1.5/1.5 without going to time. If either one withdraws
for the .5 VP, the other gets 1 VP for last man standing. So there's
another problem with this "split".
> Thing to consider is that the 3-1 split is already in a way known and
> part of the 2 player deal in a 3-player situation, but even saying
> that the deal woul have to be broken, there would be little to do
> about it..
>
> So I'd like to hear some opinions on this one, for myself and the
> people whom I've discussed this with, it's pretty much in the grey
> zone so to speak..
There's essentially no point in making that deal instead of just being
honest. A is offering to B "I'll help you oust your prey in exchange
for you not ganging up on me". That can be play to win for both A (who
believes he'll be getting the GW as a result) and B (who gets one
almost-guaranteed VP and what he thinks is a long shot at a GW).
witness1
-your toast is burnt, and no amount of scraping will remove the black
part
[ quoted text not captured ]
Doesn't allowing B to withdraw give A the game win? Last man standing
is worth 1 VP still, right?
witness1
-i know where o'malley is
> > Doesn't allowing B to withdraw give A the game win? Last man standing
> > is worth 1 VP still, right?
>> I was just answering the set-up given. I didn't notice it was using alternate
> last-man-standing rules.- Hide quoted text -
>
Err..I don't see where I am using alternate rules in the given setup?
I still don't feel I get your point though.
The question is not about enforcing the end game. As you say,at that
point, you need to indeed enforce them to break the 1,5-1,5 split by
not allowing them to withdraw.
Which will result in 3-1.
Which is what they want to achieve ultimately.
The point is, they would not normally be allowed to make a straight
3-1 deal in the 3 player situation without being forced to break it
once they come down to 2.
The only reason you're now allowing the 3-1 result (and de facto
enforcing it) would be because they originally made a 1,5-1,5, which
they have to break.
So,if I interpret/understand your answer correctly, you're saying that
yes, the fact they have to break the deal 1,5-1,5 (which at the time
of making it is not play to win) in the end, will indeed make this non-
legal dealing legal after all?
I mean ,basically, saying "we can make a 1,5 - 1,5 split because we
have to break it once we get down to 2 " turns this situation into a
legal one where the judge has to enforce the 3-1split. Whereas, if
they would say from the start "we're making a 3-1 ", the judge has to
enforce them breaking it once they're down to 2
/jo
Wolflord wrote:
>>> Doesn't allowing B to withdraw give A the game win? Last man standing
>>> is worth 1 VP still, right?>>> I was just answering the set-up given. I didn't notice it was using alternate
>> last-man-standing rules.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>
> Err..I don't see where I am using alternate rules in the given setup?
"Last man standing is worth 1 VP" (under the official rules).
If A allows B to withdraw:
A started 1 VP, then B gets 1 VP for ousting C, then B gets 0.5 for withdrawing
(1.5 total), and A gets 1 VP for last man standing (2 VP total, not 1.5).
> I still don't feel I get your point though.
> The question is not about enforcing the end game. As you say,at that
> point, you need to indeed enforce them to break the 1,5-1,5 split by
> not allowing them to withdraw.
> Which will result in 3-1.
> Which is what they want to achieve ultimately.
Your original set-up said "A and B agree on a 1,5-1,5 split"
Not 3-1.
> The point is, they would not normally be allowed to make a straight
> 3-1 deal in the 3 player situation without being forced to break it
> once they come down to 2.
> The only reason you're now allowing the 3-1 result (and de facto
> enforcing it) would be because they originally made a 1,5-1,5, which
> they have to break.
?
If B ousts C, then A and B are tied at 1 when going to the two-player "sudden
death". Each must try to oust the other if possible.
> So,if I interpret/understand your answer correctly, you're saying that
> yes, the fact they have to break the deal 1,5-1,5 (which at the time
> of making it is not play to win) in the end, will indeed make this non-
> legal dealing legal after all?
What deal?
> I mean ,basically, saying "we can make a 1,5 - 1,5 split because we
> have to break it once we get down to 2 " turns this situation into a
> legal one where the judge has to enforce the 3-1split. Whereas, if
> they would say from the start "we're making a 3-1 ", the judge has to
> enforce them breaking it once they're down to 2
If B has a reasonable chance to get more than 1 VP, he can't deal for
3-to-A-and-1-to-B losing, no.
On May 25, 7:50 am, Wolflord <jo.herroe...@sca.com> wrote:
> The point is, they would not normally be allowed to make a straight
> 3-1 deal in the 3 player situation without being forced to break it
> once they come down to 2.
I think you've gotten the answer you're looking for, but also want to
remind you:
Players can agree to whatever deals they want, and judges should not
prohibit any deals. Judges should only prohibit the actual plays that
are not PTW.
Judges should not publicly state "That deal is not PTW." Maybe player
A realizes that it's not PTW, and has no intention of keeping the
deal. The judge shouldn't ruin that opportunity for Player A.
Ira
On 25 Mai, 16:50, Wolflord <jo.herroe...@sca.com> wrote:
> The only reason you're now allowing the 3-1 result (and de facto
> enforcing it) would be because they originally made a 1,5-1,5, which
> they have to break.
Can you make a deal, that player A plays a Succubus Club. No, because
it is not allowed. How can you make a deal with something, that is not
allowed. Remember, the new tournament rules means, that every deal has
an unspoken clause: The deal ends immediately, if there are only two
players left. So everything "dealt" about the two player situation is
in fact out-of-game consideration.
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Players can agree to whatever deals they want, and judges should not
> prohibit any deals. Judges should only prohibit the actual plays that
> are not PTW.
>
This should be put in bold somewhere. This is critical.
CRITICAL.
> Judges should not publicly state "That deal is not PTW." Maybe player
> A realizes that it's not PTW, and has no intention of keeping the
> deal. The judge shouldn't ruin that opportunity for Player A.
>
YES, yes, and YEEESSS!
ahem, sorry.
All you judges out there, harken to Ira.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com