Play to win rule in a final

Hi! I would like to ask how the play to win rule must be interpreted in a final. You have a player who never during the final attempts to make any action against his prey even when his predator offers him to not to go forward until he ousts his prey and than play a heads-up for the Game Win. His prey is not an anti deck which he couldn't oust even with Gods help. He simply doesn't want to go forward for any reason. By this behavior he denies himself any chance to win on purpose. Is that legal in a final? Can he be disqualified by the judge? Thanks for the answer NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

That largely depends of the situation, imho. I would guess (based on your description) is Player A (does not want to go forward) > Player b > Player c (offers to hold until one-on-one) Now, if player A, for instance, is higher seed than player B, and if by ousting player c, player b will not have MORE than 2vp's, then Player A's action NOT do do anything is perfectly legal, as he prefers to be left one-on-one with player b (which deck he can oust), than player C (which deck he may potentially lose to). Also, why would he trust player c? Maybe he fears that , as soon as he moves forward, player C will lunge and kill him, breaking the offered deal? I have seen such things happen in the finals. See my point? Without knowing all the details, seeding, seating, decks, situations, and ousts prior to the situation, it is possible for us to assume that player A has all the benefit of the doubt to remain composed, and play this out in a way he sees fit. After all, nobody wants to lose a final...

> Mephistopheles wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to ask how the play to win rule must be interpreted in a final. You have a player who never during the final attempts to make any action against his prey even when his predator offers him to not to go forward until he ousts his prey and than play a heads-up for the Game Win. His prey is not an anti deck which he couldn't oust even with Gods help. He simply doesn't want to go forward for any reason. By this behavior he denies himself any chance to win on purpose. Is that legal in a final? Can he be disqualified by the judge? > > Thanks for the answer > Assuming all of the above, he is denying himself any chance to win. This is clearly illegal. The judge can clearly disqualify him if that's what it comes down to. But I get the distinct feeling that you already knew the answer. Does this hypothetical situation happen to be based on actual events?

The situation as it happened (yes it did happen): A -> B -> C -> D -> E Seating is: 1. (top) A 2. B 3. C 4. D 5. E Funny, cause we just sat down in this order, but hey things happen So until all 5 players are in the game player A plays against player E, because E has vote lock with C and can stop A's deck. Time progresses meaning A is still winning the final. At this point A convinces B to rush E consistently. B doesn't gain anything from this. Because of said cross table interference E offers C a 1-1 vp deal, meaning A and D will get ousted. The deal includes nothing against B! This happens meaning B is the furthest away from winning the final since C and E have a vp already. E than offers B to hold until he ousts C, since he is afraid of C and than play a clean heads-up for the tournament win. B agrees in words, but takes no action whatsoever against C in the remaining 20 minutes. C doesn't have to do anything since he is winning. E tries to cycle cards like hell to find a way of somehow ousting B after he realizes that B gave up on going forward. The final ends without B having taken any single action against C while being in a losing position during the entire final. I think this is not ok. I avoided information on decks and players on purpose, but if additional information is required feel free to ask. Let it be said that C was in no way an impossible deck for B to oust. Thoughts? NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Mephistopheles wrote: > Thoughts? > Losing undeservedly is frustrating. Nevertheless, the Rules Questions-section is not the place to look for personal vindication.

It is a little more than personal vindication. There is rule which I never ever see enforced. You can either just forget about this rule and delete it or try to define it so it can be enforced. In this given case I see a violation of the rule. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

Was B ever able to do anything? B was, it seems, playing a rush deck. Are we sure B wasn't lacking the rush cards? Maybe B was waiting for the lunge window - play Fame + Dragonbourd, and torporize enough of C's vampires to oust him. "B did nothing in this game" is an argument, but it might not be enough. It's down to what B did regarding what B could have done. Was B trying to cycle cards? Did B bleed for 1 from time to time? How much pool was C on? Did someone ask B why he wouldn't / didn't go forward?

So B is the stronger seed than C? In that case, he has all the power in THE WORLD to sit still until C ousts E, and then finish the game one-on-one as he sees fit to do. It seems that player E was more afraid of Player C, and then offered a deal that meant nothing to player B, as player b probably felt that he could not win one-on-one against player E. Also, he could still be potentially fearing the dealbrake from player E, which would spell doom for him if he taps out (for instance). Weather deck C is impossible to oust to player B in that case is irrelevant. What is relevant, is weather Player B has confidence that he can win against player E, once the player C is gone. If the answer to that (from B's ) perspective is that he cannot, than he has all the right to wait for player C to torture a little player E. Or, in this situation, he feels that player E is a real table threat, as he already rushed CROSS-TABLE to oust player E. Or maybe he has a hand full of deflections, and is waiting for E's offense to finish player C, and therefore conserve resources against player E. I am sorry, but if i was player B, i would also probably sit it out. If i was convinced that player E was such a threat as to rush him cross-table earlier, i would also probably not want to be left with him one-on-one, in ANY circumstances. And involving a judge in this kind of situation is , i feel, not only unwarranted, bud bad sportsmanship in its own right. What is next, if somebody does not IMMEDIATELY oust the player that he can oust, he is to be disqualified??

I just read your report on your blog. You are player E, right? These are your own words : "I cycled my deck like hell, to draw damage causing votes. Meanwhile I am totally against breaking a deal, but in this situation? I would have totally tried to oust Dávid if I could. Unfortunately I drew nothing good and we timed out." So you WERE going to break a deal, if situation arose. You cannot blame others for playing safe, in that situation, much less ask for a judge to disqualify them. If we ever sit on the same table, count me against taking any deal from you. Good day to you, sir!

> Mephistopheles wrote: > It is a little more than personal vindication. There is rule which I never ever see enforced. You can either just forget about this rule and delete it or try to define it so it can be enforced. In this given case I see a violation of the rule. > You should discuss this with the tournament judge. Unfortunately, while you may be in the right you can't expect moral backing from anyone on this forum based on nothing but your own subjective and limited account of the situation.

Maybe B didn't see an opening to oust BOTH C and E, which would be required for him to win. Obviously E needs C to get ousted. Also, E would not have been offering such an odd deal ("hey prey! I'll let you have 6 pool and a VP no problem!") if he either wasn't 100% sure he could oust B before the time limit or planned on breaking the deal and snatch up a second VP. Since B is a rushdeck (from the description) and E is afraid of C, the LAST thing E needs is B to go backwards. B, realizing this, understands he needs to oust both C AND E to secure the tournament victory and hopes C will weaken E enough for him to have a shot at this. Since C (rightfully) isn't moving and E starts making a move on him, realizes a gamewin is unattainable and -in fact- even a VP may very well be out of reach with E pounding on him. He therefore plays for what he thinks is the maximum attainable - 0,5 VP. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

Too bad you didn't see the entire table. It is impossible to give it back. Yeah, you can read it the way that I am a Jerk. Point taken. But if you read back a little to the situation when all 5 players were still in the game you might find a reason which let to it. I talked to a few guys who have watched the final. B never showed any attitude to win. And totally regardless of what happened or not, I am still curious if this whole play to win rule makes any sense. It is way too subjective. and f.y.i.: never during the entire final did I ask the judge anything about it or complained to him about this. However I wanted to check what the rule is. I avoided all personal information here, so nobody gets "hurt". Quoting in the personal data from another source isn't a nice thing either. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

It's not personal, it is on your blog, for entire Vtes community to see. It is the first blog currently on extrala, i did not go directly to your blog either. And it is your words. Point taken on entire table, and how the game progressed, though. One Vtes game of two hours is very difficult to explain and transcribe correctly, especially with all 5 players having different ideas how the table develops.

Also another thing that frustrates is the mix-up between ethics and rules. I didn't ask on a judgment on being a nice guy or not. I was asking a rules question that is unclear. No really, has anybody anywhere ever seen a play to win rule being enforced? Does this rule really make any sense? NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Mephistopheles wrote: > Also another thing that frustrates is the mix-up between ethics and rules. I didn't ask on a judgment on being a nice guy or not. I was asking a rules question that is unclear. > > No really, has anybody anywhere ever seen a play to win rule being enforced? > > Does this rule really make any sense? > If a player really wants to, any rule can viably be broken in some situation without getting caught. Absolute enforceability is, therefore, an impractical requirement. That said, I haven't seen anybody getting disqualified due to a PTW-violation but I've never seen an obvious PTW-violation, either.

I find something disturbing: by staying idle, B couldn't win (C wasn't going to spontaneously loose his pool). Even if there was a high chance the deal between B and E would be broken by E, B had to go forward. I don't know if it's a play to win violation, but B played badly anyway. Judge must check that there is no collusion between B and C. I still see some people in finals glad not to be ousted, score their half-VP and let someone win. That is a big problem. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thanks Ankha! You are so talking my mind. In a final it doesn't matter if you are second with 1,5 vps or with 0. Anytime I will choose 1% winning a final - 99% 0 vp over 100% 1vp but 0% winning the final. Anytime. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Mephistopheles wrote: > Also another thing that frustrates is the mix-up between ethics and rules. I didn't ask on a judgment on being a nice guy or not. I was asking a rules question that is unclear. > > No really, has anybody anywhere ever seen a play to win rule being enforced? > > Does this rule really make any sense? > A player can hide behind "I made a poor judgment of the table state, or took bad choices, because I made a honest mistake and I'm still petrified I'll be cross table or back ousted". There is nothing a judge can say or do, except force a player to do something artificially (coach him forcefully). The enforcement of PTW I've seen was done in two different contexts: - During deal making (players asked the Judge if the deal broke PTW). Note: if the Judge said no, it still did not obligate the players to keep the deal. But if the Judge said it broke the rules, they could do as they pleased up until one of them would be forced to brake the deal in order to keep PTW. - During a case such as yours, where one or more players thinks that another player is not honoring PTW. The Judge talks with the player in question and that is a very subjective talk. All responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Judges. Period. So they've gotta have the balls for the job. In your case, you should have called the Judge and let him make a call. Sorry man but, by not doing this, I think you are an accomplice of what happened.

I think the main problem is the difference in the attitude of us players. Some players, like me, want to win hard. Some players don't care that much, they happy if they win, but don't really care if they don't and therefore won't fight or try as much. The problem with this is that such decisions have a high influence on the table, which will benefit one player but hurt 3 others. What I don't understand is if a players doesn't want to win a tournament than why is he attending it? Of course, because he wants to have fun and has all right to do so. It just sucks if you loose because of this. I need to learn to deal with that. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> I need to learn to deal with that. > You just earned an extra point of Karma for that one, mate. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

In that situation I would definitely have called the judge just to let the guy know, that he is watched closely. If it is true, that he didn't bleed for one at least instead of rushing crosstable without need it seems strange. I saw a judge enforce play to win at a tournament in Belgium some years back. Two guys arranged a table split deal. The judge enforced one player to play harder/ to use his possibilities and try to oust the other in the heads up. He had to play his political actions although he didn't want to. In another game he didn't allow another deal because it violated play to win IIRC. As you already mentioned the problem is not the judge but players, who does not try to win a game. That is more often the case, not only in finals. Sad. Another bad thing is the pov "nobody gets an oust but me". I have the impression this got better in the meantime. Baron of Frankfurt

> Mephistopheles wrote: > > No really, has anybody anywhere ever seen a play to win rule being enforced? > I have experienced the play-to-win rule being enforced. It was at the 2010 EC, the First-Chance Qualifier. Table: Me (Ventrue Law Firm with Arika) -> B (Mata Hari vote) -> C (Nosferatu Royalty) -> D (!Brujah rush with titled vampires) -> E (Mistress Fanchion/Orlando Oriandus vote/bleed) As you can see, there were lots of votes on the table. I don't remember everything exactly, but there was a lot of shifting around of voting allegiances. Player C called Parity Shift on Player E and had the vote support to pass it. Player E complained to the judge that it was not play-to-win, and the judge agreed and made Player C choose a different target or take back his action. Player E ended up ousting me, got 1.5 VPs (the most at the table), and went to the final of the tournament. I think that Player C's prey was a legitimate target of Parity Shift, which I believe was Player D's argument. I have never seen a player insist an action be taken back because of Play-to-Win, much less succeed. Player C, Player D, and I had formed a voting block, but none of us was articulate enough to argue past E, who was very insistent. But this is not a case of someone potentially breaking Play-to-Win because of inaction, but rather because of cross-table action.

> Aaron wrote: > I have experienced the play-to-win rule being enforced. It was at the 2010 EC, the First-Chance Qualifier. > > Table: Me (Ventrue Law Firm with Arika) -> B (Mata Hari vote) -> C (Nosferatu Royalty) -> D (!Brujah rush with titled vampires) -> E (Mistress Fanchion/Orlando Oriandus vote/bleed) > > As you can see, there were lots of votes on the table. I don't remember everything exactly, but there was a lot of shifting around of voting allegiances. Player C called Parity Shift on Player E and had the vote support to pass it. Player E complained to the judge that it was not play-to-win, and the judge agreed and made Player C choose a different target or take back his action. Player E ended up ousting me, got 1.5 VPs (the most at the table), and went to the final of the tournament. > > I think that Player C's prey was a legitimate target of Parity Shift, which I believe was Player D's argument. I have never seen a player insist an action be taken back because of Play-to-Win, much less succeed. > > Player C, Player D, and I had formed a voting block, but none of us was articulate enough to argue past E, who was very insistent. But this is not a case of someone potentially breaking Play-to-Win because of inaction, but rather because of cross-table action. > Things to take into account: player C was forfeiting the GW and it had been 20 min played so far (thus, another 1h40m remaining) (that is - if my memeory serves me well).

> Mephistopheles wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to ask how the play to win rule must be interpreted in a final. You have a player who never during the final attempts to make any action against his prey even when his predator offers him to not to go forward until he ousts his prey and than play a heads-up for the Game Win. His prey is not an anti deck which he couldn't oust even with Gods help. He simply doesn't want to go forward for any reason. By this behavior he denies himself any chance to win on purpose. Is that legal in a final? Can he be disqualified by the judge? > > Thanks for the answer > I haven't read your blog,and I do not know the whole table dynamic- but here is one idea I have. Was the non-aggressive player thinking that he had a better chance to defeat his prey than his predator? Perhaps he wanted to let his prey oust the the third player then oust in the one-on-one. If he felt this could happen, then why would he care for the deal his predator was offering? If this was the case, and I don't know that it was or wasn't, wouldn't this be playing to win? Based on the information given, I don't think he can be disqualified.

> Pascal wrote: > > > Aaron wrote: > > I have experienced the play-to-win rule being enforced. It was at the 2010 EC, the First-Chance Qualifier. > > > > Table: Me (Ventrue Law Firm with Arika) -> B (Mata Hari vote) -> C (Nosferatu Royalty) -> D (!Brujah rush with titled vampires) -> E (Mistress Fanchion/Orlando Oriandus vote/bleed) > > > > As you can see, there were lots of votes on the table. I don't remember everything exactly, but there was a lot of shifting around of voting allegiances. Player C called Parity Shift on Player E and had the vote support to pass it. Player E complained to the judge that it was not play-to-win, and the judge agreed and made Player C choose a different target or take back his action. Player E ended up ousting me, got 1.5 VPs (the most at the table), and went to the final of the tournament. > > > > I think that Player C's prey was a legitimate target of Parity Shift, which I believe was Player D's argument. I have never seen a player insist an action be taken back because of Play-to-Win, much less succeed. > > > > Player C, Player D, and I had formed a voting block, but none of us was articulate enough to argue past E, who was very insistent. But this is not a case of someone potentially breaking Play-to-Win because of inaction, but rather because of cross-table action. > > > Things to take into account: player C was forfeiting the GW and it had been 20 min played so far (thus, another 1h40m remaining) (that is - if my memeory serves me well). > How was player C forfeiting the GW? Based on the information given (again), couldn't player B, with 1h40min remaining, have liked his chances in the 4-player game more than in the 5-player? I'm curious about this because I've never seen a judge tell a player "you are not playing to win?" Which is my answer to Mephistopheles' question in an earlier post. That is, I've never seen it happen. I have seen a judge threaten to disqualify if a player were to transfer out. But this was a general announcement and not specific to an in game situation.

I am in favor of using this "don't collude" rule for kibitzing. many times I simply fail to notice an important card on the table affecting the situation, and then make the wrong move that eliminates my chances for a Gamewin. I should ask the judge every time I do something, "am I playing to win?" so he can advise me what to do -- "NO! Fame will oust your prey. Take that action back, and play that other card in your hand so you can score some VPs." "Have I done everything during my Untap phase that satisfies Play To Win, judge?" "NO! You forgot you have the edge. Gain 1 pool or I disqualify you." "Oh ok"

> TorranceCircle wrote: > How was player C forfeiting the GW? Based on the information given (again), couldn't player B, with 1h40min remaining, have liked his chances in the 4-player game more than in the 5-player? > Maybe. Maybe not. I guess that judging during the game is much easier than discussing about it with so much informations lost in time. The judge can take other factors into account (the current player's attitude for instance). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TorranceCircle wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > Aaron wrote: > > > I have experienced the play-to-win rule being enforced. It was at the 2010 EC, the First-Chance Qualifier. > > > > > > Table: Me (Ventrue Law Firm with Arika) -> B (Mata Hari vote) -> C (Nosferatu Royalty) -> D (!Brujah rush with titled vampires) -> E (Mistress Fanchion/Orlando Oriandus vote/bleed) > > > > > > As you can see, there were lots of votes on the table. I don't remember everything exactly, but there was a lot of shifting around of voting allegiances. Player C called Parity Shift on Player E and had the vote support to pass it. Player E complained to the judge that it was not play-to-win, and the judge agreed and made Player C choose a different target or take back his action. Player E ended up ousting me, got 1.5 VPs (the most at the table), and went to the final of the tournament. > > > > > > I think that Player C's prey was a legitimate target of Parity Shift, which I believe was Player D's argument. I have never seen a player insist an action be taken back because of Play-to-Win, much less succeed. > > > > > > Player C, Player D, and I had formed a voting block, but none of us was articulate enough to argue past E, who was very insistent. But this is not a case of someone potentially breaking Play-to-Win because of inaction, but rather because of cross-table action. > > > > > > > > Things to take into account: player C was forfeiting the GW and it had been 20 min played so far (thus, another 1h40m remaining) (that is - if my memeory serves me well). > > > How was player C forfeiting the GW? Based on the information given (again), couldn't player B, with 1h40min remaining, have liked his chances in the 4-player game more than in the 5-player? > By the deal C was passing with D - where C would have been ousting each of D's preys in a row (again, that's what I recall now from that game which happened 1 year ago and of which I saw 3 minutes). And the answer given to "would such a deal be legal?" was "No." > TorranceCircle wrote: > I'm curious about this because I've never seen a judge tell a player "you are not playing to win?" Which is my answer to Mephistopheles' question in an earlier post. That is, I've never seen it happen. > > I have seen a judge threaten to disqualify if a player were to transfer out. But this was a general announcement and not specific to an in game situation. > Transfering oneself out is a valid move. Not respecting the PTW (or a deal previously made) is an illegal move. Only in these situations should a call to the judge be made.

It sounds to me like this player was just a fool and really has no idea how to manipulate the cards properly. You can't legislate against stupidity. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Pascal wrote: > By the deal C was passing with D - where C would have been ousting each of D's preys in a row (again, that's what I recall now from that game which happened 1 year ago and of which I saw 3 minutes). And the answer given to "would such a deal be legal?" was "No." > I don't remember the part where C had agreed to oust E for D, and then me as well. It certainly might have been the agreement - C wasn't acting very logically, and he certainly was not able to argue his actions in terms of Play-to-Win when confronted by Pascal. I was surprised he Parity Shifted E, because no one ever falls for my powers of persuasion. I didn't get that C had explicitly forfeited the game, but we were speaking French (I was being nice to one of the players whose English was weak), and maybe I missed that part. To be honest, getting Player E out of the game might not have been a bad thing at all for C since E had 10 votes and was in a better position than the rest of us. E was in a very strong position. D couldn't get past E's Obediences and Deflections; Arika was Sense Depped and I couldn't draw enough Deflections; B couldn't pass any votes between me and C, and he had to pay pool for his vote-gaining locations because of Arika. Getting rid of me would have gotten rid of another 6 votes plus the Ventrue HQ. It's possible that with B, C, and D in the game only, C would have had a great chance to Parity Shift with impunity (12 extra pool to get), blocking back rushes with his Progenies. I don't necessarily disagree with the ruling; I might have made the same ruling. I could see how Pascal made it, especially because of the way that Player C acted. All C had to do was say, "That is my strategy, and I think it will help me win.", but he didn't do that.