Hi,
Considering players A > B > C > D > E.
D thinks he's about to lose and also won't be able to oust player E.
D proposes to help E killing A, B and C (giving E 3 VP and the GW) and that in the duel, E leaves D the remaining 2 VP.
Considering that the deal becomes void during the duel but that when the duel begins, E already has the GW, is it legal for E to leave D the remaining 2 VP (without violating the PTW rule).
> 4.8. Play to Win
>
> One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.
> Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course).
> During the finals, playing to win means playing to finish as tournament winner (as defined in 3.7.5).
> Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Yes, it is legal. The first highlighted part explains it - that PTW is only defined to play for the game win in this scenario. So E who already has the game win secured can do whatever he wants, D however must still play to get as many VP:s as possible and could not voluntarily give E a table sweep even if he wanted.
> Ankha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Considering players A > B > C > D > E.
> D thinks he's about to lose and also won't be able to oust player E.
> D proposes to help E killing A, B and C (giving E 3 VP and the GW) and that in the duel, E leaves D the remaining 2 VP.
>
> Considering that the deal becomes void during the duel but that when the duel begins, E already has the GW, is it legal for E to leave D the remaining 2 VP (without violating the PTW rule).
>
Yes - and this doesn't violate the PTW rule. PTW is about getting the GW when possible. When you have it, then PTW doesn't require that you sweep the table.
Also notice: the previous deal (where E would give D 2 VPs) is completely moot here. With or without that deal, E can remove themself from the game when E has the GW.
Is legal, but you must be careful, I am thinking that:
IF D minds changes (while the game changes)and he thinks that he is able to win in any moment he MUST break the deal and try to win.
sorry about my english, I hope you can understand that
> mondragon wrote:
> Is legal, but you must be careful, I am thinking that:
>
> IF D minds changes (while the game changes)and he thinks that he is able to win in any moment he MUST break the deal and try to win.
>
> sorry about my english, I hope you can understand that
>
Wrong.
If D's mind changes and D thinks he is now able to get the GW, he CAN break the deal. He also may decide not to break the deal, and this would still be respecting the PTW rule.
>
> Non-existant user wrote:
> The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken.
>
> mondragon wrote:
> IF D minds changes (while the game changes)and he thinks that he is able to win in any moment he MUST break the deal and try to win.
>
Only in a 2-players game (that's why we say the deal is void from that point).
Otherwise, no rule enforces D to break the deal as long there's at least 3 players left in the game; and D may choose to break his deal anytime of course.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The slightly bizarre upshot of the current rules is that a player can 'honor' the deal when it gets down to 2 players, if they were predator and prey to start with. (VP-altering cards like Life Boon and Gambit Accepted and things excepted.) Otherwise, they have 2 points and 1 point, and so both can get the GW when the deal is off.
This is, generally, an improvement on the previous situation (in that it works to prohibit a variety of the previously-legal 'I'll lie down and you can steamroller me at the end' deals), but obviously still imperfect.