> Hakuron wrote:
> Deck Name: German National Championship 2019: Blackturns
> ....
> Created with Secret Library v0.9.4e. (May 26, 2019 11:42:20)
>
The deck list I can find on Secret Library ( www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=3072 ) doesn't have the 2 Shroud of Absences. Could someone confirm which deck list is correct?
Thanks.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
There has been an edit of the deck on the german VEKN forum, the 2 Shrouds of Absence were absent during the tournament. Therefore the deck list on Secret Library is correct.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
The list in the German forum is correct. Originally I copied the decklist from Secret Library, assuming the decklist was correct. But in fact the actual deck I used, hadn't had the two Shroud of Absence not included.
I am not sure when/why I removed the SoA from the deck, because they surely are well suited in the deck. Maybe I needed the SoA in another deck at some point in the past.
> Hakuron wrote:
> Top 5 players after 3 rounds were:
>
> Ralf "extrala" Lammert (GER), 2 gw + 9.5 vp, Lasombra g45 Stealth Bleed with Nocturns
> Marius Iscru (FRA), 2 gw + 7 vp, Toreador g12 Cel Gun with Ashurs
> Sascha Müller (GER), 1 gw + 4.5 vp, Tzimisce g23 with War Ghouls
> Joscha Duell (GER), 1 gw + 4 vp, Ventrue g23 Stealth Vote and Bleed
> Markus Hißnauer (GER), 1 gw + 3.5 vp, Toreador antitribu g23 Palla Grande Bleed
>
> Final's seating:
> Markus > Marius > Joscha > Ralf > Sascha
>
> Finals had 2 h 15 min playing time.
> 1st oust after 1 hour: Sascha => 1 vp for Ralf
> 2nd oust after 1 hour 20 minutes: Markus => 2 vp for Ralf
> 3rd oust after 1 hour 25 minutes: Ralf => 1 vp for Joscha
> 4th oust after 1 hour 30 minutes: Joscha => 2 vp for Marius
> => Ralf new German Champion due to better seating and winner of the artwork "Enchant Kindred"
>
> Archon
>
> 1 Ralf Lammert 2 9,5 2 156
>
> 2 Marius Iscru 2 7 2 156
> 2 Joscha Duell 1 4 1 132
> 2 Sascha Müller 1 4,5 0 114
> 2 Markus Hißnauer 1 3,5 0 120
>
What is marius's motivation in the 2 man finals end game within the context f play to win? I imagine there is sort of an unwritten rule that he should not transfer out at that point but there is absolutely nothing to gain for him.
> Mewcat wrote:
> What is marius's motivation in the 2 man finals end game within the context f play to win? I imagine there is sort of an unwritten rule that he should not transfer out at that point but there is absolutely nothing to gain for him.
>
You're absolutely right, Marius had no more incentive to win, after Joscha had ousted me. He could have thrown the game either to me or to Joscha at that point in time. But he was clearly in better position than Joscha then, and he proved sportsmanship by playing on imho.
So kudos to Marius, he also had actually the strongest game & deck in the final round.
Btw, I wouldn't mind a change of rules, that in case of this kind of tie, the last man standing man wins, instead of resolving the tie by preliminary rounds standings,
How did he prove sportmanship? His options are to win for one of 2 people that are not himself. If we are to assume this is a competitive endeavor the point for him is to win, not lose in style.
Back in the old days there was actually this rule. Last man standing would win in case of a tie.
While Marius wasnt bound to play to win rule in the final (in final its play to win tournament instead), he could still play for ranking points. 2 VP = 8 Ranking points in the World Ranking
> angrynewb wrote:
> Back in the old days there was actually this rule. Last man standing would win in case of a tie.
>
> While Marius wasnt bound to play to win rule in the final (in final its play to win tournament instead), he could still play for ranking points. 2 VP = 8 Ranking points in the World Ranking
>
Isn't that an out of game consideration? I have never heard of anything of the sort before.
> Mewcat wrote:
> How did he prove sportmanship? His options are to win for one of 2 people that are not himself. If we are to assume this is a competitive endeavor the point for him is to win, not lose in style.
>
So what have you done in his place? Simply die so that I become the champion? Just sit there doing nothing until time out to let extrala take the win? I'm curious.
Marius played on to get the best result he could. I would have done the same in his shoes. You don't?
By the way I played rubbish (with hindsight) in ousting extrala. I should have wait until extrala and Marius had weaken each other enough to have a chance of the GW. But I was tired and didn't realize clearly enough, that Marius had to rush extralas vampires to don't get bled and I could cycle in the meantime for Banishments to get rid of the dangerous but bloodless gunslingers and get rid of the Haven Uncovereds on my vampires. So I was just a sitting duck for Marius' vamps.
Baron of Frankfurt
What would I have done? Realized that I have no competitive motivation to play and then made a choice based on whatever benefited me as a person, such as if hungry transfer out and go eat, if my friend was finishing a pick up game finish the game out and most likely get 2 vp. This is called rational action, where the things I do are done to benefit me in some way.
> Tournament wrote:
>
> ...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....
>
> During the finals, playing to win means playing to finish as tournament winner (as defined in 3.7.5).
>
The problem with the "[d]uring the finals" line is that is doesn't default to the previous "get as many Victory Points as possible" when you cannot win. I think the PtW rule for the finals should do so, encouraging the remaining players to do as well as they can.
> Mewcat wrote:
> What would I have done? Realized that I have no competitive motivation to play and then made a choice based on whatever benefited me as a person, such as if hungry transfer out and go eat, if my friend was finishing a pick up game finish the game out and most likely get 2 vp. This is called rational action, where the things I do are done to benefit me in some way.
>
Presumably people play tournaments because they enjoy playing VtES. Describing a decision to continue playing a game and gain the statisfication of an oust as not benefiting the player strikes me as ignoring the points of playing a game.
--
National Coordinator
South Africa
> drnlmza wrote:
>
> > Mewcat wrote:
> > What would I have done? Realized that I have no competitive motivation to play and then made a choice based on whatever benefited me as a person, such as if hungry transfer out and go eat, if my friend was finishing a pick up game finish the game out and most likely get 2 vp. This is called rational action, where the things I do are done to benefit me in some way.
> >
> Presumably people play tournaments because they enjoy playing VtES. Describing a decision to continue playing a game and gain the statisfication of an oust as not benefiting the player strikes me as ignoring the points of playing a game.
>
Sure, I am not qualified to make a rational action determination for you.
> Mewcat wrote:
> What would I have done? Realized that I have no competitive motivation to play and then made a choice based on whatever benefited me as a person, such as if hungry transfer out and go eat, if my friend was finishing a pick up game finish the game out and most likely get 2 vp. This is called rational action, where the things I do are done to benefit me in some way.
>
Some could call this behaviour egoistic. Although it seems to be covered by the rules. I don't get whyyou don't have to maximize your VPs in a final but okay.
I like the idea extrala mentioned of giving the last man standing the GW in case of a tie.
Baron of Frankfurt
> angrynewb wrote:
> Back in the old days there was actually this rule. Last man standing would win in case of a tie.
>
When? And why did it change?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > angrynewb wrote:
> > Back in the old days there was actually this rule. Last man standing would win in case of a tie.
> >
> When? And why did it change?
>
I would assume that it was changed to prevent people from making table splitting deals in the finals and trying for 2nd place rather than trying to win the tournament. That isn't something that I would ever have as a goal but as we have discussed in this thread people have various internal motivations.
oops, this doesn't answer the question you had directly but rather that 4 people tie for 2nd.
I would like to point out that we have another case of "topic migration" here.
This is / was once about the German Nationals 2019.
Please discuss other issues elsewhere with appropriate topics.
Thank you.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
This topic has been split:
www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/77674-finals-and-play-to-win-incentive#95128
"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