Withdrawal deals

Could we please verify that the following scenario is in accordance to the tournamanet rules: 4 player game, players A, B, C, D. By the end of round two, A and B contest a 9-cap vampire. By the end of round four, in addition A and B contest an 8-cap vampire. A has no means of generating pool. A is aware of the fact, that he will probably be ousted soon. In addition, A can imagine that if he continues contesting the vampires until the very end, his prey will probably be ousted as well. At the beginning of round 5, A proposes to B the following: A would yield both contests. In return, B would withdraw, if B manages to oust C and D and if A is still in game, giving A 1 VP for his sacrifice. Of course, if B succeeds to oust C and D in time, B is no longer bound to any deal, because they become null and void in the heads-up. But if B wants to withdraw, he CAN do so, because afterwards he will have 2.5 VP and the game-win, the goal of the game. (And not to forget, A would have done the best possible in the awkward game situation to maximise his VP.) Thanks in advance! National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Hakuron wrote: > B is no longer bound to any deal, because they become null and void in the heads-up. > Nitpick here: deals are never binding, the duel rule means that former deals are not usable anymore. B may withdraw. A must attempt to oust if possible, so B has to cripple A enough that letting B withdraw becomes the better solution for A. That might no be too hard after A lost 2 vamps and B gained 12 pool.

EDIT :I've re-rad the question, and player isn't attempting to withdraw during round 5, but negotiating future deals, so my answer is void. Sorry!

> Hakuron wrote: > Could we please verify that the following scenario is in accordance to the tournamanet rules: > > 4 player game, players A, B, C, D. > By the end of round two, A and B contest a 9-cap vampire. > By the end of round four, in addition A and B contest an 8-cap vampire. > > A has no means of generating pool. > A is aware of the fact, that he will probably be ousted soon. > In addition, A can imagine that if he continues contesting the vampires until the very end, his prey will probably be ousted as well. > > At the beginning of round 5, A proposes to B the following: > A would yield both contests. In return, B would withdraw, if B manages to oust C and D and if A is still in game, giving A 1 VP for his sacrifice. > > Of course, if B succeeds to oust C and D in time, B is no longer bound to any deal, because they become null and void in the heads-up. > But if B wants to withdraw, he CAN do so, because afterwards he will have 2.5 VP and the game-win, the goal of the game. > > (And not to forget, A would have done the best possible in the awkward game situation to maximise his VP.) > > Thanks in advance! > Since withdrawing would give B the GW once C and D are ousted, it is valid from B's point of view. In the duel, A must maximize his VPs. This includes letting B withdraw if A can't score more than 1 vp. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Hi! Similar question but with a different scenario. Player A has already 1VP, has 3 vampires and 2 Nocturn. Player B already dead. Player C 2 vampires, at 1 or 2 pool. Player D 3 vampires and 2 rockcats. Player's C turn. Seeing that he will get ousted next turn he offers a deal to player D. With Kindred spirit he will bleed A as much as he can, if player D gets to kill player A, then he will allow player C to withdraw. Player D cannot oust A without C help, and if C gets ousted, he will most surely be ousted, so he agrees on the deal. C and D manage to oust A. Is D bound to the previous deal in the 1 to 1 situation? It's up to its interpretation of the given situation of being able, or not, to oust C or maybe being ousted first, as C has stealth and a great bleeding power. Thanks! VEKN#4200008

No, he isn't. But on the other hand, with 2vp he could let him have his point. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Do not forget, that those withdrawals HAVE to be played out. That means emptying the library, don' t losing blood or pool after the announcement of the withdrawal. Because in that gamestate ousting of the withdrawer is more than possible and oops! gamewin gone. I do not like these deals, as they often enough punish players, who played good and managed to get their prey in ousting range and then some smarta** plays kingmaker for a VP. But they seem to be covered by the rules. Baron of Frankfurt

> gatocion wrote: > C and D manage to oust A. > > Is D bound to the previous deal in the 1 to 1 situation? > D has 1 vp. If C withdraws, D gets the GW (which fulfills the PTW condition). C must try to oust D. However, if D sends C's vampires to torpor, then C can only maximize their VP by withdrawing. But it's up to D to see if C can withdraw or if D wants to have a GW3 instead. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director