Deal 3-2 legality

I know the answer, but I couldn't find a post to show to a player asking for it Deal 3-2, with to players A and B, having B 3 VPs before the duel killing their 3 preys in order. Can player B concede in duel as they already have a GW leaving 2 VPs to player A (their predator) ?

Tournament Rules item 3.5. apply David Resende - Prince of Teresina

3.5. Conceding Games Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to win rule, with the result that game is recorded as if the remaining player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence. Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or otherwise improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject to the appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. <INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>

One player pointed out a bit of inconsistency in the way we have the tournament rules 3.5. Conceding Games and 4.8. Play to Win [when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals.] He said that the reason that player is conceding 2 vps is because a previous deal, when rules state that previous deals are voided, he states that without that previous deal the player wouldn't concede and go to try the sweep or get a GW3.5 if time limit. So effectively, even if that player is following play to win conceding as he already has the GW, he is doing it only because they have a previous deal 3-2 that should be voided when getting into the duel. We all know have our opinions about this, so probably better, In order to get this clarified, to have a ruling or statement from Ankha

B has already won And thus can win with as few points as B wants. Finnish Politics!

Yes, I agree with that, and I don't have a problem with the player conceding. The only caveat and the reason that player wants a statement from Ankha is due to the fact that that player who already has the GW with 3 points is letting the 2 VPs to the other player because they had a deal before, and the rules said deals are no longer valid when in duel. Which is a valid point. A simple statement from Ankha stating that whatever reason the player has to concede and gives those 2 points is not relevant and the player can do it regardless of a deal before or not deal before, that would solve the issue.

1. The deal has to be deemed legal at the time it was struck 2. You reach the 1 vs 1 and all deals are void 3. B can win in any way he wants So the only relevant question would be if No.1. is valid. <INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>

Well, to be clear, the question is how conflict is handled: > 4.8 ... > 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. > The conceding liberty granted by having game win is not contested. Consider for context that the timing is Player A has 2 VP his predator Player B 0. Grandpredator Player C may or may not oust Player B. Player A is running out of library, therefor is crafting a P2W deal to minimize risk of running out of library in 1v1 with boost of pool to player C, going into it with 2VP. Player A proposes a deal to split 3-2 with Player B. Player C warns upholding the split is against the cited and bolded parts of rules. Player A ignores it citing 3.5, ie that they do not have to P2W, but the point is, the deal is no more to upheld if played by the bolded parts then. While 3.5 voids maximizing VP part, the deal voiding part is still there, as it's not part of maximizing VPs and is explicitly applying for P2W deals, such as proposed. Of course a player can play dumb and concede for other reasons, aside from upholding the deal. For such cases a clear ruling is needed. It's not the first time wording conflicted with intended design and ruling may resolve (unintended) potential conflicts in wording. As neither I or acbishop found a ruling, it is relevant more for rather typical situations, such as if a sweeping methuselah is allowed to upheld a deal with predator to secure 3rd VP easier, as in this case. If not, accompanying to ruling it would be instructive to learn, what kind of deals are then the exception is meant to void, as splitting the table deal is perhaps the most powerful deal which can be made. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> acbishop wrote: > Yes, I agree with that, and I don't have a problem with the player conceding. > > The only caveat and the reason that player wants a statement from Ankha is due to the fact that that player who already has the GW with 3 points is letting the 2 VPs to the other player because they had a deal before, and the rules said deals are no longer valid when in duel. Which is a valid point. > > A simple statement from Ankha stating that whatever reason the player has to concede and gives those 2 points is not relevant and the player can do it regardless of a deal before or not deal before, that would solve the issue. > The only rule I can think of regarding upholding deals is that on 1-on-1 all the deals are off so you DO NOT HAVE TO uphold any deals. BUT you CAN if you WANT TO. Want for whatever reason. Like for upholding your good name as a person who always keeps their part of a deal. Then again, you are NEVER forced to uphold ANY deal in VTES. Go ahead and break as many deals as you want to. But after a while people might not trust you to keep any deals if you nearly always tend to break the deals. Finnish Politics!

I dont understand how the play to win rule isnt violated when one meth has the ability to win the game. Why even have this rule if its going to be ignored.

> dalefi wrote: > I dont understand how the play to win rule isnt violated when one meth has the ability to win the game. > > Why even have this rule if its going to be ignored. > GW 2 is win the game GW 2.5 is win the game GW 3 is win the game GW 3.5 is win the game GW 4 is win the game GW 5 is win the game Rules enforce players to get GW but they don't force players to go for a sweep of the biggest amount of VPs while getting a GW

OK, I understand this distinction. Is this a result of some "rule mongers" parsing every word in the rule book, or is it how the game was intended to be played? If it were up to me, I would say that one cannot concede unless their situation is truly and actually hopeless, otherwise play it out until the timer stops. This is basically what I think the play to win rule is meant to convey. Personally, I would not continue playing with people who are going to concede a game where they could potentially sweep the table. If I have 5 pool, my vampires are all beat up, and my opponent has 20 pool and is relatively unscathed, this is a situation to concede as it is hopeless, otherwise play it out.

I do understand your point, but the Play to Win rules state you need to play for the GW but they don't say or force you to go for the highest score on that GW, you can of course do it. The rules right now allow you to concede if you have the GW if you wish to do that. The question on this thread is about the 3-2 deal prey-predator, the player getting the 3 VPS and the GW, can if they wish to concede and let 2 vp to the other player, the issue here is in semantics and the reason why that player is leaving the 2vp, as it is for a previous deal, and it is also in the rules that precious deals in the final duel are void. So, when you have the GW, are you ok to concede. The answer by the rules is yes. But the reason you are conceding is due to a previous deal that it is supposed to be void when arriving to duel. That's the question I got from one player and that's the situation where a statement or clarification from Ankha would be good, so it might be maybe something to add (or not) to the rules. A player can concede if they have the GW already no matter the reason they have to do that. That should close the debate about the 3-2 validity contradicting the "all deals are void in duel"

note that I'm not stating whether I think it is allowed or not, as what I think is not really relevant to get Ankha's confirmation

I'd rather pose the question whether the 3-2 deal was legal for the player gaining 2 VP during the time it was struck, as this is not PTW, only maximising VPs and that might be dubious. <INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>

on that particular situation that started this query, the player getting 2 vps was barely surviving, so from his point of view he would do probably 0 on that game, so 2vp was maximising his VPs as his prey had already 2 vps and he was under lot of pressure from his predator

> acbishop wrote: > I do understand your point, but the Play to Win rules state you need to play for the GW but they don't say or force you to go for the highest score on that GW, you can of course do it. > > The rules right now allow you to concede if you have the GW if you wish to do that. > > The question on this thread is about the 3-2 deal prey-predator, the player getting the 3 VPS and the GW, can if they wish to concede and let 2 vp to the other player, the issue here is in semantics and the reason why that player is leaving the 2vp, as it is for a previous deal, and it is also in the rules that precious deals in the final duel are void. > > So, when you have the GW, are you ok to concede. The answer by the rules is yes. But the reason you are conceding is due to a previous deal that it is supposed to be void when arriving to duel. > > That's the question I got from one player and that's the situation where a statement or clarification from Ankha would be good, so it might be maybe something to add (or not) to the rules. > > A player can concede if they have the GW already no matter the reason they have to do that. That should close the debate about the 3-2 validity contradicting the "all deals are void in duel" > Correct by all points. Once the duel begins, player B has the GW and may decide to continue playing (to score more VP) or concede (by tournament rule 3.5 because they already have the GW), no matter what previous deals were struck before that. (NB: it was player B who had 3vp in the original post, just to be clear) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The you can use the 3.5 rule and avoid the 4.8 to do this 3 - 2 pact The you can remove the 4.8 "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"