Hello,
I have a question,
There was a situation where during choosing seats before final, player offered a Vp to another player for take exact seat.
Is it allowed?
I know that discussions are ok according to this
groups.google.com/g/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/c/ma8z8iBgHEU/m/j6EWZ_p_1iAJ
But i'm not sure about this kind of "trading"
I feel like more appropriate phrasing of this question is:
1) Is the moment when seating is chosen part of the game?
2) What (if any) discussion is allowed during seating between players?
Examples:
Player A tells Player B that if they choose to sit as Player’s A predator, they will rush their vampires from turn 1 and will not allow them to play and therefore encourages them to sit somewhere else.
Player A asks if they sit crosstable from player B, will they be generally supportive for each other when voting.
Player A offers Player B to sit as their predator and not go forward until they score a VP in exchange for a genuine attempt from player B to get VP as fast as possible. Rationale being - Player A can’t deal with B’s prey on their own (e.g. too much intercept, vote lock etc.)
Players are aware of a particularly explosive deck on the table, e.g. Tupdogs, Chameleon, Clow Car and discuss of there is a way to sit that will help them against such deck and what that would entail, e.g. Player A (vote deck) offers Player B (block deck) to deal damage crosstable against their prey if they sit next to Clown Car player and block their Embraces.
Etc etc
The point being - all of the above would have been generally acceptable during the game as pretty standard deals, I would presume. Would the same be allowed during seating selection?
OP’s question may suggest the offer of a VP does not bring any benefit to the player offering the VP and is made purely to help somebody else to win.
According to Tournament Rules Choosing of seating is before Pre-Game Procedure so it is not a part of the game.
Situation that I have mentioned is like trade that for let's say for 1 VP (that means that offering player will be doing things to help another player to gain this 1 VP) another player will take the particular seat, it doesn't guarantee anyone GW, but can greatly influence game and it's outcome overall.
so that's why i'm asking if making such deals before game has even started is legal?
> Raven wrote:
> According to Tournament Rules Choosing of seating is before Pre-Game Procedure so it is not a part of the game.
>
Correct.
> Raven wrote:
> Situation that I have mentioned is like trade that for let's say for 1 VP (that means that offering player will be doing things to help another player to gain this 1 VP) another player will take the particular seat, it doesn't guarantee anyone GW, but can greatly influence game and it's outcome overall.
>
> so that's why i'm asking if making such deals before game has even started is legal?
>
You cannot make deals outside a game, so no.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
double post
There is a red star in the night sky. The blood of mortals and the blood of ages, all will be consumed. They are coming. These are the final nights.
Thanks Ankha, me being the guilty player, who offered another player a help in getting his VP, I was doing so confident that I'm doing this legally, as I was aware only of the LSJ's comments posted in the original post by Raven. From what I understood everything that is not a threat is allowed on condition that it is transparent to other finalists. Would you be so kind and comment on LSJ's comments and respond to Pudel's questions too? I'd be really happy to see more context and get more understanding what kind of conversation is allowed if it is allowed at all when choosing the seatings. I myself was in similar (but not the same) spot too, When I asked was this legal I was sent the LSJ's rulings.
There is a red star in the night sky. The blood of mortals and the blood of ages, all will be consumed. They are coming. These are the final nights.
Thanks for your answer Ankha. It seems to overrule LSJ’s approach, therefore it’s all the more important to address the second one asked by Pudel in this thread with some examples, so let me repeat it:
- What (if any) discussion is allowed during seating between players?
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > Raven wrote:
> > Situation that I have mentioned is like trade that for let's say for 1 VP (that means that offering player will be doing things to help another player to gain this 1 VP) another player will take the particular seat, it doesn't guarantee anyone GW, but can greatly influence game and it's outcome overall.
> >
> > so that's why i'm asking if making such deals before game has even started is legal?
> >
> You cannot make deals outside a game, so no.
>
Ankha, do you mean that players are _forbidden_ to make deals outside of the game?
How to prevent two finalists from discussing the finals before seats are chosen and coming to an arrangement? Say, they'll work together to oust a certain other finalist or they won't choose seats next to one another and will work in certain manner during the game.
None of the deals in the game are binding in any case and doublecrossing is very common. So why can't the finalists make deals while choosing the seating?
Saying that deals can't be made outside the game table seems rather idealistic approach as some people will in any case definitely make some kinds of deals beforehand...
and this will cause plenty of headache when trying to enforce such a rule.
Finnish Politics!
I don't see a problem here. Table Talk is forbidden while choosing the seating, period. Violating that rule demands a warning, repeated violation means disqualification.
I find it disgusting when I have to listen to thteats issued by a player of a combat deck or other whining. Choose in silence, play the game. Everybody can imagine, how the seating influences the following game without any deal making chatter.
If you let them talk you need rules for that too, for example how long can deal making take or what are you allowed to promise.
Baron of Frankfurt
Whatever it is I am ok with it, but it is overriding previous comments from LSJ and thus I think it requires a little bit more comment and reasoning from our rulesmakers.
There is a red star in the night sky. The blood of mortals and the blood of ages, all will be consumed. They are coming. These are the final nights.
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > Raven wrote:
> > > Situation that I have mentioned is like trade that for let's say for 1 VP (that means that offering player will be doing things to help another player to gain this 1 VP) another player will take the particular seat, it doesn't guarantee anyone GW, but can greatly influence game and it's outcome overall.
> > >
> > > so that's why i'm asking if making such deals before game has even started is legal?
> > >
> > You cannot make deals outside a game, so no.
> >
> Ankha, do you mean that players are _forbidden_ to make deals outside of the game?
>
Yes.
> Lönkka wrote:
> How to prevent two finalists from discussing the finals before seats are chosen and coming to an arrangement?
>
If they do it publicly, the judge can intervene.
If they do it in secret, it's collusion and should be sanctionned.
> Lönkka wrote:
> Say, they'll work together to oust a certain other finalist or they won't choose seats next to one another and will work in certain manner during the game.
>
That's a deal. Deals are not allowed outside the game.
> Lönkka wrote:
> None of the deals in the game are binding in any case and doublecrossing is very common. So why can't the finalists make deals while choosing the seating?
>
Because it's not done during the game.
Deals should be done within the constraint of a game with a time-limit and the PTW aspect in mind. PTW is based on a game-state and is undefined before the game starts (as there is no "play" yet).
> Lönkka wrote:
> Saying that deals can't be made outside the game table seems rather idealistic approach as some people will in any case definitely make some kinds of deals beforehand...
>
That would be cheating.
> Lönkka wrote:
> and this will cause plenty of headache when trying to enforce such a rule.
>
As much as preventing players from collusing or not playing to win.
Keep in mind that all this topic is about dealing. Discussion are allowed but should not lead to any kind of deal.
If the seating takes too long, or if the players tend to haggle over the seating, the judge could decide to disallow further discussion.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Problem in Ankha's and Joscha's approach is that people will just do such deals while they have already finished third round and are waiting for the finals and all its procedures to start.
Proving anything they already negotiated is basically impossible.
Hence enforcing the rule becomes a mere joke.
(I will add that I do not have an opinion on the matter at hand. I just approach this on the enforceability.)
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
> Problem in Ankha's and Joscha's approach is that people will just do such deals while they have already finished third round and are waiting for the finals and all its procedures to start.
>
> Proving anything they already negotiated is basically impossible.
>
> Hence enforcing the rule becomes a mere joke.
>
> (I will add that I do not have an opinion on the matter at hand. I just approach this on the enforceability.)
>
They could even make such deals before the tournament: "if we're both in finals, don't seat near me".
That doesn't mean it is legal.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
what made me sad is the need to worry about a way to enforcer something like this, people can just not play the game fair and square? anyway, hope to never face such situation on my tournaments
David Resende - Prince of Teresina
How long is this dead horse going to continue being beaten?
I wish I could unsubscribe to this thread and still receive other posts to the rules forum.
> Ankha wrote:
> They could even make such deals before the tournament: "if we're both in finals, don't seat near me".
> That doesn't mean it is legal.
>
Indeed they could.
Hence my thinking, why illegalize things that you have absolutely no chance of policing?
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > They could even make such deals before the tournament: "if we're both in finals, don't seat near me".
> > That doesn't mean it is legal.
> >
> Indeed they could.
>
> Hence my thinking, why illegalize things that you have absolutely no chance of policing?
>
Probably because doing so prevents some kind of public explicit agreements from being made and avoids situations that might border on illegality, like the one described on the initial post. If you don’t allow the situation to arise, it can’t happen.
As mentioned earlier, if they talk before the tournament, it’s collusion, and that’s already covered by the rules.