About deals and withdrawing

I have proposed exactly that on page 2 and no one seems to have argued against it. But it was just before the flamewar, so maybe people just missed it

On a second thought, completely removing withdrawing would pose a slight problem for Brinksmanship. As much as I would like to see one less cornercase rule in the core rules, that is not possible if a (cornercase) card explicitely refers to that rule.

Fixing the PTW might be enough. If it is not, one could also downgrade withdrawing to 0VPs in the tournament rules so that it is never a PTW move.

Stefan wrote:

2. Remove the possibility for a player with a secured game win to self oust giving away victory points.

How do you do it exactly ?

Actually, that is surprisingly simple. Just add 7 words to the PTW rule:

For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win with as many Victory Points as possible if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.

That is the lowest cost fix. Personally, I would prefer a deeper rewording where the PTW rule only states that players must play to maximize their score on the current game and refers to the tournament ranking system for the definition of the score. But that is mostly cosmetic, the content would be the same.

Non-existant user wrote:

Actually, that is surprisingly simple. Just add 7 words to the PTW rule:

For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win with as many Victory Points as possible if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.

It seem an extremely bad idea to implement it that way.
* what happen if someone oust itself seemingly by mistake, like paying too much pool ?
* what constitute 'trying to win with as many VP as possible' ? It seem horribly subjective and problem-prone. It's far more extensive than just deals.

Then again, I believe withdrawal and thoses kind of deal as the very essence of VtES, not something to be eliminated.

Ohlmann wrote:

* what happen if someone oust itself seemingly by mistake, like paying too much pool ?

That has been a problem of the PTW rule since day 1 and would be a problem of any PTW rule. It has nothing to do with this particular change.

* what constitute 'trying to win with as many VP as possible' ? It seem horribly subjective and problem-prone. It's far more extensive than just deals.

Once again, this is a problem with having a PTW rule in general, not with this particular change. The common solution nowadays is that PTW is only invoked sparingly.

However the change I propose has one straightforward implication: it forbids players to agree to split points in the duel and it forbids them to make a deal that involves such a split. Once in a duel, each player must try to oust his opponent. If he can't, then he must at least try to survive. Nothing complicated, just a 2-player game as it should be.

Then again, I believe withdrawal and thoses kind of deal as the very essence of VtES, not something to be eliminated.

So why do you think there is a rule that declares deals void in the duel?

Non-existant user wrote:

Ohlmann wrote:

* what happen if someone oust itself seemingly by mistake, like paying too much pool ?

That has been a problem of the PTW rule since day 1 and would be a problem of any PTW rule. It has nothing to do with this particular change.

Except you make it even more precise, and so even more problem-prone. It should be an exceptional rule, and you talk about expanding it.

Non-existant user wrote:

So why do you think there is a rule that declares deals void in the duel?

Should I find every rules that existe are a good idea ?

More importantly, it's mainly "don't forget you're not supposed to be gentleman". Deal are not enforced by the rule in the sense you don't have to follow them through ; the rule you cite is here to recall people this fact.

My model for deal in VtES is diplomacy : a deal is valid as long as it's not tempting to break it. The original post from Ankha is here to show how avoiding betrayal is done.