Problems with the judge system

Kushiel wrote:

IIRC, the PTW rule was about preventing collusion, not preventing tantrums.

Collusion is banned separately, and has been for many, many years. It was in the DCI floor rules for V:TES in 1998, for example: web.archive.org/web/19981206011307/http://www.wizards.com:80/DCI/VTES_Rules.html

Several things happened over a period of time. One of the primary drivers was the issue of table splitting, where two decks decided not to compete with each other, and one of them got 3 VPs and the other got 2 VPs. They just piled into decks together, in a coordinated fashion. In this world at the time, the difference between 3 VPs and 2 VPs isn't very much. Two points: a) this isn't collusion. The result isn't pre-determined, it was just players reacting to the situation on the table at the time. b) This was initially in a world without game wins.

Commonly, the particular examples of this happening involved combat decks slicing up the table. Without the deal, they would just slice each other up, which was bad for both. But then other decks having two combat decks slam into them in a coordinated way are in an absolute world of pain, plus potentially having to defend against their own predators or preys too.

So, the game developed in three specific ways over time:

1) The Game Win was introduced. Because being on the 2VP end of a 3-2 split is now much, much worse than before, it incentivized players to change up how they thought about the game. As well as table splits of this sort, it disincentivized players who were thinking they could hang on for 2VPs (e.g. by playing a wall deck that struggles to oust its prey), because whereas potentially getting up to 2VPs on multiple rounds might get you into the final in a world without Game Wins, it was much less desirable in a world with Game Wins.

2) Play to win was expounded, which built on that.

3) Somewhat later, the fact that deals are off at two players was introduced. This changes the situation where you get down to two players, who have 2-1 VPs. Neither player in that situation can then "roll over" for the other, because to do so would not be play-to-win for either of them - the other would get the Game Win (winning either 4-1 or 2-3).

Kushiel wrote:

PTW ensures that a player can't deliberately lose a game in such a way as to help their friend win, basically.

Throwing a game to help a friend is not necessarily collusion. You can decide to do that unilaterally. You look at the table, decide that you can't get a Game Win, decide that getting an extra VP or two makes no difference to you, but you can help your friend. Which you do without even talking to them - you just decide to help your friend.

Collusion, as defined by the Judges' Guide, requires agreement between players.

So they decided you could collude until there are 2 players?

It's decided that you can 'collude' even at two players (which isn't really collusion in the blow examples).

As long as you take the GW, you can do whatever with the rest of your VPs. If there is no chance, you'd argue, at getting a GW, you can do whatever with whatever VPs you might theoretically get.

Tables were split twice in EC in games I were in this year. First time in three-way:

Ivan kreyenko turbo had already taken 2 points. I was left with Nergal and my prey with weenie Cel guns. We tried to kill the Kreyenko horde, and were almost there until Agaitas drew my only bounce from my deck to them. After that it seemed impossible to kill them, so I decided to go for the oust; could've gotten it with a newly drawn Enkil Cog. Kreyenko horde dealt so that Cel guns would help them and he'd withdraw. If the Cel guns had a second rush in hand at start of their turn they should not have taken the deal; they had only one, and took it. We called the judge and made sure it was okay with the knowledge of the game available. It was, and after that it's all fair game.

Ironically Cel guns drew more rushes with their only rush, and could've gotten the oust. It was their choice though. GW for Kreyenko horde and some sure points for Cel guns. They kept the deal. Cel guns 1; Kreyenko GW+3,5.

Once more with feeling:

Anarch gargoyles > AUS CEL guns > Anneke Alastor (me) > Goulet dom bleeder > Weenie Ani on Anarch Revolts

Game goes on, Animalismers say that someone needs to die not to go on time and their grandprey seems like the one to go (actually he decided to influence himself out. I didn't call the judge, so I don't know if it was a legal self-oust; it most likely would've been green-lighted, I think). Revolts are going to get me a point no matter what. Eventually they deal so that Ani will not go forward and let the Gargoyles take another point from me, and Gargoyles will withdraw afterwards, leaving Ani with 1 point (GW for gargoyles). I try to do what I can to give room for the Ani to take a point, pentexing backwards and whatnot, but eventually I die. It was a really close call. They call the judge, see if it's okay if they pass turns to discard down to 6 cards and let Gargoyles withdraw. It was okay with the knowledge of the game available, and after that it's all fair game. Me 1; Ani 1; Gargoyles GW+2,5.

As long as the judge gives you a good-to-go, it's all fair game. In neither of these examples the one on the receiving end could've gotten a GW in the heads-up. The winner had nothing to lose, except the one VP. It's safe for both. Remember that it's actually rare to have situations where two players will actually both gain from this more than just trying to play their cards.

All I'd like to have is hands-on examples and as explicit as possible guidelines of the table splitting rules for judges so that they know what to green-light and what not. It's taken me years to understand what's going on with legal splittings. This year's EC gave me plenty of hands-on experience with them.

Note that this has nothing to do with 'collusion' rules in Judges' guide ( 164 ). Those are pretty explicit. It seems, however, unclear to people what are the differences between collusion and table splitting.

Krausedit\\
I'll have you know, that I had to write in this length about these games and splitting because it's still grey area to me, and I'm trying to understand it as best I can. I found this from the Judge Guide:

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.

So, with this in mind I was wrong in my prior statement: you CANNOT honour splitting deals in two-way if breaking the deal would give you the GW. Can you? Can't you? You can't? I think you can't.

My above examples are STILL fair game though, since the deals were made and executed before the heads-up. After the events the losing player still had no chance of getting a GW in the heads-up. In the first Kreyenko just had too many VPs, and in the latter my VP denied Animalismers the chance for a GW in the heads-up. So yes, still fair game.

Sorry about the lengthy post. It's all a part of my process of really understanding the splitting rulings and the judge's position in them. I think I'm getting there.

Mewcat wrote:

So they decided you could collude until there are 2 players?

Collusion is banned at all times. See section 164 of the Judges Guide: www.vekn.net/judges-guide If you mean something else by collude, you'll need to explain what you mean, because collusion means something specific and is banned.

The point about deals being off at two players is that in ordinary circumstances, if a deal is play-to-win when it is struck, you can carry out the deal and still comply with the play-to-win rules, even if you could backstab and improve your standing. Players aren't forced to backstab - though a player can do so if they want. Making a deal with a player based on the circumstances of the game and carrying it out is not collusion - you help me get that deck that is my complete nemesis off the table and I'll dig you out of the hole you're currently in.

When deals are off at two players, the fact that an earlier deal was struck is ignored. This essentially means that players won't make deals that require them to carry out particular actions when down to two players in the first place, because the fact that an earlier (now ignored) deal was play-to-win won't help them.

@kraus

Yeah, its true, play groups vary.

Mewcat wrote:

@kraus

Yeah, its true, play groups vary.

Every member of any given playgroup has the potential to not play to win for our of game considerations, and each playgroup will have to find the correct way to deal with an individual who does only that. (We had one once. He tasted like chicken....)
Tournament level things are decidedly different ordeals, which can be, and are regulated by the rules.
All playgoups who are holding official tournaments just have to bring up such issues to a judge, and I'm baffled by the continued debate. Of all the problems we have, making players not deliberately throw a game seems less ambiguous than other concerns.