Finals and play to win incentive

My secondary goal is always to get back at whoever is making me lose. That can mean transferring out if the prey is back-ousting, pool-sacking if my pred is rushing with no plan to oust... In general, it incentivizes players to aim for quick and clean ousts, which I believe is fundamentally good for the game.

AceFranklin wrote:

Joscha wrote:

Mewcat wrote:

My approach to vtes has long been that I am trying to win and I dont care what happens to other players.

IMHO this is a very good approach.

In addition my secondary goal is to prevent my prey to win, as in my view I failed to do my job as predator if my prey gets the GW (as happened at that final). This is my personal goal of course, but it helps me to enjoy the game even if, like in said situation Marius, I don't have the possibility to win anymore.

I like this.

Does this apply to your grand prey if you get your first VP? What is the stance if your prey let your GP get out of control because he was getting hammered by you?

Don't get me wrong. The overall and first goal is still making the Game Win, so hammering your prey so hard that the Grandprey gets out of control doesn't seem to be a plan in line with that goal (although sometimes it is if your prey is very dangerous for your gamewinplans).

"Prey must not win" is just a secondary goal. When I sit down at a table I don't focus on hurting my prey regardless of the rest of the table. It is not about barring him / her from playing the game. Sometimes other decks crosstable have to go for my GW-chances. Or my predator has to fall first. But in the end if I don't get the win my prey also should not be the winner.

[OFF]Actually this is a very interesting topic... depicting a winning strategy for the Finals in a macro scale. Darn, I should make a video Sorry, after an hour of thinking-typing that seemed a better way! [/OFF]