Yes, player player A was playing Girls with aids. Player C was in very bad situation. But he still have one ready minion and his deck takes him theoretical chance to block all player A minions and kill them. I agree that it was theoretical chance and there was low probability to do it. Is it enought for player C to oust himself?
An official guideline might be in order. Does "reasonable chance" mean
a) a purely theoretical chance, as in some other player on the table has to play some very unlikely sequence of cards that are uncharacteristic to his deck,
b) a very small chance, as in you have to top deck 1-3 times in a row or
c) you're playing Legacy of Pander and your prey is playing AUS-weenie?
LSJ has given previous answers to this, and the important point is that "reasonable chance" is defined by risk analysis. It's not as simple as "if you have greater than X% chance, then you have a reasonable chance." The word "reasonable" includes considering other options. For example:
Case 1:
a) Go for GW: 10% chance for GW, 90% chance for 0 VPs
b) Settle for less: 100% chance of 0 VPs
Case 2:
a) Go for GW: 10% chance for GW, 90% chance for 0 Vps
b) Settle for less: 100% chance for 2-2-1 split
In Case 1, a judge might rule that there's a reasonable chance to go for a GW, and force the player to go for the GW.
In Case 2, a judge might rule that there's not a reasonable chance to go for the GW, and allow the player to take the 2-2-1 split.
There is no hard rule for this. It requires the judge's judgement. The best way to ensure we have good judges around is to discuss case studies and explain what we might rule as a judge.
For the example you gave:
Player A: 25 pool, lots of minions
Player B: 3 pool, all minions in torpor
Player C: 6 pool, 2 ready minions, already has 2 VPs.
Assuming there is plenty of time left on the clock, I would assess player C's situation as:
a) Go for GW: 0.1% chance of GW, 99.9% chance of 0 more VPs.
b) Settle for less: self oust, 100% chance of 0 more VPs.
In that case, I personally would rule that Player C has no reasonable chances for more VPs (assuming the game won't time out), and would allow Player C to transfer out.
Finally, from a game design perspective, this is a wise ruling. If a player isn't having fun and feels like they have no chance of winning, it's good for the longevity of the game to let them stop playing that game. We want people to keep coming back and playing more games; if they get to a situation where they don't have reasonable chances to get more VPs, let them end their participation in the game how they want. Trying to force people to play a game that isn't fun for them is bad for business.
Transfer himself to death
